Swami Siddheswarananda's views on Bhagavan's Teachings on Creation

Several weeks ago Ravi asked me to comment on a portion of an article by Swami Siddheswarananda that appeared in the Golden Jubilee Souvenir, a book that was brought out in 1946 to commemorate Bhagavan’s fifty years in Tiruvannamalai. Swami Siddheswarananda was a monk in the Ramakrishna Order. His Guru in that organisation was Swami Brahmananda, a direct disciple of Sri Ramakrishna.

Swami Siddheswarananda visited Bhagavan in the 1930s and developed a deep and abiding respect for him. He went to Paris soon after meeting Bhagavan, taking charge of the Ramakrishna Order’s centre in Paris. He founded the Ramakrishna Ashram in Gretz, France, in 1947 and passed away in 1961.

Before I begin, here is an entertaining and little-known anecdote from one of his visits to Sri Ramanasramam. It was told to his secretary and recorded in an Arunachala Ashram newsletter of 2001:

A so-called ‘enlightened man,’ who took himself for Sri Krishna, came for the darshan of Ramana Maharshi, wearing clothes like Krishna. The Maharshi appeared to take him very seriously and treated this enlightened one as Krishna himself. He even arranged for one of his attendants to give special treatment to him, like one making puja to an idol of Krishna with all the worship items, etc. The ‘enlightened one’ was very pleased and went out. All the disciples who were there protested against the Maharshi’s treatment of this pseudo-Krishna, saying that it was not proper for him to treat that man in this manner. Sri Ramana silenced them all by saying: ‘All of you here are taking yourself for Mr X or Mr Y, so what's wrong for this one taking himself for Sri Krishna?’

This is what Swami Siddheswarananda wrote in the Golden Jubilee Souvenir:

The philosophical outlook of Maharshi tends very often to be confused with that of solipsism or its Indian equivalent, drishti-srishti-vada, which is a sort of degenerated idealism. That Maharshi never subscribes to that view can be known if we study his works in the light of orthodox Vedanta or observe his behaviour in life. When he says that it is the mind that has projected this universe, the term ‘mind’ should be understood in the Vedantic sense in which it is used. Unfortunately I have no books by Maharshi or works on him with me here for reference as all of them have disappeared when our library was looted during German occupation. What I write has necessarily to depend on my memory-impressions. The term ‘mind’ is also used by Sankara and Gaudapada in a wider sense than we are accustomed to use it in, as an antahkarana vritti. In certain places in the bhashyas of Sankara and the Karikas, the pure ‘mind’ is equated with Atman. For example, let us take verse 170 in Viveka Chudamani: ‘In dream when there is no actual contact with the external world the mind alone creates the whole universe consisting of the enjoyer, the objects etc. And similarly in the waking state also there is no difference. Therefore, all this phenomenal universe is the projection of mind.’ If the ‘mind’ used here is taken as identical with antahkarana vritti, Vedanta will necessarily be classed as solipsism! To understand the larger sense in which ‘mind’ is used in many such contexts we have to read the Mandukya Karika. For example, take verse 29 in Ch. III. ‘As in dream the mind acts through maya presenting the appearance of duality, so also in the waking state the mind acts through maya presenting the appearance of duality.’

There are several points of interest that can be commented on here. Let me start with the first sentence: 'The philosophical outlook of Maharshi tends very often to be confused with that of solipsism or its Indian equivalent, drishti-srishti-vada, which is a sort of degenerated idealism. '

Drishti-srishti-vada is the theory that the world is projected and created by the person who sees it. Bhagavan did teach this, and I am surprised that the swami was not aware of it. One should distinguish, though, between what Bhagavan taught (drishti-srishti-vada) as a working hypothesis for sadhaks and what he himself experienced as paramartha, ultimate truth. It was his own experience that creation had never really happened (ajata-vada). However, though Bhagavan was sometimes willing to state the truth of ajata-vada, when he spoke about creation, he mostly passed on versions of drishti-srishti-vada. Here are some extracts from the recent edition of Guru Vachaka Kovai (translated and edited by T. V. Venkatasubramanian, Robert Butler and myself) which, I hope, will cover all the nuances of this distinction. I have put these pages (pp. 48-50 in the book) on at least one other post, but they deserve to reappear here since they address and refute the claim that Swami Siddheswarananda is making:

100 Though Guru Ramana, who appeared as God incarnate, expounded numerous doctrines, as befitted the different states and beliefs of the various devotees who sought refuge at his feet, you should know that what we have heard him affirm to intimate devotees in private, as an act of grace, as his own true experience, is only the doctrine of ajata [non-creation].

Question: In the Vedanta of Sri Sankaracharya, the principle of the creation of the world has been accepted for the sake of beginners, but for the advanced, the principle of non-creation is put forward. What is your view in this matter?

Bhagavan:
Na nirodho na chotpattir
Nabaddho na cha sadhakaha
Na mumukshur na vai mukta
Ityesha paramarthata.

This verse appears in the second chapter [v. 32, vaithathya prakarana] of Gaudapada’s Karika [a commentary on the Mandukyopanishad]. It means really that there is no creation and no dissolution. There is no bondage, no one doing spiritual practices, no one seeking spiritual liberation, and no one who is liberated. One who is established in the Self sees this by his knowledge of reality. (The Power of the Presence, part one, p. 240)

Editor’s note: The idea expressed in this verse was commented on in some detail in the note to verse 83. It was mentioned there that Bhagavan gave out different teachings on creation to suit the different temperaments and attitudes of the people who approached him with questions on the topic. This is how Bhagavan once explained the way he taught these different and apparently conflicting ideas:

The letter went on to say, ‘Ramana Maharshi is an exponent of ajata doctrine of advaita Vedanta. Of course, it is a bit difficult.’

Bhagavan remarked on this, ‘Somebody has told him so. I do not teach only the ajata doctrine. I approve of all schools. The same truth has to be expressed in different ways to suit the capacity of the hearer. The ajata doctrine says, “Nothing exists except the one reality. There is no birth or death, no projection [of the world] or drawing in [of it], no sadhaka, no mumukshu [seeker of liberation], no mukta [liberated one], no bondage, no liberation. The one unity alone exists ever.”

‘To such as find it difficult to grasp this truth and who ask. “How can we ignore this solid world we see all around us?” the dream experience is pointed out and they are told, “All that you see depends on the seer. Apart from the seer, there is no seen.”

‘This is called the drishti-srishti-vada, or the argument that one first creates out of his mind and then sees what his mind itself has created.

‘To such as cannot grasp even this and who further argue, “The dream experience is so short, while the world always exists. The dream experience was limited to me. But the world is felt and seen not only by me, but by so many, and we cannot call such a world non-existent,” the argument called srishti-drishti-vada is addressed and they are told, “God first created such and such a thing, out of such and such an element and then something else, and so forth.” That alone will satisfy this class. Their mind is otherwise not satisfied and they ask themselves, “How can all geography, all maps, all sciences, stars, planets and the rules governing or relating to them and all knowledge be totally untrue?” To such it is best to say, “Yes. God created all this and so you see it.”’

Dr. M. said, ‘But all these cannot be true; only one doctrine can be true.’

Bhagavan said, ‘All these are only to suit the capacity of the learner. The absolute can only be one.’ (Day by Day with Bhagavan, 15th March, 1946, afternoon)

Mention was made in the editorial notes that similar ideas were expressed in verse eighty-three. This is the verse and some of the supplementary comments that appear there (Guru Vachaka Kovai, pp. 41-2) :

83 Through the venba verse that begins, ‘Because we perceive the world...,’ Guru Ramana – who teaches the one true beneficial attainment [jnana] that is needed by the people of the world – declared, out of his love for us, the doctrine of illusory appearance to be the truth that bestows the ultimate benefit, avoiding the consideration of other doctrines.

Editor’s note: The quotation at the beginning of the verse is taken from verse one of Ulladu Narpadu. It says:

Because we perceive the world, there is certainly absolute agreement that there exists a first cause, which is a creative energy capable of manifesting diversity. The picture consisting of names and forms, he who sees it, the screen on which it appears, and the light which illuminates it, all are He, who is the Self.

Editor’s note: Although Bhagavan knew that ajata is the supreme truth, he actually taught the doctrine of illusory appearance as an explanation for the world manifestation since he knew that this would provide the maximum practical benefit. When the devotee truly understands that the world is an illusory projection of the mind, his mind no longer moves towards it. When this happens, the mind goes back to its source and disappears, leaving the ajata experience in which one knows directly that the world never existed or was created except in the imagination. The doctrine of simultaneous creation is therefore a working hypothesis that enables seekers to find the ultimate truth.

Muruganar: The Self, consciousness, is the material and efficient cause for the appearance of the world. When the rope [the material and efficient cause] appears as an illusory snake, this is vivarta siddhanta [the doctrine of illusory appearance]. The meaning is, just like the snake in the rope, the world is an imaginary appearance [kalpita] in reality, consciousness. People who lose hold of the state of the Self mistake themselves for the seer [of the world] and regard the perceived world as real. Such people cannot get peace through [being taught] ajata siddhanta. To remove the idea that the world exists apart from them, [an idea] that confounds and distresses them, vivarta siddhanta is taught. So, there really is no contradiction between these two [ajata siddhanta and vivarta siddhanta].

Though Bhagavan was careful and even-handed when he spoke about creation theories in the reply I cited from Day by Day with Bhagavan (15th March, 1946, afternoon), it was more usual for him to say that the drishti-srishti position was not only an accurate explanation of the world we see in front of us, it is also the most useful perspective for a seeker to adopt:

Later, Sri Bhagavan continued: ‘The Vedanta says that the cosmos springs into view simultaneously with the seer. There is no detailed process of creation. This is said to be yugapat srishti [instantaneous creation]. It is quite similar to the creations in dream where the experiencer springs up simultaneously with the objects of experience. When this is told, some people are not satisfied for they are so rooted in objective knowledge. They seek to find out how there can be sudden creation. They argue that an effect must be preceded by a cause. In short, they desire an explanation for the existence of the world which they see around them. Then the Srutis try to satisfy their curiosity by such theories of creation. This method of dealing with the subject of creation is called krama srishti [gradual creation]. But the true seeker can be content with yugapat srishti - instantaneous creation.’ (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 651)

Most of these quotes and arguments will be familiar to readers of this blog. What may not be so familiar is how these ideas relate to the western notions of solipsism and idealism that Swami Siddheswarananda referred to in his opening sentence. Here is it again: 'The philosophical outlook of Maharshi tends very often to be confused with that of solipsism or its Indian equivalent, drishti-srishti-vada, which is a sort of degenerated idealism.'

Solipsism is the philosophical position that nothing exists other than one’s own mind and its perceptions. The logical extension of this is that ‘other’ minds do not exist. Various strands or subdivisions of solipsism have been identified and pursued in western philosophy:

(a) Metaphysical solipsism

This maintains that the individual self constitutes the sole reality. The external world and the people in it are part of the perceiving individual self and have no independent existence apart from it.

(b) Epistemological solipsism

Epistemology is the study of knowledge and how it is validly or invalidly acquired. Epistemological solipsism states that only the accessible contents of the mind can be known. It does not, though, accept that this is the only possible knowledge. Though it concedes that there is a possibility that an external world exists, it states that such a thesis is impossible to prove or disprove.

(c) Methodological solipsism

This is a philosophical principle that the individual self and its states are the sole and proper starting point for philosophical speculation. Its basic premise is that all philosophical statements and conclusions must derive from the irrefutable and directly experienced fact of personal consciousness.

All of these positions can find parallels in things that Bhagavan periodically said, but the major reason why Bhagavan could not be considered to be a solipsist is that solipsism does not accept the reality of anything that is prior to or beyond the mind. It has no transcendental aspect.

In Ulladu Narpadu, verse 26, Bhagavan wrote:

If the ego arises, all else will arise. If the ego is not, nothing else will exist. The ego, truly, is all. Know that simply to enquire what it is, is to renounce everything.

A western philosopher who read the first three sentences of this verse would undoubtedly classify Bhagavan as a solipsist. However, the final sentence, with its recommendation to enquire into the nature of the ego, takes Bhagavan’s teachings out of the realm of pure solipsism. What happens when this enquiry is done properly? Bhagavan gives the answer in verse seventeen of Upadesa Undiyar:

When one scrutinises the form of the mind, without being inattentive [it will be found that] there is no such thing as mind. This is the direct path for all.

Bhagavan teaches that the ego exists by repeatedly attaching itself to objects. He also tells us that we can break this chain by focusing intensively on the subjective essence of this ego. Intense attention to the primary form of the ego, the ‘I’-thought, quite literally causes it to run away and disappear:

The ghost ego, which has no form, comes into existence by grasping a form, and having grasped it, endures. Thus grasping and consuming forms, it waxes greater. Letting go of one form, it will grasp another. If you seek it out, it will take flight. (Ulladu Narpadu, verse 25)

Solipsism only accepts the reality of those things that can be ascertained by the mind. Bhagavan, on the other hand, does not claim that the mind is everything. He says that there is an underlying state that has nothing to do with the mind, a state that can be discovered and directly experienced by eliminating the individual ‘I’ that superimposes itself on this substratum.

Though Bhagavan did not accept the solipsist position that only mental data are valid, he did occasionally adopt solipsisitic arguments in an attempt to demonstrate there is no real external world, independent of the observer of it. Here is the best example I know, taken from Maharshi’s Gospel:

Devotee: As I said before, we see, feel and sense the world in so many ways. These sensations are the reactions to the objects seen, felt etc. and are not mental creations as in dreams, which differ not only from person to person but also with regard to the same person. Is that not enough to prove the objective reality of the world?

Bhagavan: All this talk about inconsistencies and their attribution to the dream-world arises only now, when you are awake. While you are dreaming, the dream was a perfectly integrated whole. That is to say, if you felt thirsty in a dream, the illusory drinking of illusory water did quench your illusory thirst. But all this was real and not illusory to you so long as you did not know that the dream itself was illusory. Similarly with the waking world; and the sensations you now have, get co-ordinated to give you the impression that the world is real.

If, on the contrary, the world is a self-existent reality (that is what you evidently mean by its objectivity) what prevents the world from revealing itself to you in sleep? You do not say you have not existed in your sleep.

Devotee: Neither do I deny the world’s existence while I am asleep. It has been existing all the while. If during my sleep I did not see it, others who are not sleeping saw it.

Bhagavan: To say you existed while asleep, was it necessary to call in the evidence of others so as to prove it to you? Why do you seek their evidence now? Those ‘others’ can tell you of having seen the world (during your sleep) only when you yourself are awake. With regard to your own existence it is different. On waking up you say you had a sound sleep, so that to that extent you are aware of yourself in the deepest sleep, whereas you have not the slightest notion of the world’s existence then. Even now, while you are awake, is it the world that says “I am real”, or is it you?

Devotee: Of course I say it, but I say it of the world.

Bhagavan: Well then, that world, which you say is real, is really mocking at you for seeking to prove its reality while of your own Reality you are ignorant.

You want somehow or other to maintain that the world is real. What is the standard of reality? That alone is real which exists by itself, which reveals itself by itself and which is eternal and unchanging.

Does the world exist by itself? Was it ever seen without the aid of the mind? In sleep there is neither mind nor world. When awake there is the mind and there is the world. What does this invariable concomitance mean? You are familiar with the principles of inductive logic, which are considered the very basis of scientific investigation. Why do you not decide this question of the reality of the world in the light of those accepted principles of logic?

Of yourself you can say ‘I exist’. That is, yours is not mere existence, it is Existence of which you are conscious. Really, it is existence identical with consciousness.

Devotee: The world may not be conscious of itself, yet it exists.

Bhagavan: Consciousness is always Self-consciousness. If you are conscious of anything you are essentially conscious of yourself. Unselfconscious existence is a contradiction in terms. It is no existence at all. It is merely attributed existence, whereas true existence, the sat, is not an attribute, it is the substance itself. It is the vastu. Reality is therefore known as sat-chit, being-consciousness, and never merely the one to the exclusion of the other. The world neither exists by itself, nor is it conscious of its existence. How can you say that such a world is real? And what is the nature of the world? It is perpetual change, a continuous, interminable flux. A dependent, unselfconscious, ever-changing world cannot be real. (Maharshi’s Gospel pp. 60-62)

Note how Bhagavan’s argument runs through familiar solipsistic territory before moving on to a transcendental position that the world cannot possibly be real because it is impermanent, changing, and does not reveal itself independently of the perceiver’s perception of it.

The solipsistic notion that there is only one individual self, and that all ‘other selves’ are created and imagined within it, has an advaitic parallel in the teaching of ‘eka jiva’, ‘one jiva’. This states that there are not many jivas, all of whom project a world and live in it; there is only one. Bhagavan laid out the premise of this position in this passage from Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 534:

Bhagavan: Jiva is called so because he sees the world. A dreamer sees many jivas in a dream, but all of them are not real. The dreamer alone exists and he sees all. So it is with the individual and the world. There is the creed of only one Self, which is also called the creed of only one jiva. It says that the jiva is the only one who sees the whole world and the jivas therein.

Bhagavan did not commit himself to this philosophical position in this particular quotation, but he firmly accepted it in verse 534 of Guru Vachaka Kovai. In this verse Bhagavan stated that eka jiva, though true, is such a counter-intuitive position to adopt, even jnanis generally say that there is a multiplicity of jivas:

Let the heroic one who possesses a powerful intuition accept that the jiva is only one, and thus become firmly established in the Heart. In order to satisfy those persons in whom this intuition has not blossomed [jnanis appear to] agree with their view that jivas are many.

The following comments and the subsequent quotation come from the discussion on eka jiva that appears on pages 231 and 232 of Guru Vachaka Kovai:

It is a fundamental tenet of advaita that the world is projected by the individual mind that sees it. Some people think that this means that each individual jiva projects its own world, but Bhagavan taught that this is not the correct perspective. He maintained that the jiva which sees the world is the only jiva that exists, and that all the other people whom this jiva sees are merely imagined projections of the first jiva. Since all things and all beings are merely the externalised projection of the jiva who sees them, it follows that when this jiva is absent or destroyed, the other beings and things simply cease to exist.

Chadwick once questioned Bhagavan on this topic: ‘If the world exists only when my mind exists, when my mind subsides in meditation or sleep, does the outside world disappear also? I think not. If one considers the experiences of others who were aware of the world while I slept, one must conclude that the world existed then. Is it not more correct to say that the world got created and is ever existing in some huge collective mind? If this is true how can one say that there is no world and that it is only a dream?’

Bhagavan refused to modify his position. ‘The world does not say that it was created in the collective mind or that it was created in the individual mind. It only appears in your small mind. If your mind gets destroyed, there will be no world.’ (Living by the Words of Bhagavan, 2nd ed. p. 236)

Bhagavan himself addressed some of the arguments for and against the eka-jiva position in talk 571 of Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi:

Multiplicity of individuals is a moot point with most persons. A jiva is only the light reflected on the ego. The person identifies himself with the ego and argues that there must be more like him. He is not easily convinced of the absurdity of his position. Does a man who sees many individuals in his dream persist in believing them to be real and enquire after them when he wakes up?

This argument does not convince the disputant.

Again, there is the moon. Let anyone look at her from any place at any time; she is the same moon. Everyone knows it. Now suppose that there are several receptacles of water reflecting the moon. The images are all different from one another and from the moon herself. If one of the receptacles falls to pieces, that reflection disappears. Its disappearance does not affect the real moon or the other reflections. It is similar with an individual attaining Liberation. He alone is liberated.

The sectarian of multiplicity makes this his argument against non-duality. ‘If the Self is single, if one man is liberated, that means that all souls are liberated. In practice it is not so. Therefore advaita is not correct.’

The weakness in the argument is that the reflected light of the Self is mistaken for the original light of the Self. The ego, the world and the individuals are all due to the person’s vasanas. When they perish, that person’s hallucinations disappear, that is to say one pitcher is broken and the relative reflection is at an end.

The fact is that the Self is never bound. There can therefore be no release for it. All the troubles are for the ego only.

I have wandered around a bit so far on this post, covering many aspects of Bhagavan’s teachings (drishti-srishti-vada, eka jiva, and so on) and explaining the difference between solipsism and Bhagavan’s advaitic teachings. I want, now, to go back to my starting point: Swami Siddheswarananda made two claims in his first sentence, that Bhagavan did not teach drishti-srishti-vada, and that solipsism is the same as drishti-srishti-vada. I hope I have presented enough evidence here to demonstrate that both assertions are unsustainable.

There is one further claim in his first sentence that I have not so far addressed: that drishti-srishti-vada is ‘a sort of degenerated idealism’.

Idealism is a strand of western philosophy that stands in opposition to materialism. The materialist position is that there is an external, real world comprising interacting energy and matter. This is the standard, almost universally accepted, srishti-drishti view of the world which says that a real world exists independently of a perceiver, that it was there before he was born, and that it will continue to exist after he dies. Idealism, on the other hand, insists that the mind and its thoughts are the only thing that exists.

Idealism is actually a theory in the philosophy of perception. It describes the relationship that exists between the experiencer and what he experiences.

There are two main divisions of idealism: subjective idealism and objective idealism. The subjective idealist is a solipsist. He would maintain that the thoughts which generate the world we see come from inside the perceiving subject. Everything that is seen is something that has been thought up by the seer. An objective idealist takes the line that objects in the world originate outside ourselves, which is why we all see the same things ‘out there’. However, they are not material objects; they are just ideas. All things are mental creations, which begs the question, ‘in whose mind, or created by whom?’

George Berkeley, probably the most famous of the objective idealists, proposed that all ‘things’ are just ideas in the mind of God. According to him, there really is a world ‘out there’, but it is one comprised wholly of God’s thoughts, not independently existing matter and energy.

This is his most famous statement about the nature of objects: ‘Their esse [to be] is percipi [to be perceived]; nor is it possible they should have any existence out of the minds of thinking things which perceive them…’. (Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge).

Taken in isolation this would indicate that if an object is not being perceived, it simply doesn’t exist. Seeing brings it into existence. However, the universe is sustained in its entirety, according to Berkeley, because God is simultaneously aware of all things, thus allowing an orderly world to appear and persist. This intriguing theory was delightfully summarised in two limericks, the first composed by Ronald Knox, and the second anonymously:

There was a young man who said ‘God
Must find it exceedingly odd
To think that the tree
Should continue to be
When there’s no one about in the quad’.

‘Dear Sir: Your astonishment’s odd;
I am always about in the quad.
And that’s why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God.’

Bhagavan also taught that the act of seeing brings objects that are seen into existence. In this he agrees with the idealists.

Every time it [the mind] sees, it is in the act of seeing that the many scenes appear as if real to the seeing consciousness. (Padamalai, p. 269, v.1)

Bhagavan: Creation is not other than seeing; seeing and creating are one and the same process. Annihilation is only the cessation of seeing and nothing else; for the world comes to an end by the right awareness of oneself. (Sri Ramana Paravidyopanishad, v. 147)

Question: What is the relation between mind and object? Is the mind contacting something different from it, viz., the world?

Bhagavan: The world is ‘sensed’ in the waking and the dream states or is the object of perception and thought, both being mental activities. If there were no such activities as waking and dreaming thought, there would be no ‘perception’ or inference of a ‘world’. In sleep there is no such activity and ‘objects and world’ do not exist for us in sleep. Hence ‘reality of the world’ may be created by the ego by its act of emergence from sleep; and that reality may be swallowed up or disappear by the soul resuming its nature in sleep. The emergence and disappearance of the world are like the spider producing a gossamer web and then withdrawing it. (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 25)

However, there are key differences between idealism and Bhagavan’s teachings. Bhagavan taught that when the seer and the seen (the individual self and the world) are absent, the Self remains, consciously known by the jnani, but unknown to those who mediate their knowledge and perceptions through a knower and a perceiver. It is this extra dimension of a permanent substratum, knowable through direct experience, rather than mediated by the senses, that distinguishes both idealism and solipsism from advaita. A solipsist and a subjective idealist will only accept as real those things that their senses and their mind consciously register. Bhagavan teaches that the mind, far from registering what is true and real, actually hides reality. There is a world of difference between these two positions.

Solipsism and subjective idealism give primacy to thought and perception. In these systems things exist not because they have inherent beingness, but because they are sensed or thought about by the mind. Descartes took this to its logical conclusion by asserting that thinking even proved that a person existed: ‘I think ,therefore I am.’ Bhagavan ridiculed this position in no uncertain terms:

The existence of their own Self is inferred by some from mental functioning, by the reasoning, ‘I think, therefore I am’. These men are like those dull-witted ones who ignore the elephant when it goes past, and become convinced afterwards by looking at the footprints! (Sri Ramana Paravidyopanishad, v. 166)

For Bhagavan ‘being’ is self-evident and real; idealists and solipsists, on the other hand, only accept as real objects that the mind is capable of registering.

Swami Siddheswarananda claimed that drishti-srishti-vada was some form of ‘degenerate idealism’. He didn’t say in what way it might have degenerated, but in the forms I have presented it here, idealism is clearly distinguishable both from drishti-srishti-vada and from Bhagavan’s teachings in general.

I started out with the intention of critiquing the whole of Swami Siddheswarananda’s comments in a few pages. Looking at my computer I find I am now on page eleven, and looking at the clock I find that I have spent most of a day getting this far. I don’t have the time to post detailed critiques of all the other things he said. I will simply say that there are many other things in his comments that I disagree with. Before I end, though, I want to comment briefly on his second sentence which says:

That Maharshi never subscribes to that view [solipsism, idealism or drishti-srishti-vada] can be known if we study his works in the light of orthodox Vedanta or observe his behaviour in life.

The notion that we can discover Bhagavan’s teachings by observing his behaviour is an intriguing one. I think I wrote elsewhere on this blog that, during the Bhagavan Centenary Celebrations of 1980, I ended up having to mark some student essays whose set topic was: ‘Bhagavan’s teachings are best exemplified by the life he lead. Discuss.’

The answers were, unfortunately, uniformly bad. Nevertheless, I think all of us would agree that we could learn a lot about Bhagavan by observing his daily routine and by studying the way he lived his life and dealt with all the events and incidents that were going on around him. I don’t, though, believe that we could find out whether or not he was a proponent of drishti-srishti-vada from making such observations. For that, we would have to go to his writings and to the verbal replies he gave on this topic. I don’t agree that we can discover what views Bhagavan subscribes to by studying his teachings ‘in the light of orthodox Vedanta’. If we want to find out what Bhagavan intended by a particular comment or written sentence, the best place to look is in the publications where Bhagavan himself explains his teachings in more detail.

If there are no direct comments or writings from Bhagavan himself on a particular subject, we can look in the books of devotees who were given personal instructions by Bhagavan on the meaning of his writings. Muruganar and Lakshmana Sarma, for example, were both given extensive private tuition by Bhagavan on the meaning and interpretation of Bhagavan’s Ulladu Narpadu verses. If we want to find out what Bhagavan intended to communicate in a particular line of his writings, we should first look at any comments Bhagavan might have written or spoken on the topic under discussion. Then, if there is still some doubt, we should consult those texts which incorporate Bhagavan’s own explanations.

Bhagavan’s views on drishti-srishti-vada were expressed many times. The first few pages of this post have many direct quotes from Bhagavan on this topic. These quotations, not the texts of orthodox Vedanta, are the places to go for an understanding of what Bhagavan said and intended.

To be fair to Swami Siddheswarananda, he could not have been aware of most of these statements by Bhagavan since virtually none of them were in print in the era he visited Ramanasramam. I am guessing that he did not know Tamil. That would leave him an English body of work that included Maha Yoga, Maharshi's Gospel, and English translations of Who am I?, Spiritual Instruction and Ulladu Narpadu. I am assuming that he also went through Sat Darshana Bhashya in Sanskrit.

The contents of Sat Darshana Bhashya might have persuaded him that Bhagavan did not teach drishti-srishti-vada, but as an educated and discerning vedantic scholar, he should have found sufficient textual evidence in Bhagavan's other works to come to the conclusion that Bhagavan did teach drishti-srishti vada. In Who am I?, for example, he could have found the following very clear paragraph:

There no such thing as 'the world' independent of thoughts. There are no thoughts in deep sleep, and there is no world. In waking and dream there are thoughts, and there is also the world. Just as a spider emits the thread of a web from within itself and withdraws it again into itself, in the same way the mind projects the world from within itself and later reabsorbs it into itself. When the mind emanates from the Self, the world appears. When the world appears, the Self is not seen, and when the Self appears or shines, the world will not appear.

Since Bhagavan often used the terminology of Vedanta, it is understandable how some vedantic scholars might want to consult their texts to get a better understanding of what Bhagavan was teaching. In my opinion this is not a valid interpretive route since Bhagavan's teachings and comments are not derived from a study of vedantic texts but from his own experience. The fact that they mostly agree with these vedantic texts does not mean that one should give precedence to these writings when one is looking for a proper understanding of what Bhagavan taught.

As the following and concluding dialogue indicates, Bhagavan used his own language to express his own experience:

Mr M. Oliver Lacombe, a middle-aged Frenchman who was on a visit to India, being delegated by the Institute of Indian Civilisation of the University of Paris, came here from French India. Among others he had desired to meet Maharshi; he came and stayed here about three hours. He had read, in the Sanskrit original, the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads and the Sutras with commentaries by Sri Sankara and Ramanuja.

He asked: Is Maharshi’s teaching the same as Sankara’s?

Bhagavan: Maharshi’s teaching is only an expression of his own experience and realisation. Others find that it tallies with Sri Sankara’s.

Devotee: Quite so. Can it be put in other ways to express the same realisation?

Bhagavan: A realised person will use his own language.(Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 189)

Bhagavan's Letter to Ganapati Muni

This morning I found the following query from 'Follow the Rabbit' among the comments I moderated:

Ganapathi Muni's letter to Bhagawaan.

http://kavyakantha.arunachala.org/Letters_from_Muni.htm

3 June 1931, Anandasramam, Sirsi

Lord, Friend of the Lowly and Meek, Sundara has conveyed us in his letter the explanation vouchsafed by Bhagavan. All the doubts of all of us here are now dispelled. The word of Bhagavan that the experience of the absence of any sense of finiteness (limitation) is the same in the Lord of the Universe and the liberated has completely set at rest some other doubts of ours also. We have understood by this statement of Bhagavan that there is the Supreme Lord, the Ruler of the Universe, that the liberated do also exist as distinct entities and that their experience of the absence of finiteness alone is the same.

Pranavananda has written me a letter asking for chapter names in Sanskrit and Telugu of Sri Ramana Gita which is to be reprinted. I have replied saying that I shall write and send him not only the names of chapters but a comprehensive introduction also.

All well here. I am, The Bee, Happy at your Holy Feet,

Ganapati

1) What does Ganapati Muni mean by 'exist' here? Does he mean they exist after physical death?

2) Does Ganapati mean Lord of the Universe is separate from the Jnaani/Self??

3) Also confirms to UG's statement about the difference in Jnaanis (the difference being their background) which I posted earlier in this topic.

* * *

These are interesting questions, some of which were addressed in an article that was published in The Mountain Path, 1982, pp. 95-101. The author was given there as ‘Michael Spenser’, which are my two middle names. The article was originally submitted by Michael James at a time when I was editing the magazine. I decided that it needed drastic revisions to make it publishable, although at this distance in time I can no longer remember what the problem was. Michael was not happy with many of my rewrites, so he asked that his name be removed. However, he was willing to let me use the material myself. I rewrote the piece still further and eventually attributed it to ‘Michael Spenser’ since most of the ideas were Michael’s and a substantial portion of the writing was mine.

Bhagavan’s Letter to Ganapati Muni

Introduction

Between March and August 1931 Ganapati Muni was living mostly in Anandashram on the outskirts of Sirsi, a town in the North Kannada District. During this period he wrote a series of more than twenty letters in Sanskrit to his Guru, Bhagavan Sri Ramana. All of these letters have been printed in the original Sanskrit together with English renderings by Viswanatha Swami in a booklet entitled Epistles of Light, which was published in 1978 by the Kavyakantha Ganapati Muni Trust, Madras.

Since Bhagavan never replied to letters, the replies that were sent to Ganapati Muni were all drafted by the ashram office. Although Bhagavan would have inspected them before they were posted, except on one occasion, he could not be held responsible for their contents. This one exception was the reply to Ganapati Muni’s letter dated 20th May, 1931. Ganapati Muni expressed a doubt in his letter about the ego, and he particularly requested a devotee named T. K. Sundaresa Iyer to convey to him in writing the answer of Sri Bhagavan. Bhagavan gave a verbal reply to the doubts raised in the letter, and this reply was then incorporated in a letter and sent to Ganapati Muni. This reply containing Bhagavan’s answer was published by Sri Ramanasramam in 1980 in a small Tamil booklet entitled Precious Words and Stray Verses of the Maharshi.

The Doubt of Ganapati Muni

Ganapati Muni begins his letter by saying:

A doubt. Except Bhagavan, whom else can we ask? Who else can reply? It is clearly known from the teachings of Bhagavan that the ego is of three kinds.

Ganapati Muni is here alluding to the three bodies, the gross, the subtle and the causal, and in his letter he expounds on their various characteristics. He was particularly interested in the subtle body that is said to contain the intellect, and his main question revolved around the use of the intellect as a means to attain realisation.

‘Is that abidance in the intellect a means for gradually attaining the perfect experience, or is it not? If it is not certainly a means for that, then for what purpose is it? Or is there any arrangement that, according to the particular outlook of the aspirant, it is sometimes a means and sometimes not? My dear child Sundara (T. K. Sundaresa Iyer) may kindly write to me the decision of Bhagavan regarding this matter.

Before proceeding to give Bhagavan’s reply, it should be pointed out that Ganapati Muni’s assumption that Bhagavan taught that there are three kinds of ego is incorrect. This is best illustrated by referring to Maharshi’s Gospel, (Book 2, Chapter 5), where, in answer to a question about the three kinds of egos mentioned in Yoga Vasishta, Bhagavan replied:

The ego is described as having three bodies, the gross, the subtle and the causal, but that is only for the purpose of analytical exposition. If the method of enquiry were to depend on the ego’s form you may take it that any enquiry would become altogether impossible, because the forms the ego may assume are legion. Therefore, for the purposes of self-enquiry, you have to proceed on the basis that the ego has but one form, namely that of the ‘I’-thought.

From this it is clear that Bhagavan regards all classifications such as the three bodies, the five sheaths and the three kinds of ego as being of secondary importance. For earnest aspirants who seek to know the ultimate truth of the ego (i.e. its non-existence) it is sufficient that they enquire into the one basic form of the ego, which is the ‘I’-thought.

Bhagavan’s disinclination to subdivide the mind or ego is also shown in chapter four of Self Enquiry where he gives the following answer:

The mind is nothing other than the ‘I’. The mind and the ego are one and the same. The others, [i.e. the other two antahkaranas or inner organs] the intellect and chittam [the storehouse of tendencies] are only this. Mind [manas], intellect [buddhi], the storehouse of tendencies [chittam] and ego [ahankara]; all these are only the one mind itself. This is like different names [such as son, husband, father, clerk, Hindu, etc.] being given to a man according to his different functions. The individual soul is nothing but this mind or ego…

Whereas the tendency of the scriptures is to classify the non-Self into more and more different categories, the tendency of Sri Bhagavan is always to simplify things and reduce them back to fundamentals.

As Sri Bhagavan has said in Who am I?, it is futile to scrutinise and classify the garbage (i.e. the non-Self), all of which is to be cast aside. Therefore, though the intellect is given many names such as vijnanatma, vijnana (the terms used by Ganapati Muni in his letter), buddhi and so on, according to Sri Bhagavan, all these terms refer only to the one mind.

The reply of Sri Bhagavan

Contrary to his usual practice while replying to devotees, throughout this reply Sri Bhagavan uses many obscure scriptural terms and concepts partly because Ganapati Muni was a pandit well-versed in the scriptures and partly because his doubt was rooted in the concepts he had learned from them. Because of this, Bhagavan’s reply will be easier to understand if it is split up into several sections, with an explanatory note following each section. In order to make this reply intelligible to readers, who do not have a good grounding in Sanksrit terminology, it will occasionally be necessary to give a free, paraphrased rendering of Bhagavan’s words. Bhagavan’s answer is in bold; the author’s comments follow it in roman type.

Though it is a fact that scriptures like Vasishtam say, as you have mentioned, that the ego is of three kinds, you should take the ‘I-thought’ to be truly only one. When the mind which is the ‘I-thought’ rises, it can only do so by catching hold of something. Since this ego rises between the insentient body and the reality it is given such names a chit-jada granthi [the knot between consciousness and the insentient body], jiva [the individual self] and so on.

In this opening paragraph Bhagavan confirms that the ego should be taken to be a single entity and not three or more entities, and that the various names such as chit-jada granthi and jiva are merely different names for the same thing. However, in the next section Bhagavan abandons this stance and replies to Ganapati Muni in his own terms.

According to traditional Indian philosophy the mind is compounded of three characteristics: sattva (harmony or purity), rajas (activity or restlessness), and tamas (dullness or inertia). Since Ganapati Muni structured his letter around an assumption of the reality of these three gunas, Bhagavan adapts his answer to this assumption.

He says:

The ‘I-thought’ which rises in this manner appears in the form of the three gunas, and of these three, the rajas and tamas aspects cling to and identify with the body. The remaining one which is pure sattva is alone the natural characteristic of the mind, and this stands clinging to the reality. However, in this pure sattvic state, the ‘I-thought’ is no longer really a thought, it is the Heart itself.

'The wise understand the apparent meaning of prajnana [consciousness] to be the mind, and its true meaning to be the Heart. The Supreme is not other than the Heart. ' (Sri Ramana Gita, V. 18)

In this section Bhagavan begins to outline the nature of the mind and to show how it is possible for it to subside into the Heart. In doing so, he indirectly answers Ganapati Muni’s question concerning the role of the mind in sadhana.

Sri Bhagavan is saying that when the mind is active, that is, dominated by rajas and tamas, identification with the body takes place, but when the mind is quiet and still, that is, in its pure sattvic state, it subsides into the Heart until only the Heart remains. Sri Bhagavan has stated in the quotations from Maharshi’s Gospel and Self Enquiry that were given earlier in this article that the mind is nothing other than the ‘I’-thought. When this ‘I-thought identifies itself with objects, the rajasic and tamasic mind arises, but when the ‘I’-thought alone remains, it can be termed the sattvic mind. However, Sri Bhagavan states in this section that the term ‘sattvic mind’ is something of a misnomer, for when only the feeling of ‘I’ remains, the mind has ceased to exist. This is what Sri Bhagavan means in the last line of his own comments and in the quotation from Sri Ramana Gita when he states that the feeling ‘I’ is not really a modification of the mind but the Heart itself.

Sri Bhagavan often stated that the biggest obstacle to Self-realisation is the ‘I am the body’ idea. Since he states here that a mind dominated by rajas and tamas identifies with and clings to the body, a rajasic or a tamasic mind is obviously an unproductive vehicle for sadhana. According to Sri Bhagavan, realisation is only attained by abiding in the sattvic state. However, since the mind has ceased to exist in this state, one cannot say that abidance in this state is abidance in the mind; rather, it is abidance in the state where the mind is absent.

The solution to Ganapati Muni’s question lies in this distinction between the clinging and identifying characteristics of the rajasic and tamasic mind, and the absence of mind in the sattvic state. Ganapati Muni’s question was: ‘Is that abidance in the intellect a means for gradually attaining the perfect experience?’ He uses the word vijnana to describe the intellect, and in his letter, he defines this term still further by calling it the thinking faculty (vritti-jnana). Bhagavan is saying in this reply that one should not abide in this thinking faculty; instead one should abide in the sattvic state where thought has ceased and only the ‘I’-feeling remains.

Having answered the question in this somewhat oblique manner, Bhagavan goes on to give a description of the state in which the ‘I’-feeling clings to and identifies with the Self.

When the mind, the distinctive knowledge that rises from the non-distinctive state of ‘I’, clings to and identifies with the Self, it is called true knowledge. It may also be called ‘knowledge which is the movement of the mind in the form of the Self’ or ‘knowledge in an unbroken form’. The state in which this pure sattvic mind shines clinging to the Self is called ‘aham-sphurana’.

In this passage Sri Bhagavan is describing the state where the ‘I’ feeling alone remains and clings to the Self. This state is not the final state of realisation, for in this state there is still the dualistic feeling that there is an ‘I’ that is clinging to the Self. Bhagavan calls this state the ‘aham-sphurana’ and it may be described as the subjective experience of the feeling of ‘I’ that manifests when the mind is quiet and still.

In the next section of the letter Sri Bhagavan gives a detailed description of the sphurana and shows how it is related to the Self.

This sphurana cannot remain independently apart from the reality, but it is the correct sign that indicates the forthcoming direct experience of that reality. The source to which this sphurana clings alone is called the reality or pure consciousness. In Vedanta this is expressed by the saying ‘prajnanam Brahma’, or pure consciousness is the absolute reality. When the pure sattvic mind abides in that sphurana and attends to its source, it is called upasana or meditation; when one is firmly established in the state which is the source of that mind, this is called jnana.

'During the time of practice the natural state is called upasana [meditation], and when that state becomes firmly and permanently established it is called jnana.’ (Sri Ramana Gita, 1.13)

The term aham-sphurana denotes the new, clear, and fresh knowledge of one’s being that is experienced when the ‘I’-thought attends to and identifies with the Self. The nature of this aham-sphurana was explained by Sri Bhagavan in the answer to question thirty-two in Self Enquiry, and he described it in phrases which are almost identical to those used in the letter:

…The state in which this mind clings to the Self and shines as the form of the Self is called the aham sphurana. This sphurana cannot remain independently, leaving the reality. This sphurana is the correct sign of the forthcoming direct experience of the reality. However, this sphurana cannot itself be the state of reality. That source to which this sphurana clings, alone is called the reality…

Reality will be directly experienced only when this sphurana subsides or comes to an end. This process is described in the answer to question three in Self Enquiry as follows:

…Therefore, leaving the corpse-like body as an actual corpse, and remaining without even uttering the word ‘I’ by mouth, if one now keenly enquires ‘What is it that rises as I?’, then in the heart a certain soundless sphurana, ‘I-I’ [that is, an awareness which is single and undivided, the thoughts which are many and divided having disappeared], alone will shine forth of its own accord. If one remains still without leaving it, even the sphurana [having completely annihilated the sense of the individuality, the form of the ego ‘I am the body’], will itself in the end subside, just like the flame that catches the camphor. This alone is said to be liberation by great ones and scriptures.

In the same way that a piece of camphor, once it has caught fire, will not subside until the last trace of camphor is burnt, so when the aham sphurana is experienced it will not subside until the last trace of the ego is destroyed. That is, when the mind or ‘I’-thought turns 180 degrees away from the non-Self and turns towards the Self, it is caught in the grip of the Self. After this, it cannot turn towards the non-Self again. This is the state of sphurana, which is the correct sign indicating that the reality is about to be experienced directly. But since in this state there is still a feeling of attending to the Self, this sphurana is not actually the Self, the reality; the reality is the source to which this sphurana attends or clings. When even this feeling of attending to the Self subsides, the sphurana itself subsides, and only being remains. This state, in which even the slightest trace of the ego or individuality has been completely annihilated, is called liberation, the direct experience of the reality, or the natural state of the Self (sahajatma sthiti).

In the concluding portion of his letter Sri Bhagavan explains how unbroken awareness is a consequence of the subsidence of the sphurana, and he relates it to the heart-centre which he locates on the right side of the chest.

Concerning this unbroken awareness, in Vivekachudamani, verse 380, it is said: ‘Self, which is self-effulgent and the witness of all, ever shines [as ‘I-I’] in the mind. Taking this Self, which is distinct from what is unreal, as the target [of your attention] experience it as ‘I’ through unbroken awareness.'

The non-existence of the sense of limitation is the fruit of meditation. This is indeed the unbroken experience. This is natural to God and liberated souls. When the mind, having pure sattva as its characteristic remains attending to the aham sphurana, which is the sign of the forthcoming direct experience of the Self, the downward-facing heart becomes upward-facing, blossoms and remains in the form of that [the Self]; [because of this] the aforesaid attention to the source of the aham sphurana alone is the path. When thus attended to, Self, the reality, alone will remain shining in the centre of the Heart as ‘I am I’.

In the middle of this explanation, after the phrase 'downward-facing heart', Bhagavan quotes in full verses 18 and 19 from the Supplement to the Forty Verses. Since this quotation makes the sentence extremely long and difficult to follow, the two verses are given below:

Between the two breasts, below the chest and above the stomach, there are six things of many colours. Among these the one thing which resembles a lily-bud and which is within, two digits to the right [of the centre of the chest] is the heart. Its face is inverted [turned downwards]. In the tiny hole within it there exists the dense darkness [of ignorance] together with desire and so on. All the major nerves are connected with it; it is the abode of breath, the mind and the light [of consciousness].

After describing the Heart as being a downward-facing lily-bud that exists two digits to the right from the centre of the chest, Sri Bhagavan says that by attending to the source of the aham-sphurana, this lily-bud will be made to face upwards and blossom. In this context it is worth noting that in Spiritual Instruction (Chapter 2, Question 9) Sri Bhagavan explains that although the Heart is described in this way in these two verses, the true import of the word Heart (hridayam) is only the Self in which there are no differences such as ‘in’ and ‘out’ or ‘up’ and ‘down’. In Maharshi’s Gospel (Book 2, Chapter 4) he states that people ‘cannot help thinking in terms of the physical body’ and ‘it is by coming down to this ordinary level of understanding that a place is assigned to the Heart in the physical body’. Therefore, the description of the Heart as a downward-facing lily-bud that must be made to face upwards and blossom, is only figurative and not literal, and it is given only for those whose minds are much inclined to raja yoga, which abounds with such figurative descriptions.

In Self Enquiry (Chapter 7) Sri Bhagavan says:

The mind alone is the kundalini. It is described otherwise as a serpent only for those having a gross outlook. The six yogic centres and so on are all only mental imaginations and are meant only for beginners in yoga.

The same comments apply equally well to the description of the Heart as a downward-facing lily-bud.

As Sri Bhagavan says in Sri Ramana Gita (V. 2),

That from which all thoughts of embodied beings issue forth is called the Heart. All descriptions of it are only mental conceptions.

As regards the true significance of this figurative description of the Heart, since Sri Bhagavan says that attention to the source (i.e. the Self) is the only way to make the downward-facing Heart turn upwards and blossom, it is reasonable to infer that the downward-facing Heart signifies our power of attention being turned towards the non-Self. The turning upwards of the Heart signifies that same power of attention turning towards the Self. By extension, the blossoming of the Heart signifies the dawn of Self-knowledge that results from such one-pointed Self-attention.

The Response of Ganapati Muni

The following is an extract from Ganapati Muni’s letter, dated 3rd June 1931, which is of interest in this context on account of the inferences that he draws from the reply of Sri Bhagavan.

Sundara has written in his letter the explanation given by Bhagavan. By that, all our doubts here are dispelled. The saying of Bhagavan that the experience of the non-existence of the sense of limitation is the same in God and liberated souls has removed some other doubts of ours also. From this saying we have understood that there does exist Iswara, the controller of the universe, that there does also exist individuality for liberated souls and that their experience is the same only in respect of the non-existence of this sense of limitation. By this, the party which says that Bhagavan’s Sat-Darshana gives room for the theory of simultaneous creation has also been replied to. A reply to that party is in Sat-Darshana also.

Two particularly interesting points are worthy of note in this letter of Ganapati Muni:

(1) His conclusion that Bhagavan taught that liberated souls have individuality.

(2) His statement that Bhagavan’s reply is an answer to those who say that Sat-Darshana supports the theory of simultaneous creation.

With regard to the first point, the question of whether a liberated soul retains his individuality even after the destruction of the ego, was for long a point of contention among the devotees of Sri Bhagavan. The question is discussed in Talks (No. 446), Sat-Darshana Bhasya and Maha Yoga. The verdict of Sri Bhagavan on this question is given in verse 119 of the Garland of Guru’s Sayings:

The jivanmukta has attained the state of reality that shines, transcending individuality and non-individuality. If one insists that, in this experience, he still has a distinct individuality, such an assertion arises only through the limited knowledge of pandits who are bound to the false. The form of jivanmuktas is the space of consciousness which is the clean mirror that reflects whatever is placed before it. The individuality that seems to exist for these [jivanmuktas] is only the reflection of the individuality of those who love individuality.

With regard to the second point about creation, in Sri Ramana Reminiscences (pp. 100-101) by G. V. Subbaramayya, Sri Bhagavan explains the difference between the theory of gradual creation that appears to have been espoused by Ganapati Muni and the theory of simultaneous creation that was held by other devotees.

Sri Bhagavan also explained the difference between srishti-drishti vadam espoused by Sri Kavyakantha [Ganapati Muni] and drishti-srishti vadam supported by Sri K. Lakshmana Sarma and others. According to the former, the Universe is created by God, and man merges into Godhead through Jnana-Siddhi (attainment of knowledge). According to the latter, both Universe and God are the illusion of man formed by the outgoing mind. To the question ‘How can God be the outcome of man’s illusion?’ this school replies with the analogy of a dead parent or a king appearing in [a] dream and evoking at the time the sentiments of filial devotion or loyalty in the dreamer.

In conclusion Sri Bhagavan declared: ‘Without the seer, the seen, be they worlds or gods, cannot exist. All those objects of sight depend upon the seer. The purpose of all objects of sight is only to point to the seer. The purpose of all creation is verily to get at the creator.’

Sri Bhagavan clearly concluded his explanation in favour of simultaneous creation by saying: ‘Without the seer, the seen, be they worlds or gods, cannot exist. All those objects of sight depend upon the seer.’

[Editorial interpolation, February 2010. At the time that Bhagavan was making these remarks, there were two published commentaries available on Ulladu Narpadu: Lakshmana Sarma's Tamil explanation and Kapali Sastri's Sat-Darshana Bhashya. With regard to their explanations of Bhagavan's teachings on creation, Bhagavan is clearly siding with Lakshmana Sarma's interpretation in this quotation.

In Living by the Words of Bhagavan (2nd ed. p. 104) it is reported that Bhagavan went to the ashram office and encouraged Chinnaswami to publish Lakshmana Sarma's book by saying, 'Everyone is saying that Lakshmana Sarma's commentary on Ulladu Narpadu is the best. Nobody has studied Ulladu Narpadu the way Sarma has. Why don't you publish his book?']

Since this is one of the major differences between the philosophy of Ganapati Muni and that of Sri Bhagavan, it will be helpful to examine these theories in greater detail.

The debate revolves around two Sanskrit terms, srishti-drishti vada and drishti-srishti vada. Srishti-drishti vada means the theory of gradual creation, that is, the theory that God created the world and the soul. There are many different theories to explain how this took place, but the particular theory of gradual creation espoused by Ganapati Muni appears to have been the theory of transformation (parinama vada), since this is clearly supported in Sat-Darshana Bhashya, a commentary on a Sanskrit translation of Bhagavan’s forty-verse poem, Ulladu Narpadu. Though the commentary was penned by Kapali Sastri, a close disciple of Ganapati Muni, it was done under Ganapati Muni’s supervision and accurately reflects his views.

According to the theory of parinama vada, Brahman does not appear as the world and the soul, as a rope appears to be a snake, but undergoes a change and becomes them in the same way that clay becomes a pot. This theory maintains that Brahman has actually (and not merely apparently) undergone transformation and change. It also maintains that the effects, namely, the world and the soul, are as real as their cause, Brahman. Ganapati Muni believed that individuality was real and not imaginary, and that individuality survived even Self-realisation. It was for this reason that he was tempted to interpret Bhagavan’s words to mean that the soul retained its individuality after liberation. However, a close reading of this section of Bhagavan’s letter reveals that there is no mention of realised beings retaining individuality; all it says is that realised beings experience ‘the non-existence of the sense of liberation’ and that this is ‘natural to God and liberated souls’.

Drishti-srishti vada means the theory of simultaneous creation, and is also known as the theory of false appearance. According to this theory, Brahman is the sole reality that never undergoes any change, and the world, the soul and God are false appearances that rise into existence simultaneously with the seer. This theory maintains that all objects depend for their apparent existence upon the seer. Whereas in gradual creation, objects are seen because they have been created, in simultaneous creation, objects are created because they are seen.

Ganapati Muni also concludes from this letter that Sat-Darshana, which is his translation of Sri Bhagavan’s work Ulladu Narpadu, does not support the theory of simultaneous creation.

The question of which creation theory is taught in Ulladu Narpadu has been answered by Bhagavan himself in verse 83 of the Garland of Guru’s Sayings.

Through the venba verse that begins, ‘Because we perceive the world...,’ Guru Ramana – who teaches the one true beneficial attainment [jnana] that is needed by the people of the world – declared, out of his love for us, the doctrine of illusory appearance to be the truth that bestows the ultimate benefit, avoiding the consideration of other doctrines.

In this verse Bhagavan states that since he wrote Ulladu Narpadu, it is understood that he teaches only the doctrine of false appearance, or simultaneous creation, and that he has set aside all other theories. It should also be clear from reading the text of Ulladu Narpadu that Sri Bhagavan is teaching that the seer and the seen rise together.

In verse seven it states, ‘Although the world and the mind rise and set together, it is by the mind alone that the world shines’ and in verse twenty-six it states, ‘If the ego comes into existence, all else will come into existence. If the ego does not exist, all else will not exist.’

Although Bhagavan taught the theory of simultaneous creation, this theory should not be elevated to the status of an absolute truth. Sri Bhagavan’s actual experience is ajata, which is a denial of all creation theories, simultaneous or otherwise, since it is the experience that neither the world, the soul nor God has ever come into existence. Ajata is the final experience, not a theory that can be taught, for there is no room in this experience for such differences as a teacher and a person to be taught.

Bhagavan’s teachings assume that we are aware that the world rises and sets with the rising and setting of the seer. The first words of Ulladu Narpadu are ‘Because we see the world’, and this assumption that we see the world becomes the basis for this teaching on creation. If he was intending to attempt to teach ajata, he would not have admitted the existence of the world at all, and if he had intended to teach gradual creation he would have said, ‘Because the world is created’.

Although Sri Bhagavan sometimes used to speak from the standpoint of gradual creation while replying to questioners, in his main works (for example, in Who am I?, in verses 6, 7, 14, 23 and 26 of Ulladu Narpadu, and in verses 6 and 7 of Arunachala Ashtakam), he clearly teaches only the theory of simultaneous creation. As he has explained in Self Enquiry in the answer to question 10, the theory of gradual creation is taught only for immature aspirants, while the theory of simultaneous creation is taught to mature aspirants. The same idea is expressed by him in Day by Day (15th March 1946) and in Talks no. 651 where he concludes: ‘But the true seeker can be content with yugapat srishti, instantaneous creation.’

Postscript, February 2010

Though this was written almost thirty years ago, I think it has stood the test of time well enough to deserve another public airing. Going through it this morning, I can recognise many ideas (such as the section on aham-sphurana) that Michael received from Sadhu Om which I merely edited and rewrote, without being entirely in agreement with them, but overall I think it is a good commentary on Bhagavan’s letter and Ganapati Muni’s response to it.

In addition to the extra paragraphs ('Editorial interpolation, February 2010') I have included more modern translations of the Guru Vachaka Kovai verses and a more complete version of the quote from Sri Ramana Reminiscences, but apart from these minor additions, the article appears here as it first appeared in The Mountain Path in 1982.

In the final paragraph Michael mentioned several verses from Ulladu Narpadu and Arunachala Ashtakam which, he said, supported his contention that Bhagavan taught drishti-srishti vada, and not srishti-drishti vada. Here are the verses. The Ulladu Narpadu selection has been translated by Robert Butler, while the two Arunachala Ashtakam verses have been taken from Sri Arunachala Stuti Panchakam, Sadhu Om and Michael James’ translation of and commentary on Bhagavan's Arunachala poems:

6

The world is of the form of the five senses. It is nothing other. Those five senses are perceived through the five organs of sense. Since the mind alone perceives the world through the medium of the senses, can there be a world apart from the mind? Speak!

7

Although the world and the mind arise and subside together, it is through the mind that the world shines forth. That which is the perfection that shines without appearing or disappearing, as the place where both the world and the mind appear and disappear, is the Real.

14

If the first person [I] exists, the second and third persons [you, he, she, it and they] will also be in existence. But if, upon one’s investigation into the reality of its nature, the first person is destroyed, the second and third persons will also cease to be, and one's own nature, shining alone, will be verily the state of the Self.

23

This body does not say ‘I’. And no one says ‘When I am asleep I do not exist’. After the ‘I’ arises, all else arises. Investigate with a keen mind whence this ‘I’ arises.

26

If the ego arises, all else will arise. If the ego is not, nothing else will exist. The ego, truly, is all. Know that simply to enquire what it is, is to renounce everything.

Arunachala Ashtakam 6

You, the Heart, the light of consciousness, the one reality, alone exist! A wonderful sakti exists in You as not other [than You]. From [it a] series of subtle shadowy thoughts [rise and] by means of [the reflected light of] consciousness in the whirl of prarabdha are [simultaneously] seen [as] shadowy world pictures, both inside [on] the mirror of the thought-light and outside through the [five] senses such as the eyes, just like a cinema picture which exists [by being projected] through a lens. O Hill of Grace, whether they [the world pictures] stop [appearing], or whether they continue [to appear], they do not exist apart from You.

7

If the thought ‘I’ does not exist, no other thing will exist. Until that [moment when the ‘I’-thought ceases], if other thoughts rise [one should enquire] ‘To whom do they rise?’ To me. [Then, by scrutinising] what is the rising place of ‘I’, merge [within]. Diving within [in this manner], if one reaches the Heart-throne [one will become] verily the Sovereign under the shade of one umbrella. [There] the dream known as ‘inside and outside’, the two karmas, death and birth, pleasure and pain, and darkness and light, will not exist, and the limitless ocean of the light of grace, called Aruna Hill, which dances motionlessly in the court of the Heart, alone [will exist].