An Interview with Prof. T. M. P. Mahadevan

Arvind posted a comment this morning in which he cited Prof. T. M. P. Mahadevan as saying that there was no difference between Bhagavan’s and Sankara’s teachings. He also cited the verses in which Bhagavan identified himself with Sankara. This reminded me of an interview that Prof. Mahadevan gave in the early 1980s to the editor of Arunachala Ramana, a magazine that briefly flourished in that era. I am reproducing the whole interview here since I doubt that many readers of this blog have ever seen it before. It appeared in the January 1982 issue.

Prof. Mahadevan was a natural orator who spoke elegantly and articulately on Indian philosophy and Bhagavan’s teachings. In the 1940s he went to America and gave a series of lectures on Bhagavan’s teachings. With Chinnaswami’s permission, he was allowed to give one of these lectures in Bhagavan’s presence after he returned from his trip.

For me, the most astounding revelation in this interview is that Prof. Mahadevan sat for years in Bhagavan’s presence without ever asking a single question. Here was an enlightened being, Bhagavan, who embodied the experience and the knowledge that Sankara had, who even identified himself with Sankara on occasions, yet Prof. Mahadevan, whose specialty was advaita philosophy, felt no inclination to quiz him on any of the hot topics that he doubtless discussed and wrote about when he was not at the ashram.

Prof. Mahadevan had one of the greatest philosophical minds of his generation, but he chose to remain silent in Bhagavan’s presence in order to absorb his non-verbal teachings. What a great testimony to the power of Bhagavan’s silence! It also indicates that Prof. Mahadevan knew the limits of the intellect and also knew that the treasure of Bhagavan’s silence was more valuable than any intellectual answers he might give out.

To sit before him was itself a deep spiritual education

Dr T. M. P. Mahadevan talks to Arunachala Ramana

[Dr T. M. P. Mahadevan was for a long time the head of the department of philosophy, Madras University, and went to foreign countries to expound Indian philosophy. He is a great exponent of the teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi. We are grateful that he has kindly answered our question on Bhagavan – Editor]

Arunachala Ramana: When was it that you first heard about Bhagavan?

Mahadevan: In Madras, when I was about eight years old (1919).

Arunachala Ramana: What was your experience in the presence of Bhagavan when you later met him?

Mahadevan: As I recall the days when I spent basking in the sunshine of Sri Ramana’s glorious presence I have no words to express the benefit I derived from that experience. To sit before him was itself a deep spiritual education. To look at him was to have one’s mind stilled. To fall within the sphere of his beatific vision was to be inwardly elevated.

Arunachala Ramana: How did he look on Arunachala?

Mahadevan: Bhagavan’s teaching about Arunachala is that it is Brahman, which is sat-chit-ananda (A-ru-na) and also Iswara as endowed with maya.

Arunachala Ramana: What were the questions you put to Bhagavan?

Mahadevan: There was not even a single occasion when I put a question to Bhagavan. My habit was to sit silent before him.

Arunachala Ramana: Would you give us a word about his humour?

Mahadevan: To Bhagavan the entire world is a humorous manifestation.

Arunachala Ramana: What is your appreciation of Bhagavan’s works? And what is his masterpiece in your opinion?

Mahadevan: Bhagavan did not write any book. His revelations are all equal. What we call his compositions were inspired utterances like the Upanishads. Naturally, I am attracted to all of them. If a single piece is to be selected as the quintessence of Vedanta, I would say it is Upadesa Saram.

Arunachala Ramana: Please tell us something about his affection for animals.

Mahadevan: Every moment of his earthly existence was filled with kindness to all beings. To him the so-called animals were as much human as humans. They conversed with him and he understood their language and moods.

Arunachala Ramana: What was the relationship between you two – Bhagavan and yourself?

Mahadevan: The relationship was both human and spiritual. I accepted him as my spiritual Master. I have already said that I never asked him any questions. Silence was his mode of communication. Every time I had his darshan he used to enquire after my welfare, and this was evidence to show that he had extreme affection for me. I am not unaware that this was the feeling of everyone.

Arunachala Ramana: What is his special teaching?

Mahadevan: What is special in Bhagavan’s teaching is that he does not intend to be special.

Arunachala Ramana: What is his greatest poem?

Mahadevan: Bhagavan himself is the greatest poem.

Arunachala Ramana: How did Bhagavan regard spiritual powers?

Mahadevan: The so-called powers (siddhis) are so low that, according to me, Bhagavan gave no importance to them.

Arunachala Ramana: What are the main points of difference between the teachings of Sri Sankara and Bhagavan?

Mahadevan: In my opinion there is no difference. The path of vichara was simplified by Bhagavan so that everyone in the modern world can practise it.

Arunachala Ramana: At least what is the difference in their techniques?

Mahadevan: There is no significant difference in procedure. Refer to the anvaya vyatireka method (rule of co-presence and co-absence as taught by advaita teachers like Suresvara).

[Anvaya-vyatireka is a method of arguing in Vedanta which distinguishes cause and effect, or relationships. Suresvara was a disciple of Adi-Sankara. Both of them used this approach to demonstrate the validity of the identity established in the mahavakya ‘Tat tvam asi’.

The anvaya-vyatireka analysis is generally used to establish cause-effect relationships between two events or things. If a thing ‘A’ is present when the other thing ‘B’ is present then it is called anvaya. If ‘B’ is absent when ‘A’ is absent then it is called vyatireka. when anvaya and vyatireka are there then ‘A’ becomes the cause of ‘B’. For example clay is present when the pot is present. This is anvaya. Also when clay is absent, the pot is absent. This is vyatireka. From anvaya and vyatireka it is concluded that clay is the cause of the pot.

Anvaya means ‘concordance’ or ‘agreement’ while vyatireka means ‘discordance’ or ‘difference’. In another vedantic example the beads strung to form a necklace are used to explain these two words. The fact that without the string which holds together the beads, there is no necklace of beads is anvaya. The fact that, however, the string is separate from the beads is vyatireka. The all-pervasiveness of the Absolute is anvaya. The distinctness of the Absolute is the vyatireka.

The analysis is often used to establish what is real and enduring and what is not. The procedure has been used by some teachers, for example, to establish that since the world and the mind cannot exist without the Self, they cannot be regarded as real in the vedantic sense of the word.

Having said all that, I am not really sure what point Prof. Mahadevan is trying to make here. He discusses Sankara’s and Suresvara’s views on anvaya-vyatireka in Gaudapada, a Study in Early Advaita (pp. 362-65) but I am not sure how his arguments there explain his remark in this interview: ‘There is no significant difference in procedure [between Bhagavan’s and Sankara’s techniques]’. If anyone has an opinion on this, please post it in the ‘responses’ section.]

Arunachala Ramana: Did Bhagavan initiate you as a Guru?

Mahadevan: Bhagavan himself did not claim to be a Guru. His experience is valid for all times and for all climes.

Arunachala Ramana: What is the main difference between Sankara and Ramana?

Mahadevan: This has already been answered. Ramana himself has stated explicitly that there is no difference between himself and Sankara.

Arunachala Ramana: In view of the fact that Bhagavan granted moksha to his mother, then would it not be the right way to pray for his divine grace rather than take to the path of vichara?

Mahadevan: Moksha is not what is given. It is the realisation of the non-dual Self which is eternal. Grace and vichara are not contradictory.

Arunachala Ramana: Is bhakti opposed to jnana?

Mahadevan: There is no conflict between eka bhakti and jnana.

Arunachala Ramana: Bhagavan’s teachings, are they spreading in foreign countries?

Mahadevan: For Ramana, no country is foreign.

Arunachala Ramana: Was there any sign for us to conclude that Bhagavan was really Bhagavan, God Himself?

Mahadevan: When Bhagavan was jnana itself, where is the need of showing any sign at any particular time?

Arunachala Ramana: Were you present at the time of Bhagavan’s mahanirvana?

Mahadevan: I was not in the ashram then. I went there only the next morning. I was there throughout the day. It was in the evening of that day that there was samadhi of his mortal remains.

Dialogue on self-enquiry

The following conversation comes from the diary of a devotee called Sri Yalamanchili who met Bhagavan in 1928 and had a discussion with him on self-enquiry. It was published in Arunachala Ramana in February 1982:

Question: How to realise the Atman?

Bhagavan: Whose Atman?

Question: Mine.

Bhagavan: Then you yourself have to do it.

Question: I am unable to do and know it.

Bhagavan: To whom is it not known?

Question: To myself.

Bhagavan: Try to know who is that ‘myself’.

Question: That is what you have to tell.

Bhagavan: [Smiling] It seems you have come here to test me. Will it really benefit you if I tell you what you are? Will you be satisfied if I just tell you? Ask yourself ‘Who am I?’ After questioning you will get the answer within yourself, and that will satisfy you.

Question: I have been doing sadhana for a long time but in vain.

Bhagavan: You will have to search for ‘I’ [aham]. Then, the apparent ‘I’ will vanish.

Question: Please give me the details of the process.

Bhagavan: Mind is, in reality, a bundle of thoughts. And every thought springs from the ‘I’. So, it is the first thought. Instead of dwelling on the secondary thoughts, the seeker has to concentrate on the primary thought, which is this ‘I’.

Question: What is the difference between a thought and the ‘I’?

Bhagavan: Thoughts are not independent. They have a standing only when they are associated with the ‘I’. But the ‘I’ can stand by itself. Actually, this ‘I’ is also not independent. In its turn it is supported by the Atman.

Again and again it rises from the Self and sinks there. It subsides in deep sleep and it comes out again in waking. We have to find out the place of its birth with an introverted vision.

Question: I have been questioning in this way but getting no answer.

Bhagavan: If you ask this question with zeal and proceed inward, the false ‘I’ disappears and the real ‘I’ emerges.

Question: What is the real ‘I’?

Bhagavan: This is what we call ‘soul’ or ‘God’.

Question: When I start the enquiry numerous thoughts come in the way and obstruct me. When I eliminate one, another appears in its place. It seems there is no end.

Bhagavan: I am not telling you to grapple with the thoughts. There will be no end if you do it that way. Here lies the secret: there is the ‘I’, the source of all thoughts, and we have to catch it and see from where it arises. This is absolutely necessary. As a dog traces his master by following the track of his smell, you have to follow the inner development of the ‘I’ to reach its source, which is the [true] soul.

Question: From this I understand that one can reach the source by one’s own effort.

Bhagavan: It is by the grace of God that you come to desire to know yourself. This desire to know yourself is itself a clear sign of the Atman’s grace. So, there is grace already working as the source of your effort. Grace is not an external quality of the Self but its very nature. It abides in your Heart, pulling you inward into itself. The only task you must do is turn your attention inward and search the source of ‘I’. This is the only personal effort we have to put in. That is why [one can say that] where there is no grace, there is no desire at all for the quest for the Self.

Question: Is there no need for a Guru then?

Bhagavan: When it is necessary the Self itself will take the form of an external Guru and initiate you into the process. He will push you in and hand you over to the inner Guru who is already there. Finally, the Atman, which abides in the Heart, embraces you there.

Question: Now, may I know sir, what is the distinguishing feature of this method?

Bhagavan: The sense of ‘I’ is always present in us. So, it is relatively easy to find the Self through this ‘I’, which is an emanation of the Self. Further, if, before the ‘I’ ramifies into many forms, we put our attention via this method on the parent-form of the ‘I’, this makes for the direct dissolution of the ‘I’ in its source.

Otherwise, if you begin the enquiry when the ‘I’ has already taken many forms, you will be swept away by its illusive power and never reach its source.

Question: The Self is nameless and formless. How then can we find it by the questioning of this ‘I’ that has a name and a form?

Bhagavan: The false ‘I’ or ego stands between the soul and the body, and connects them. Now, soul is conscious while the body is inert. The false ‘I’ binds them together. So, it is also called the knot between matter and spirit [chit-jada-granthi].

From this we see that it has its feet in the Self and its head in the body. Therefore, by enquiring into the origin of the ego, we can easily proceed and reach the formless Self.

Interview with Sadhu Om

In the early 1980s an English magazine called Arunachala Ramana appeared for a few years. During its brief lifespan several interesting items appeared on its pages which, to my knowledge, have not appeared elsewhere in the Ramana literature. I will add a few of these pieces to the blog over the next few days. The first is an interview which its editor. M. N. Baboo, had with Sadhu Om. It appeared in the February 1982 issue.

Question: When did you first hear of Sri Bhagavan?

Sadhu Om: In 1943, when I read Suddhananda Bharati’s book Sri Ramana Vijayam.

Question: When did you first see Bhagavan and what was your experience at that time?

Sadhu Om: I was able to come to Bhagavan only in 1945. When I entered the hall I wanted to see Bhagavan but I only saw a sofa and no one sitting on it. I was surprised to see, however, that everyone else was doing namaskarams towards that sofa. When I was hesitating whether to do namaskarams, I began to notice the vague outline of a human figure sitting on the sofa. At once I prostrated. When I got up, I saw that vague figure slowly solidifying and becoming clear. Then only was I able to recognise it as Sri Bhagavan.

On the next morning I sang before Sri Bhagavan the song Kuyilodu Koorai which I had composed while coming to him. He corrected one or two grammatical points in the song and asked me to show it to Muruganar. After coming to Bhagavan, there was a vast change and improvement in my poetic flow and style.

Question: How did Bhagavan look on Arunachala?

Sadhu Om: Bhagavan used to say, ‘Arunachala is jnanagni [the fire of jnana] in the form of a hill. It is Lord Siva Himself. Just as we identify our body as “I”, so Lord Siva, out of His compassion, identifies this hill as “I”. To live near Arunachala itself is satsang.’

Question: What sadhana did you follow?

Sadhu Om: Bhagavan taught two paths, self-enquiry and self-surrender. Just as it is natural for a man to walk on two legs, so it was natural for me to follow these two paths.

Question: What is the difference between the teachings of Sankara and Bhagavan?

Sadhu Om: Basically, they are one and the same. The only difference lies in the clues that they gave. Sankara and the ancient sastras said that self-enquiry is the path, but the only clues that they gave for the practice of self-enquiry were, ‘You are not the body, mind, etc., you are Brahman’. People failed to understand the purpose behind these clues, and so they started meditating, ‘I am not this, I am That’. In other words they were thinking only about ‘this’ and ‘that’, and were not attending to ‘I’. Therefore, knowing that people had misunderstood these ancient clues, Bhagavan, who is Sankara himself, has come again and given a simple clue: ‘Who am I?’ This is a positive and direct clue because in ‘Who am I? there is only ‘I’ and no ‘this’ or ‘that’. There is no room for us to think about things other than ‘I’. Thus Bhagavan has shown us a simple clue which will surely turn our attention only towards ‘I’. Attention to the mere feeling ‘I’ is the correct technique of self-enquiry.

Question: Among Bhagavan’s works, which do you consider the most important?

Sadhu Om: Ulladu Narpadu [Reality in Forty Verses].

Question: Would you please tell us some incidents that reveal the humour of Bhagavan?

Sadhu Om: Before standing up from the sofa Bhagavan used to rub ointment on his knees to relieve them from rheumatic stiffness. One day it was almost time for the dinner bell to ring, but Bhagavan had not started to rub the ointment on his knees. To remind him, the attendant took up his walking stick. Bhagavan smiled and said, ‘When the stick is waved, the monkey must dance’.

On another occasion a special puja was being conducted in the Mother’s Temple, and so the dinner was delayed. The poor people and sadhus, who are known as paradesis [outsiders] became impatient and began shouting, asking why their meals were delayed.

Seeing this commotion, the sarvadhikari [manager] ordered in a loud voice, ‘Paradesis will be fed only after the other people!’, and this was overheard by Bhagavan.

When finally the dinner bell rang, all the devotees gathered in the dining hall, but Bhagavan was nowhere to be seen. Everyone started searching for him and finally someone found him sitting under a tree in Palakottu [a garden to the West of the ashram where Bhagavan went for a walk almost every day].

When he was asked to come for dinner, Bhagavan replied, ‘No, not necessary. You may all take food without me.’

This was reported to the sarvadhikari who at once sent two doctor devotees to Bhagavan, thinking that he was perhaps not well. When Bhagavan told the doctors that nothing was wrong with his health, they asked him why he was not coming for food.

‘It has been ordered that paradesis will be fed afterwards. I am also a paradesi [an outsider]. So let the swadesis [the people who belong here] take their food first. Afterwards, I will take food along with the other paradesis.’

On hearing this the sarvadhikari at once ordered that the paradesis should be fed first. Only then did Bhagavan come to the dining room. From that day onwards, the paradesis were always served first.

[There is a play on words here that is not fully brought out in this recorded answer. Bhagavan definitely did belong to the ashram, and would not consider himself to be an outsider there. However, the word paradesi is also used to denote sannyasins and sadhus. To emphasise the point that people should not be discriminated against when food was being served, Bhagavan chose to identify himself on this occasion as a sadhu, not an outsider.]

Question: Can you tell me about any miracles performed by Bhagavan?

Sadhu Om: Whenever devotees told Bhagavan that he had performed a miracle, he always denied it because he had no sense of doership. However, many miracles used to happen in his presence, and he once explained that they were all ‘automatic divine activity’. Almost every devotee can tell you of some miracle that happened to them.

Question: So please tell us about at least two miracles that happened.

Sadhu Om: When he was a baby, a devotee called Amritalingam was found to have a liver tumour. Therefore, his mother, Mrs C. P. Nathan, took him to Bhagavan and said, ‘Bhagavan, the doctors say that he has a liver tumour and that it cannot be cured’.

Bhagavan then touched the baby’s belly and remarked, ‘Who said so? Nothing is found here?’

After that, all signs of the tumour disappeared.

On another occasion a devotee whose ishta deva [chosen deity] was Lord Subrahmanya, came to Bhagavan and reported, ‘I was in hospital and suffering from a critical disease. The doctors had decided that there was no hope for me. One night, while I was wide awake, you came and sat by my bed and said some kind words to me. The next day I began to recover, and now I am back to normal. It is all due to your grace.’

Bhagavan smiled and said, ‘Because of your devotion to Lord Subrahmanya, he had to come to save your life. But see! Why did he appear in my form, instead of his own? Because of this, you now attribute the miracle to me.’

Question: Please tell us about Bhagavan’s forbearance of suffering during his cancer operations.

Sadhu Om: Even at the time of his fourth operation, which was a very major one, Bhagavan refused to be given chloroform. The operation took a long time, and because of the profuse bleeding, it was very difficult for the doctors to dress the wound. Towards the end of the operation Bhagavan was talking to someone when the doctors informed him that the operation was over.

‘What! Is it over?’ asked Bhagavan.

Someone then asked, ‘Bhagavan, did you not feel any pain?’

Bhagavan replied, ‘Yes, there was pain, like a hundred chillies being ground in the wound, but even that pain is not apart from me.’

On another occasion, talking about the cancer, Bhagavan said, ‘The body itself is a disease. If another disease comes to this first disease, is it not good for us?’

Question: Did anyone predict the birth of Bhagavan?

Sadhu Om: Ramalinga Swami [a 19th century Tamil saint] sung in verse, shortly before he passed away [in 1877] ‘O men, the time is fast approaching when my Lord [Siva] will come on earth’. Vivekananda also predicted in 1898 that a great Atma-jyoti [light of the Self] was now springing up in Tamil Nadu.

Question: Did you see the jyoti [light] at the time of Bhagavan’s nirvana?

Sadhu Om: We were sitting in the Mathrubhuteswara veranda singing Aksharamanamalai, when all of a sudden we saw a bright flash from the nirvana room where Bhagavan lay. We thought at first that it was a camera flashlight. But at the same time people in the open began shouting ‘Jyoti! Jyoti in the sky!’ because they saw a big light in the sky, which then slowly moved northwards and disappeared behind Arunachala.