Advaita Vedanta
Ramana Maharshi is generally recognized as the teacher of Advaita Vedanta school, the embodiment of the highest advaitavedantic truths and ideals, whose teaching shines as a priceless jewel in the crown of Advaita. In view of this fact, and in order to put the texts presented on this site into a broader context and to help readers less familiar with Advaita philosophy better understand their meaning, we present below a brief description of the classical Advaita Vedanta with a consideration of Sri Ramana's groundbreaking teaching.
It should be noted, however, that Ramana himself never officially confirmed the connection between his teaching and Advaita Vedanta, and when asked if he teaches the same as Sri Shankara, he responded in his characteristic manner: "Those who know Shankara's teachings and mine claim that they are similar, but I teach from my own experience". However, by most researchers, disciples or devotees, Sri Ramana is regarded as a teacher of the Advaita Vedanta - and we present him and him teachings as such too.
We point out, however, that the picture of Advaita Vedanta outlined here may differ on several important points from its available academic studies or the knowledge imparted by many of the "scribes" of classical Advaita(1). This is firstly due to the fact that the practical way we propose for considering spiritual teachings differs from the academic or pandit`s approach that is most often limited to intellectual ponderings (or insights); secondly, in academic circles, Sri Ramana Maharshi's teachings still seem to be undervalued, too little or not considered at all, which we regret knowing that without Sri Ramana's revelation [sruti(1A)] of the ultimate practice leading to supreme spiritual fulfillment, Advaita's teachings will remain a beautiful, intricate and sublime but incomplete discipline lacking a key element. Advaita's path ignoring the teachings of Sri Ramana is like an expedition to an eight-thousander reaching the final base camp, but not reaching the summit.
We would also like to draw attention here to the issue of misclassification of the person and teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana, which comes up again and again. Because of the differences between Sri Ramana's teachings and the Upanishads or Sri Shankara's Advaita Vedanta, some incorrectly classify Ramana Maharshi as part of the neo-Advaita movement; moreover, there are those who credit him with initiating or patronizing this movement. In doing so, they forget to notice the chasm yawning between the core of Ramana's teachings and what neo-Advaita propagates.
Ramana Maharshi deepened and enriched Advaita Vedanta, while neo-Advaita shallowed and impoverished it; thus Sri Ramana and neo-Advaita are pulling Advaita Vedanta in exactly opposite directions - one up, the other down. We caution here against making the schoolboy mistake of associating Ramana Maharshi with neo-Advaita.
Ramana Maharshi is the last of the great rishis, sages who gave to humanity the wisdom of the Upanishads and the path leading to Liberation [Mukti, Moksha]. With his teaching and attitude, he completed the Advaita Vedanta symphony recorded in the Upanishads and systematized by Sri Shankara by adding the final score to it - a practical path to Liberation intended for mature adepts graduating from the Vedanta school, which cannot be found (at least not fully) in the Upanishads and Shankara.
Ramana Maharshi can either be included in the Advaita Vedanta tradition, making this spiritual system complete, or his person and teachings can be considered as a completely separate phenomenon, but in doing so depriving Advaita of a key element and ability to fulfill its mission. It is definitely incorrect to attribute to Sri Ramana's affiliation to neo-Advaita or other similar modern movements that simplify, modernize, shallow or simply misinterpret the traditional spiritual teachings of the East. It is also incorrect to put him in one line with modern "gurus" originating from these movements.
Undoubtedly, Ramana's teachings and persona are attractive and catchy to neo-Advaitaists and their ilk because they seem easy and undemanding on the surface (although in fact the exact opposite is true), but taken, interpreted and misrepresented by unqualified people (i.e., those not practicing the path of Sri Ramana to at least an advanced degree) from authentic spirituality become a mental game leading nowhere. The whole misunderstanding of tying neo-Advaita to Ramana Maharshi seems to have its roots in the persona of one of the initiators of neo-Advaita, which is discussed more extensively in the footnotes(3, 3A).
Although we include here Ramana Maharshi's teachings in the Advaita Vedanta tradition, we emphasize at the same time that this is by no means a necessary and inseparable relationship, and that before getting down to the essence of Sri Ramana's teachings - which is the properly performed Atma-vichara [Self-enquiry, Self-attention] practice - there is by no means any requirement for prior mastery of the secrets of Advaita. The only requirement for this, besides a correct description of the practice, is spiritual maturity, which does not at all have to involve knowledge of the arcana of Advaita Vedanta or any other spiritual school. However, it should not be forgotten that for the vast majority of adepts walking on the path of Sri Ramana, which leads directly to Liberation, it is necessary, if not indispensable, to study and to reflect/insight into [shravana and manana] the meaning of Bhagavan's teachings and/or those of his closest disciples.
____________
(1) We stipulate that we do not belong to such "scribes" of Advaita, and what we say here about Advaita may be considered incomplete and too general in the eyes of such people [pandits].
Ramana Maharshi presented strictly practical approach to spiritual teachings, looking unenthusiastically at the excessive elaborate teachings proposed by various spiritual schools, including Advaita, such as the minute enumeration of types of prana or the gradation of the state of Liberation, saying that this is creating confusion where confusion is absolutely unnecessary.
We take the same position, describing the teachings of Advaita on our sites only to the extent that it can be helpful to practically oriented adepts, avoiding unnecessary intricacies and complications. We consider defining four successive stages of Liberation to be as meaningful as defining the boundaries of boundlessness. As a matter of principle, we do not split hairs, and please don't expect us to do so; we point out nuances where it is needed for the practice, not where it is an unnecessary burden.
We suggest those who have the need for a very meticulous study of the arcana of classical Advaita Vedanta to turn elsewhere. In doing so, we caution, however, that an excessive love of studying the scriptures marks the existence of sastra-vasana and reinforces it, while in order to truly experience the happiness of the Self, one needs sat-vasana, the love of abiding in the Self, of which the sastra-vasana is the enemy.
(1A) Sruti is knowledge directly drawn from the Source by sages who are in a state of realization of the Self. It is not a revelation occurring in visions or dreams, as experienced, for example, by some saints. Sruti does not come from a person, either human or divine - if it did, it could not be considered a reliable source of knowledge of that which is beyond the cognitive capacity of the personal "I".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction.
Vedanta is India's best-known philosophical system, while Advaita Vedanta is a non-dual stream of Vedanta.
The word "Advaita" [a-dvaita] means "not two", "non-dual", "non-duality", "one without the second"; the word "Vedanta" literally means "the end (or goal) of the Vedas", the sacred books of Hinduism.
Advaita Vedanta thus means "non-dualistic [non-dual] culmination (end/goal) of the Vedas". Traditionally, the Vedanta scriptures include the Upanishads, Brahmasutras and Bhagavadgita. Advaita traces its roots to the oldest Upanishads, being the oldest school of Vedanta that has lasted until today; it is originally a metaphysics derived from the Upanishads and texts based on them.
Non-dualism can be found in various philosophical schools of the East, the most notable of which is the absolute monism (kevala-advaita-vada) of Sri Shankara [Adi Shankara, Adi Shankaracharya], who lived in the 8th century, a sage (3), philosopher, and reformer of the Vedic and Brahminical traditions. Sri Shankara is referred to by some as the founder of Advaita Vedanta, although he was not it strictly speaking, but he was undoubtedly its greatest protagonist, the one who consolidated and unified the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta, presenting it in the form of an orderly system, making it the most significant and most widespread philosophical and spiritual school of India
The second great teacher and reformer of Advaita Vedanta is the great sage Sri Ramana Maharshi (1879-1950), who first of all modified the final prescribed method of practice for disciples in such a way that from a practical point of view the path of Advaita Vedanta - and, most importantly, the realization of the goal it sets for those who follow it - became open to spiritual adepts.
Using traditional Indian concepts, Advaita defines and interprets them in its own way, expounding to adepts the path to Liberation [Mukti, Moksha], the highest human possibility and value.
Over the years, Advaita Vedanta has influenced other Indian philosophical and spiritual schools, having itself also been influenced by them to some extent.
Nowadays, a more or less faithful reflection of the Advaita Vedanta philosophy can be found in the neo-Advaita movements(2) which are based on popular, simplified Western interpretations of ancient Advaita teachings and the teachings of Ramana Maharshi or other sages.
From Advaita's philosophy, most often simplifying it and interpreting it in a Western fashion, draw also the contemporary New Age or nonduality movements, bringing together various spiritual traditions whose common denominator is a non-dual experience appearing somewhere in the teachings, although it also happens that - probably for marketing reasons - dualistic, having nothing to do with non-duality teachings are spread under the name of "nonduality".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Main concepts.
Advaita Vedanta first postulates the existence of one Reality, Brahman, as the one, absolute and ultimate Truth; in ontological terms, Brahman (or more precisely nirguna Brahman) is in Advaita the only real, true Being - the Absolute. Brahman is undifferentiated Pure Consciousness devoid of all attributes, adjuncts, divisions, changes, limitations, etc.; it is self-luminous, self-conscious, timeless, eternal, all-pervading One without the second.
Further, Advaita equates the reality of Brahman with the reality of our own true Self called [from Sanskrit] Atman. In its true nature, the Self [Atman, our true Self] is always free Pure Consciousness identical with Brahman.
The beginning and end of Advaita Vedanta is the absolute undifferentiation between Atman [Self] and Brahman [Absolute].
Advaita Vedanta aims at the realization by the spiritual adept in a practical way the unity Brahman = Atman. The name Advaita Vedanta, or non-dual culmination of the Vedas, thus does not refer - on a deeper level - to the Upanishads or writings based on them, but to the practical culmination of the spiritual path of the adept, which is crowned with the state of non-dual Oneness with the Supreme. Advaita Vedanta offers disciples walking its paths the means and methods leading to this.
Advaita emphasizes Jivanmukti or Liberation [Moksha, Mukti] while living in the body, claiming - in contrast to other schools of Indian philosophy - that it is possible. Advaita teaches that true knowledge of one's own Self [Atman] is Liberation. Such true knowledge [true awareness] is direct cognition/knowledge [realization] taking place in the order of being, without the mediation of tools such as the senses, mind or intellect; to know the Self is to be the Self.
Advaita proclaims that the phenomenal world is an unreal thing born of Maya [colloquially illusion, literally "that which is not"], resulting from ignorance [avidya] manifestation. It is an unreal superimposition [adhyasa] projected onto the real Brahman, which is the substrate [substratum] and the only Reality; just as unreal images are projected onto a cinema screen, the image of the manifested world is projected onto the screen of Reality [Brahman]; the impermanent is projected onto the eternal, the changeable onto the changeless, the relative perspective onto the absolute. Advaita maintains that there is only One [Brahman], and everything else is a superimposition on that One caused by ignorance.
Through systematic insight into the nature of our self and the world, Advaita draws the conclusion that the Self, whose true nature is unchangeable Pure Consciousness, is real, while the ever-changing phenomenal world and personal "I" are unreal. Ultimately, it concludes that in essence, our true nature (and also the true nature of the universe) is Sat-Cit-Ananda, or Existence-Consciousness-Happiness/Bliss.
Advaita proclaims that our true nature and the true nature of the universe is revealed when the unreal superimpositions projected onto the real are removed. Such a state of affairs Advaita calls true knowing the Self [realization, Self-knowledge, Self-realization].
In the Vedanta, the truth of the Self is also the truth of Reality. Since the reality of Brahman is undifferentiated, there is nothing other that can confirm its existence - Brahman is a self-confirming reality. Likewise, no analysis performed with the mind or intellect will yield knowledge of the Self, which is unknowable to the mind. Therefore, Self-knowledge is assumed to be non-discursive and conceptless knowledge. Advaitavedantic Self-knowledge, unlike empirical cognition, is non-sensual, direct and timeless.
The truths preached by the Vedanta are based on three sources: scriptures [sastras], rational [logical] proof and direct experience. The third one is superior; the first two are acceptable only until the time of direct experience.
A unique feature of investigating the nature of things in Advaita Vedanta's approach is to take into account all three states of our existence: waking, dreaming and deep sleep, due to the fact that in all three states we experience ourselves. According to Advaita, in order to get a complete picture of reality, we must consider the evidence from all three of these states.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the world is unreal, why do I see it?
One of the key points of Vedanta is the question: if Brahman is the only Reality and the Oneness, how do we experience multiplicity and diversity in the manifested world? Advaita Vedanta answering this question says: through "avidya" [ignorance], which causes Maya to "veil" the Oneness and project multiplicity. The powers that cause such a thing are called the "veiling power" [avarna sakti] and the "projecting power" [vikshepa sakti] of the cosmic Great Illusion - Maya.
In fact, only the One, non-dual, all-pervading Reality called Brahman is all that exists. By its very nature, it is the real, eternal, self-illuminating, Pure Consciousness [sat-cit-ananda, existence-consciousness-happiness]. When one realizes the identity of the Self and Brahman, the dream of Maya comes to an end. The state one is then in, to distinguish it from the three states we know, is called the fourth state: Turiya or Turiyatita (transcendental state), to show that it transcends all states and does not belong to their order.
By placing an equals sign between Atman and Brahman [Atman = Brahman or I = It], Advaita Vedanta describes the essence of immanent [Self] and transcendent [Brahman] Reality. Humanity does not seem to have developed a loftier concept of man in the universe so far.
In Advaita, the false identification of the Self with the non-Self - i.e., the personal "I" or ego - is considered the root cause of samsara (the wheel of birth and death) and the mechanism that allows the non-Self to veil the Self, activating the Maya's powers of veiling and projection. Solely as a result of the ego's activity and only from its perspective, which mistakenly takes the unreal, unconscious body, which is the source of unhappiness, to be real, conscious, and the source of happiness [i.e., as if it were sat-cit-ananda] this world appears to be real [sat], the beings living in it appear to be conscious [cit], and the objects in it appear to be the source of happiness [ananda]. Ego is the cause that makes nama and rupa (name and form, the two unreal aspects of Brahman) appear as if they are real, conscious and give happiness (just like sat-cit-ananda, the three real aspects of Brahman).
Superimposing existence [sat], consciousness [cit] and happiness [ananda], which are real, on the names and forms of the world, which are unreal, and seeing these names and forms as real, is called wrong outlook of the ego [wrong seeing with the ego's eye or from wrong ego perspective] [dosha-drishti].
When the ego is removed this apparent "sat-cit-ananda" projected onto the world disappears and only the true sat-cit-ananda shines forth, which is the Self - the support, foothold or foundation of the entire manifested world. Only then does one come to know the truth that it is only through the existence [sat] of the Self that the names and forms of this world manifested as if they really had existence; that it is only through the consciousness [cit] of the Self that the names and forms of this world manifested as if they really had consciousness; that it is only through the happiness [ananda] of the Self that the names and forms of this world manifested as if they really gave happiness.
Therefore, the removal of this body-consciousness knot [chit-jada-granthi] of identification of the non-Self with the Self - called Liberation [Moksha, Mukti] in Advaita - is at the center of the teaching of Advaita Vedanta, which offers the means and tools for this. The ultimate, direct practice leading to Liberation is Atma-vichara [atma-vicara].
The fundamental truth of Advaita is the Self, which has the nature of Pure Consciousness. However, it is not a truth knowable by the mind; it is the self-existent, self-luminous and self-conscious truth of existence, which cannot be denied for the reason that the attempt to deny one's own existence is itself a confirmation of that existence. Advaita guides the disciple to the experiential realization of the truth of the Self. It calls this true knowledge, Liberation or realization of the Self; in the advaitavedantic order of things, there is no difference between knowing the Self and realizing the Self - to know the Self is to be the Self. The present wrong knowledge of the non-Self as the Self is to be replaced by the true knowledge of the Self as it is - such is the condition sine qua non for Liberation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maya - that, which is not.
In Advaita's writings, Maya is sometimes referred to as "Brahman's dream", but most often it is called "illusory existence" or "illusion". Ramana Maharsi, however, was not a proponent of this term, pointing out at times that the word "Maya" literally means "that, which is not".
From this delusive Maya emerges the seemingly real sense of individuality, the false idea of "I am jiva". In order for reality to be known, this false sense of individuality must disappear. Although Maya creates a sense of individuality as if it possesses great power and authority, it is actually "ma-ya" - that, which it is not. The condition for truly knowing our own nature is to find out the non-existence of Maya and all her creations, just as the condition for knowing the rope as it really is is to find out the non-existence of the illusory snake that seemingly veils the rope.
The power of Maya is leveled and ultimately removed by grace. Grace, on the other hand, according to the definition given by Ramana Maharshi, is the "I am" consciousness present within each of us. Paradoxically, however, although the Supreme continually bestows His grace upon us by shining inside each of us as the closest to us "I am", we, deluded by the illusion of Maya, fail to take advantage of this boon, chasing the illusions of sense objects outside in search of the happiness on the outside, which we actually have on the inside.
What we need to do to change this is to turn our attention away from the objects served by Maya and turn it inward toward "I am" - only there can we drink of the divine ambrosia and satisfy our thirst. To do this, our own effort is necessary; the effort to direct attention to "I am" and keep it there, clinging to the Self, is called Self-attention (Self-enquiry).
So to overcome Maya and experience Reality as it really is, a combination of these two intertwined elements is necessary: properly directed effort and grace.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
True knowledge of the Self [Self-knowledge, Self-awareness].
The true knowledge of one's own nature is the foundational point in Advaita Vedanta, because all other knowledge is dependent on this primary knowledge. We need to know who we are in order to take the correct perspective in relation to the world, God and everything else. Without correct knowledge of who we are, we cannot properly determine our place in the cosmic order of things. In Indian philosophy, the lack of true Self-knowledge, or in other words, ignorance/lack of knowledge of the Self, is seen as the root cause of all of life's problems. The consequence of lack of Self-knowledge is an improper assessment of the value of objects around us developing excessive attachment to desired objects, becoming a breeding ground for anxiety, unhappiness or a sense of deficiency. Advaita proclaims that without true knowledge of our true nature - the truth of our existence - we cannot overcome misery and find true, lasting peace and happiness.
Happiness [ananda] is integrally inscribed in our true nature [sat-cit-ananda] and we can only find it by knowing it, i.e., by realizing it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Characteristics of a spiritual aspirant.
Advaita Vedanta is a spiritual school for mature adepts, and from the outset it requires the disciple embarking and following its path to have certain qualifications, defining four necessary qualities that an adept seeking Truth or Self-realization must possess. These are:
1. The ability to distinguish between the real and the unreal [viveka].
2. Dispassion, detachment, desirelessness or non-attachment [vairagya].
3. The six inner virtues/treasures of self-control [shatsampatti].
4. Longing for Liberation [mumukshu].
The first quality of a disciple is the ability to distinguish between the real and the unreal [viveka]. Sastras say that only that which (a)is not subject to change, transformation or division, (b)exists continuously (c)can exist by itself (be self-existent) and know itself by itself while being independent of others, is the only one that is real. When we look at the world around us and the objects that surround us, we can come to the conclusion that nothing that has been created meets the criteria of reality - nothing lasts forever, everything is subject to constant change, and in order to know the manifested world we need the consciousness of mind.
Viveka is an extremely important quality of a spiritual aspirant. In the absence of the ability to discriminate developed to the proper degree, the adept has no ability to distinguish between Self and non-Self, so it is therefore not possible to practice Atma-vichara.
On a par with discernment stands dispassion or desirelessness [vairagya] in relation to what is unreal, which ceases to attract the Advaita adept and which he ceases to pursue. The dispassion is not a mere act of will, and should not be confused with renunciation of external possessions or abandonment of duties - it is a quenching of hidden inclinations taking place in the depths of the mind. "As thoughts arise, destroying them utterly without any residue in the very place of their origin is non-attachment" - says Ramana Maharshi [Nan Yar?]. He adds [Nan Yar?]: "Desirelessness is refraining from turning the mind towards any object [...], not seeking what is other than the Self is detachment or desirelessness".
In the final stage, dispassion is the extinction of what is called "kartapann" [kartrutva] - the deep-seated sense of doership [the feeling of being the performer of actions]: "I-am-the-doer". It is only when this sense is abandoned that further actions no longer blind a person and do not have karmic effects. Bhagavadgita calls this characteristic of the sages "action in inaction" or "inaction in action".
In an adept seeking Liberation, non-attachment must be mighty. Sri Shankara warns that one in whom it is merely superficial will not swim across the ocean of samsara, but will be sunk in the middle of it by the terrible shark of desires or fears.
The six virtues (treasures, jewels, wealth) of self-control [shatsampatti], which are the ethical foundations of spiritual life and form the inner ability to know the highest knowledge, are as follows:
shama - the ability to control the mind
dama - the ability to control the senses
uparati - renunciation
titiksha - perseverance (ability to bear everything with balance)
shraddha - trusting and having faith in the Guru's teachings and scriptures
samadhana - focusing the mind on the Truth
The desire/longing for Liberation [mumukshu, mumukshu] is an intense longing for liberation from the bonds of ignorance and delusion. The scriptures proclaim that if this quality is lacking, there is no hope for Self-realization. The desire/longing for Liberation along with dispassion is the foundation of all spiritual pursuits - without them, the other qualities form only a pretence of spirituality (this applies to all spiritual paths, not just Advaita Vedanta, but on the path to Liberation, both qualities must be extremely strongly developed).
Sri Shankara says that non-attachment [vairagya] and discrimination [viveka] are to an aspirant like two wings to a bird - if one does not have both, then no one, with anyone's help, can reach the peak on which the palace of Liberation is erected. Sticking with Shankara's analogy, one can add that the desire/longing for Liberation is like the engine of a flying machine, without which the palace of Liberation is as unreachable as without wings.
The necessary depth of the desire/longing for Liberation is illustrated by the following parable.
One day a spiritual adept came to the teacher and said:
"I would like to become Your disciple. I desire Liberation. Lead me along the path to Liberation".
The teacher replied: "Good. Though follow me", and led him with him directly into the ocean. When the water reached their chests the teacher grabbed the student's head and plunged him under the water. At first the student remained calm, thinking, "This is surely some kind of test, I have to endure it. In a moment he will let me go and be amazed at my composure". However, after a few tens of seconds, he began to feel uneasy and tried unsuccessfully to free himself from the grip holding him. Then he panicked, frantically and desperately struggling to get air. However, the teacher did not let go. He held the adept's head underwater until the adept stopped struggling and almost lost consciousness - only then did he release his grip. The freed adept, as soon as he caught his breath, cried out in rage: "Are you crazy? You almost drowned me"! to which the teacher, looking calmly into his eyes, replied: "When you crave Liberation as intensely as you craved breath while underwater, then come back to me, I will accept you as my disciple".
When the desire for Liberation is as strong as a drowning man's desire to catch his breath, only then is the disciple ready to meet the teacher and embark on the direct path leading to the realization of the Self, or Liberation [Mukti, Moksha].
These four conditions are meant to prepare the disciple for the ultimate path of realizing the Oneness of Atman-Brahman, and are required for the disciple to be able to undertake and perform proper practice. In order to be able to talk about Liberation the aforementioned qualities must be developed to a very strong degree. Traditionally, it is believed that their order is not random, and the appearance of each feature is conditioned by the earlier development of the previous one; and so discrimination is a prerequisite for the appearance of dispassion, dispassion must precede the six virtues, which in turn must appear for the desire for Liberation to arise.
(It is worth adding to the catalog of qualities required of a disciple embarking on the path to Liberation the complete lack of disposition to self-deception, which in principle follows from the qualities mentioned above, but is worth mentioning expressis verbis in our view).
However, a practical approach makes one look at this model in a more dynamic way as well. The driving force behind undertaking spiritual practice is the desire/longing for Liberation - without it, the power and determination to perform practice will be lacking. In turn, spiritual practice makes all virtues - such as desirelessness, the power to discriminate, etc. flourish; thus, the desire/longing for Liberation has a feedback effect on the other qualities. It should be mentioned here that this process works both ways - lack of spiritual practice will result in the erosion of the aforementioned qualities and a mostly unnoticed decline.
Ramana Maharshi once said [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi]: "If you do not make Atma vichara, then loka vichara creeps in", which means that by neglecting the practice of knowing the Self, we are necessarily practicing the practice of knowing the world at the same time, so that the fetters of Maya tighten ever tighter.
When the aspirant has developed the above qualities sufficiently, he becomes ready to be guided by a qualified spiritual teacher who not only knows the scriptures [sastras], but having gone through the practical path is himself firmly established in the state of the Self [atma-nishta].
The advaitavedantic process of receiving teachings is a three-step process. It begins with studying (listening to or reading) the teachings [shravana], deep reflection on them [manana], and practice [nididhyasana]. The entire three-step process is meant to lead the student in due course to the realization of the Oneness of Atman-Brahman.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spiritual guide-teacher [Guru]
When the disciple is mature he becomes ready to meet a spiritual teacher who will be his guide. According to Sri Shankara, the supreme knowledge should not be given to a disciple who is not self-controlled, but only to one who is tranquil and obedient.
A qualified spiritual teacher is called Sadguru [Satguru] - that is a master who has realized the Brahman-Atman Oneness and remains steadily established in the state of Self-realization. Only such a teacher is the Sadguru, and only he is a competent guide capable of leading disciples to Liberation. The Indian tradition places special emphasis on the necessity of being guided by the Guru living in the body [Jivanmukta].
However, here it is necessary to refer to the revolutionary teaching of Sri Ramana Maharshi, who, complementing the traditional teaching, proclaims that there is no absolute need for the guidance of an external Guru living in the body, because the Guru is within us and is our true Self; in fact, the Guru, the Self and God are one and the same. The Guru is both outside and inside; he pushes us from outside and pulls from inside, says Ramana.
The following conversation clarifies this issue [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi]:
"Questioner: Can Sri Bhagavan help us to realise the Truth?
Ramana Maharshi: Help is always there.
Questioner: Then there is no need to ask questions. I do not feel the everpresent help.
Ramana Maharshi: Surrender and you will find it.
Questioner: I am always at your feet. Will Bhagavan give us some upadesha to follow? Otherwise how can I get the help living 600 miles away?
Ramana Maharshi: That Sadguru is within.
Questioner: Sadguru is necessary to guide me to understand it.
Ramana Maharshi: The Sadguru is within.
Questioner: I want a visible Guru.
Ramana Maharshi: That visible Guru says that He is within".
The true Guru is within us and it is the Self - this is the highest and ultimate view of Advaita expressed in the words of Ramana Maharshi.(2B) (2C) (2D)
Thus, according to the authoritative verdict of Sri Ramana, disciples can do without an external Guru, as long as they surrender to the guidance of the inner Guru - the Self. This can only be accomplished through the practice of clinging to the Self called Atma-vichara. However, in order to know how to perform such a practice, one needs a bit of external teaching from Sadguru, which is successfully fulfilled by Sri Ramana Maharshi's own handwritten teachings, along with the instructions, explanations and commentaries of his closest disciples (ones who are listed on the site Ramana Maharshi).
____________
(2B) We draw here the reader's attention to the fact that this teaching of Sri Ramana applies primarily to mature disciples able to properly perform the proper practice of abiding in the Self [Atma-vichara/Self-enquiry proper phase] and thus be guided by the Guru-Self.
The teaching that the Self is the Guru is sometimes misinterpreted - immature adepts under the rulership of the ego-mind tend to think that their ego-mind is the Guru, instead of disregarding the mind to turn toward the Self to be guided by the real Satguru. The inner guidance of the Satguru takes place in the space of Silence when the mind is quieted, through the awareness of "I am I", not through the thinking mind.
In the 819th verse of Guru Vachaka Kovai Bhagavan instructs that if the pure conscience of a disciple, which he always follows, tells him not to perform seemingly good things, he should listen to his conscience and act accordingly. However, in his commentary on this instruction, Sadhu Om points out that the giving of this instruction was inspired by the Muruganar`s case and is intended for mature, advanced adepts, not for beginners. Since the mind of less mature people is unable to resist evil inclinations, their conscience may sometimes erroneously conclude that good is bad and bad is good. For such people, it will be better than being deluded by their wrong discrimination to submit to the advice of people who are more advanced on the spiritual path - Sadhu Om goes on to say.
This theme also appears in the verse 504 of Guru Vachaka Kovai and the commentary on it, where it is said that God continually gives instruction to the most valuable disciples through "I am I" consciousness, and that they can do without the Guru's external instructions. The shining of "I am I", the core of "I am" consciousness, is the silent teaching of the inner Guru - the Self; those who are able to enter the inner space of Silence, where the pure "I am I" shines forth, can rely on this alone, while the rest must make use of external instructions received either directly from the Guru, or through instructions written down by him, or transmitted through more advanced on the spiritual path adepts - those already guided by "I am I" consciousness.
(2C) Swami Annamalai said in one of his talks that such inner communion with the Guru-Self is the most perfect satsanga, better even than being in the physical presence of Jnani, but it is more difficult than the latter. He himself had been kept at arm's length by Bhagavan for the last 10 years of his life at Sri Ramana's side, and had never - not even on the day when Sri Ramana's body was dying - met with him, despite living within sight of him. In his own words, pushing him away was to make his attachment to Bhagavan's form die, as even that is an obstacle to attaining Jnana.
Thus, silent satsanga with the formless Self within is the most excellent satsanga, towering even over being in the physical presence of a realized sage, which still carries with it the need to transcend attachment to the form of his body (as explained in more detail in the tab Bhakti in the paragraph talking about the transition from Guru-bhakti to Para-bhakti).
When asked why he has no Guru, Ramana Maharshi himself said [Living By The Words Of Bhagavan]: " For me Self itself is the Guru".
(2D) Also interesting in this context are the words that Muruganar wrote down in one of his works, where he says that only when a devotee is fully mature can the Supreme, through His grace, bestow Jnana on him directly, but if he has not yet reached such maturity, a Guru is needed who has the additional power to bring the disciple to a state of full maturity so that he can then receive Jnana.
The only case we know of of such complete maturity is young Ramana Maharshi, who realized the Self within a moment without any [external] Guru and without any teachings (except for one book).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neti, neti.
The basic method traditionally used by Advaita Vedanta in arriving at the Truth is the method of cognitive negation - it involves negating everything that is unreal, so that what is real remains as a result. Vedanta argues that as a result of lack of true knowledge, we project the properties of one thing onto another, so that the thing appears to us wrongly as another. This is illustrated by the classic analogy of a snake and a rope: in the dark we project the image of a snake onto a rope lying on the floor, making the rope appears to be a snake. In our wrong cognition/knowledge, we superimpose the properties of the snake on the rope mistakenly thinking that the rope is a snake and so referring to it.
Based on the logic of neti, neti [not this, not this] negation, Advaita Vedanta arrives at the negation as non-Self of our entire phenomenal existence, encompassing body, mind, intellect and ego.
Vedanta says that in the same way that the unreal image of a snake is superimposed on a real rope, the qualities of that which is non-Self [anatma] are superimposed on the Self [Atman]. In this way the Self [Atman, the ever-pure, eternal, immortal, beyond time and space, untouched by the law of causality, and having the nature of Pure Consciousness, ] appears to us as a soul [jiva] or phenomenal entity - a physical being feeling hunger and thirst, suffering disease, death and all the other limitations of the manifested world. As in the case of the rope and the snake, by the power of inscrutable ignorance, the properties of the non-Self are superimposed on the Self. In this way, consciousness, happiness, knowledge and similar qualities that are essentially properties of the Self are erroneously attributed to the body, senses and mind, which are by nature unconscious and inert.
According to Advaita's teachings, this is the root cause of our experiencing deficiencies and unhappiness, which, in order for man to realize his own nature and enjoy the uninterrupted happiness that is its essence, must be removed through true knowledge.
Applying the method of negation (neti, neti) along with proper discrimination [viveka] makes it possible to eliminate erroneously imposed properties and reveal the true nature of things; by negating the illusory snake one reveals the rope, by negating the properties of the relative world one reveals the nature of Brahman, by properly discriminating and negating the properties of the non-Self one reveals the true nature of the Self or Atman - the ancient Advaita scriptures say.
However, in light of Ramana Maharshi's teachings, the traditional method of negation was found to be incomplete and was completed by Bhagavan so that when his teachings were taken into account, the school of Advaita became the complete path to Liberation, as we write a little further on.
Moreover, the commentaries on Upadesa Undiyar state that the teaching of "neti, neti" is commonly misunderstood as recommending that the aspirant attempt to negate the five veils by meditating on them "I am not this, I am not this".
However, according to the explanation found there, this teaching does not indicate a method of practice at all, but only the state experienced at the end. In light of these comments, it turns out that the "neti, neti" method has been incorrectly interpreted and applied for centuries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mahavakyas and five sheaths/veils.
Advaita Vedanta analyzing the human being uses the concept of the five sheaths or veils [koshas]. According to this theory, the Self [Atman] is covered by five sheaths/veils covering its true nature, which are:
1. Annamaya - food/physical sheath
2. Pranamaya - pranic/energy sheath
3. Manomaya - mental sheath
4. Vijnanamaya - sheath of intellect
5. Anandamaya - sheath made of happiness
These sheaths/veils form successive bodies and so:
- The physical body is the same as the Annamaya sheath.
- The subtle body is made up of three sheaths: Pranamaya, Manomaya and Vijnanamaya.
- The causal body is the same as Anandamaya sheath.
The teachings stipulate that the Anandamaya happiness sheath is not the same as Ananda, which is the bliss of realization of the Self, unclouded by any bodies or sheaths. All these sheaths have the word "maya" in their name - so they belong to the order of maya and must be discarded so that man's true nature can reveal itself.
These sheaths are similar to successive layers covering an onion one on top of the other, with the inner sheaths here pervading those that are relative to them on the outside. By dissolving each sheath into the next, we are led to the Brahman that is beyond cause and effect, realizing - after discarding all the sheaths - Oneness with him.
After realizing the absolute oneness of Brahman-Atman, the sages, the givers of the Vedas, as a summary of all the teachings of the Vedas, promulgated four Great Sentences [Great Sayings, Great Aphorisms] the so-called Mahavakyas, which are:
1. Tat Tvam Asi [That you are].
2. Ayam Atma Brahma [This Self [Atman] is Brahman].
3. Prajnanam Brahma [Prajnana [Consciousness] is Brahman].
4. Aham Brahma Asmi [I am Brahman].
It is usually recommended that spiritual adepts ready to step onto the final stage of the Advaita path meditate on or repeat these Mahavakyas. However, this practice has been modified by Ramana Maharshi, as discussed in the following section.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purusartha.
Advaita, like other schools of Eastern thought, accepts Purusartha, which divides the goals of human life into four righteous and just goals, which are:
1. Kama - experiencing pleasure within righteous limits.
2. Artha - material prosperity gained through righteous means.
3. Dharma - righteous social activity.
4. Moksha - Liberation, realization of the Self, the Oneness of Atman-Brahman.
Advaita focuses on the fourth one. The first three goals are material goals, sometimes discussed by Advaita, but always in the context of the fourth, spiritual goal, Moksha. According to the widely accepted view in India, all human goals must lead to the one supreme and ultimate goal of spiritual Liberation, without which human life will always remain unfulfilled. The first three goals are regarded as intermediate steps on the way to fulfilling the ultimate goal - Liberation or realization of the Self, our true nature: sat-cit-ananda.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The seer-seen-seeing triad and the witness.
Advaita - based, among other things, on Sri Shankara's work "Drik Drisya Viveka" - makes a clear distinction between the seer [drik] and the seen [drisya], postulating that the nature of the seer is pure - or in other words absolute - consciousness, thus distinguishing him from the objects seen, which are inherently unconscious/insent.
However, Sri Ramana Maharshi clarifies the issue as follows [Guru Vachaka Kovai]:
"If the seer [drik, the ego] and the seen [drisya, the world] were different in their reality [sat], the act of seeing would never be possible. But since seeing is possible, know that they [the seer and the seen] have one and the same reality".
thus refuting the previously held view that the seer [drik] has the nature of the Self.
Referring to this apparent discrepancy, Sri Sadhu Om, a prominent disciple of Sri Ramana, explains that in most of the ancient scriptures - including Sri Shankara's "Drik Drisya Viveka" - an "ordinary" (common) point of view, adapted to the ignorance of the reading public, has been adopted, in which words such as "seer" or "witness" should be read not literally, but metaphorically.
Even Sri Ramana in some of his talks adapting the statement to the ignorance of his listeners took a similar point of view using the words "seer" or "witness" when mentioning the Self. However, we emphasize once again, these terms should be taken as figuratively used for lack of better terms, and should not be taken literally by creating a witness or seer in one's mind in the mistaken idea that such an observing phenomenal world seer/witness is the supreme non-dual state.
The scriptures explain that the Self or Brahman is a witness to all activities in the same way that the sun is a witness to everything that happens on earth, i.e., all activities take place in and by virtue of the mere presence of the Self, just as everything that happens on earth takes place in and by virtue of the mere presence of the sun.
However, just as the sun remains still and uninterested in anything that happens on the earth, so does the Self remain still and uninterested in any activity (i.e., it does not direct its attention to any activity) that happens in its presence.
Sri Ramana also said that the role of seer/witness [sarva-sakshi] is attributed to the Self only by ignorant people, and that the Self cannot be a seer or witness of anything, as it is One without the second, so there is nothing for it to witness.
When talking about the nature of the Self, it is important to remember that all metaphors here are necessarily imperfect and cannot faithfully convey the essence of things; the Self "lies" on a different plane than the words used by the mind, and it is impossible to build a bridge between the two planes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waking, dreaming, and deep sleep [avastatraya].
One of the most unique features of Advaita is that in its pursuit of truth it takes into account the three states of our existence: waking, dreaming and deep sleep. As a rule, only the waking state is taken into account, but no philosophical system that does not take into account the other two states can be considered complete. Advaita's position is that in order to get a complete picture of our existential reality, all three states must be taken into account. This is the fundamental difference between Eastern and Western system of thought.
Advaita says that if the body/mind/ego were to be real, it would have to pass the aforementioned advaitavedantic test of reality: for something to be real, it must exist in all three states - waking, dreaming and deep sleep - undergo no change or division and be self-conscious. However, as we know, when we dream we abandon the body we use in the waking state and take as our dream body; moreover, during deep sleep we abandon both bodies and the entire mind - so neither the body nor the mind meet the criteria of reality.
Looking closely at the state of dreaming, we can come to further interesting conclusions. We know that when we are asleep dreaming, all of our experiences are internal experiences of the mind, mere thoughts or concepts; however, to the dreamer, all of these dream events are "waking". The dreamer only learns that it was a dream when he or she awakens.
The same is true of the state of waking in which we function and which we believe to be real: the events in this state are of the same nature as in dreams, but as long as we are stuck in this state, we can't notice it - it happens only after we wake up from the dream of waking.
However, one should be cautious when talking about the dreamlike nature of reality. The teachings caution - especially those less mature adepts prone to drawing incorrect conclusions and acting on them - not to take the world we see around us as a dream and refer to it as such. Advaita Vedanta says: the world is like a dream, not: the world is a dream. This is an important difference. We can only know the true meaning of the words about "the world is like a dream" after realizing the Self (i.e., "awakening from the dream of waking"). Advaita sages instruct that from the point of view of Absolute Truth, the world is unreal; most often, however, they let us consider it as useful as if it were real as long as our minds remain under the sway of ignorance [false/wrong knowledge].
Clarifying the dreamlike nature of the world, Advaita Vedanta uses several metaphors simultaneously.
We have already mentioned the first one: the rope is mistaken for a snake, and the correct recognition of the rope results in the dissolution of the illusory image of the false snake. However, at first glance it seems that with the world things are quite different. Even if one has knowledge of the illusory nature of the manifested world veiling Reality, the world does not automatically cease to exist because of this. Such an objection is also raised by spiritual adepts, which is explained by another analogy that proves that the illusion of the manifested world can continue even after one has learned the truth of its unreality with the mind. This is illustrated perfectly by the example of a fatamorama appearing in the desert. It is an illusion, like the snake, yet it does not disappear even after we know of its unreality. Even if something is perceived and persists, it does not yet mean that it is real.
However, the doubts do not end there. Some disciples claim that this example is not adequate; when we consider the desert mirage to be unreal, and even if it doesn't disappear after learning the truth about it, the proof of its unreality will be the obvious lack of water in the place where we see it. With the world, they claim, the case is quite different, because even when we accept as true the assumption that it is unreal, it will still continuously serve to satisfy many of our needs.
The teachings dispel these doubts as well, referring this time to the dream experience. Objects appearing in dreams are useful: food eaten in a dream satisfies the dreamer's sleep hunger, and a drink drunk quenches his thirst. In this respect, the experience of waking is identical to the experience of dreaming; the use of dream objects satisfies the dreamer's needs to the same extent that waking objects satisfy desires in the waking state. A person who has just eaten a hearty meal and gone to bed can dream that he is hungry, just as a sleeper can eat a hearty meal in his sleep and wake up hungry. Both situations are unreal. The analogy shows that an object can seemingly satisfy a need and still be an illusion.
Let's now take a closer look at the state of deep sleep, as it plays an important role in expounding the teachings of Advaita - in Advaita's view, deep sleep is of all three states the closest to the state of Self-knowledge. We should wonder what force, what cognitive power makes it possible for us to say when we wake up in the morning that "we slept hard and had no dreams". Advaita answers that in this state, as in the other two, there is a deeper consciousness [the Self], which is our unchanging reality, which, without the use of any tools - when the senses and mind are turned off - in an act of self-awareness recognizes its existence in deep sleep, so that we know without a doubt that we existed at that time.
According to Advaita, this is evidence of the fact that there is a continuity of existence during deep sleep - it is the Self, our true "I". So from our own experience of deep sleep, we conclude that our true "I" [the Self] can exist without a body and without a mind - after all, during deep sleep we experience neither of them.
Here we draw attention to an important fact: in deep sleep, the causal body is not dissolved. In this body, the ego and the mind are hiding - in the form of a seed - in order to manifest again after the end of sleep. Since the mind remains inactive during this time, an experience of happiness is born, but it is not yet the happiness of Liberation. It would seem to some that a man can be Liberated by simply going to sleep - but this is not the case. No one achieves Liberation through sleep - when he wakes up, he invariably finds that he is subject to the same conditioning as before he went to bed. Advaita explains that the sleeper's mind is in a state of temporary suspension [mano-laya] (useless from the point of view of Liberation), whereas complete nullification of the mind [mano-nasa] is required for Liberation.
For more on how the state of deep sleep relates to the natural state, the reader will find in the Practice section, where we discuss the concept of jagrat-sushupti.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atma-vichara practice [Self-enquiry, Self-attention].
The Sastras have been saying for centuries: "Who are you? You are not prana, energy, body, mind, intellect, or anything else - you are the Self [Atman], you are Pure Consciousness, which is the Self". However, from a practical standpoint, they say nothing more than instructing: "Get rid of the five sheaths, which are the non-Self, as "not-self, not-self" [neti, neti]”. They don't explain who is to remove them or how to perform this task in practice, and they don't give any detailed and direct guidance to help discard the non-Self.
"Deham naham; koham? soham! [The body is not I; who am I? I am He!]" - this is the quintessence of the Self-enquiry found in the sastras. To undertake such a practice, one needs the highly developed aforementioned qualities: viveka, vairagya, sama and the other five virtues along with mumukshu. This is followed by shravana, manana and nididhyasana. Finally, the sastras offer Mahavakyas such as Tat Tvam Asi [That thou art] or Aham Brahma Asmi [I am Brahman], over which, by meditating, the adept is to gain true knowledge of Atman = Brahman.
However, the path to realization of the Self, formulated in this way, remained closed for centuries, and not only to the pandits who learned Advaita Vedanta only theoretically, but also to the practisers who had a deep longing for Liberation and took the recommended steps in this direction; although they made strenuous attempts to put into practice what they learned from the sastras, they were unable to obtain the non-dual experience of Pure Consciousness.
However, with the coming of Sri Ramana Maharshi, subtle yet revolutionary changes occurred in the practice of Atma-vichara, which radically changed the way the practice is performed and opened the door for adepts to realize the Self. The meditations on the Mahavakyas, which had been recommended as nirguna practices until then, turned out, in the light of Ramana Maharshi's teachings, to be relatively helpful saguna practices, as a result of which the aspirant can reach a state of temporary quieting of the mind [mano-laya], but not the state of realization of the Self [mano-nasa, jnana-samadhi].
Sri Ramana teaches [Ulladu Narpadu]: "...Other than this, meditating 'I am not this, I am That' may be (in some way) an aid, but can it itself be the enquiry?".
Fulfilling the mission that actually flows from the Makavakyas, Sri Ramana breathed new life into the sastras by offering his new revelation [sruti] on the practice of Atma-vichara [Who am I?]. This arch-important and essential revelation for the aspirant, which was not previously in the scriptures, has now been added to the teaching of the sastras by Bhagavan Sri Ramana. What is this revelation? Self-realization is possible only when the mind is turned towards the first person! The practice of Atma-vichara as taught by Sri Ramana is based on turning one's attention away from the objects of the second and third persons and instead directing it and keeping it on the first person in search of the source from which that person springs forth and clinging to that source.
This is not the first better teaching. When adepts - even those showing great desirelessness and the power of one-pointed mind - have toiled for centuries, through numerous incarnations, but have failed to achieve expected result because, not knowing the proper direction in which their efforts should go, they have misdirected their attention not where it should go and they were going around in circles without being able to find a solution, this instruction, given by Sri Ramana, directing the aspirant to the first person, is a priceless treasure for them, similar to the mountain of diamonds bestowed upon a poor man. Sri Ramana not only gave this precious instruction, but also explained the process of Atma-vichara practice precisely and in detail.
(The practice of Atma-vichara as taught by Sri Ramana Maharshi is expounded in detail in the site Practice, which we recommend to familiarize with, here we are just signaling what the difference between the Atma-vichara as recommended by the sastras in the past and as recommended by Sri Ramana is.)
Thus Sri Ramana modified the Advaita-Vedantic path of wisdom [jnana marga] in an epoch-making way, completing the process previously described in the sastras and giving it a new, practical dimension. Thanks to him, Advaita gained new life, becoming a priceless treasure for spiritual practisers striving for Liberation. Therefore, it is impossible to overestimate his role and contribution to the Advaita Vedanta system and spirituality in general.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Various types of adepts.
The following four groups of spiritual aspirants are distinguished in turn(2E) starting with the most advanced:
1. Fully ripe/mature [ati teevra].
2. Ripe/mature [teevra].
3. Medium [madhyama].
4. Unripe [manda].
With regard to the necessary work and the time required to complete the spiritual journey, they are compared one by one:
1. Fully ripe/mature - to gun-powder.
2. Ripe/mature - to dry charcoal.
3. Medium ripe/mature - ordinary wood.
4. Little ripe/unripe - wet wood.
The former need only a spark so that all erroneous knowledge and all attachments or identifications are destroyed forever in an instant. Such people are extremely rare; the only example we can give is the young Venkataraman, later known as Sri Ramana Maharshi.
The second ones need a little more teaching and longer practice; however, they catch the meaning of the teachings as well as the essence and significance of Atma-vichara practice on the fly, to which they have a great attraction and which they perform with enthusiasm. They know that the essential issue is to remove the ego, and that is their only goal. There are not many of them.
The third ones need long and arduous teaching, long and gradual practice; they have difficulty grasping the deeper levels of teachings and the essence of the practice. Atma-vichara does not attract them or attracts them moderately or to a small degree. It causes them great difficulty. This is a relatively large group.
The latter, in order to qualify as Advaita disciples at all, need very long and arduous teaching; they often misinterpret the meaning of the teachings and miss the essence of the practice. Atma-vichara does not attract them; they sometimes question its necessity. These are the multitudes.
Atma-vichara practice is primarily for ripe adepts - less mature adepts can also benefit from it, but they will take a long time to get through the preliminary stages before they reach the level required to practice proper Self-enquiry. Very mature adepts like young Ramana need only a moment of practice to complete the spiritual path.
______________
(2E) On the bhakti tab there is a similar classification referring to devotees following the bhakti path. The two listings do not fully overlap, but it can be roughly assumed that the adepts classified here in the third and fourth groups, i.e., little and medium mature [manda and madhyama] correspond to devotees classified in classes I through IIIB of the bhakti school, while mature adepts [teevra] correspond to devotees qualifying for class IV of the bhakti school.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Various doctrines of transmitting of Advaita teachings.
Just as there are several types of adepts, there are several doctrines used to transmit/convey Advaita teachings.
These are:
1. Ajata
2. Vivartha [vivarta]
3. Vishishtadvaita
Ajata is the doctrine of pure non-duality, proclaiming the existence of only one absolute reality, not allowing even the apparent existence of anything other than It; neither the world nor the soul. According to Ajata, only That Which Is exists as it is; the Absolute is "aja" - eternal and unborn, subject to no change or destruction. Ajata is the supreme, ultimate truth.
Vivarta is a doctrine that explains the advaitavedantic teaching using the phenomenon of superimposition. The Sanskrit word "vivarta" means change, modification, but in this context it is only an apparent change. Vivarta explains how the manifested world, the seer and the seen appear simultaneously into existence, saying at the same time that it is all just delusion, a false manifestation on the one reality - Brahman, which is the one, non-dual reality. Vivarta does not accept duality, but it explains how diversity apparently appears to exist and shows a method for putting an end to this false manifestation. However, this whole procedure is solely aimed at adjusting the transmission to the perceptual capabilities of spiritual aspirants.
Vishishtadvaita [Vishishta Advaita] is a doctrine that proclaims that although duality is accepted for the time being - the existence of the soul and the world, which are considered to be as real as Brahman - there is ultimately an inclusion of all forms of existence into one true Being.
Ajata is the highest doctrine meant for fully mature adepts [ati teevra] because only they can realize the non-dual Self after just hearing it. This doctrine can also be given to mature adepts [teevra] because there is no risk that they will misunderstand it, but they will not be able to fully utilize it needing more detailed teachings and longer practice for realization.
Ajata doctrine should not be passed on to immature/unripe adepts because of the grave risk that they will simply mentally superimpose the non-dual truths of Advaita on their dualistic mind, recognizing this as the end of the spiritual path and thus harming themselves. They may consider simply reading and understanding Advaita's teachings to be the end of the spiritual path, possibly accepting still some small flash of intuitive insight into the meaning of these teachings, completing what one has read.
Vivartha is the predominant doctrine used by Sri Ramana Maharshi to convey his teachings. Although his own experience can only be described using Ajata, by using the doctrine of Vivartha Ramana tailored the transmission of the teachings to the capacity of the audience. It is a protective doctrine, that meets the disciple where he is at the moment, protecting him from mixing of absolute and relative levels (a phenomenon common in neo-Advaita) and the resulting dangers from uttering absurdities to perception disorders.
In the first verse of Ulladu Narpadu Bhagavan writes "Because we, who are joined with sight, see the world [...]" - which sets the context in which his entire teaching should be considered. Sri Ramana takes into account in it the fact that we see the world and it seems real to us; he teaches, first and foremost, a method for removing the cause of unreal images projected onto reality; he recommends that we first and foremost get to know reality without any superimpositions, and only then ask further questions, if there is still anything to ask.
If we see a false image of a snake in the twilight instead of a rope and this fills us with fear, it is then necessary to turn on the light and investigate what really lies on the ground so that in place of the unreal snake we can see the real rope and stop being afraid of it.
Sri Ramana shows the method of "shining a light and investigating", which is the essence and core of his teachings. This approach is much more practical in the broader sense than conveying teachings through the doctrine of Ajata, because it takes into account the belief in the reality of life in the manifested world present in almost all adepts and does not ignore it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Although in Ramana Maharshi's statements we find here and there isolated references to the doctrine of Ajata, which some apologists for doing nothing on the spiritual path invoke in defense of this attitude, the doctrine of Vivarta and the call for demanding practice definitely dominate in Bhagavan's teachings.
Anyway, these teachings, which are preached from the level of pure non-duality, Bhagavan sometimes concludes with the recommendation to "remain still", which is an indirect call to practice added to Ajata, because, as he says elsewhere, in order to achieve the state of remaining still one must go through the demanding path of "very powerful and rare tapas [spiritual practice]".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sri Ramana does not tell us to affirm [visualize, mantra] "there is a rope, there is a rope, there is no snake, there is no snake", but he gives us a lamp to kindle it and see for ourselves that there is and always has been only a rope and never a snake, which only appeared to us as a false superimposition on the real rope.
This doctrine is most appropriate for mature adepts [teevra] who are able to fully comprehend it and put it into practice, although less mature adepts can also benefit from it. However, the full benefit of the doctrine and, above all, the direct practice that is the essence of Ramana's teachings can only be derived by mature adepts; for the rest, it will be helpful in terms of reaching maturity so that they can then take full advantage of it in the next step.
As Bhagavan himself once said [Upadesa Manjari], Atma-vichara is a practice for "ripe souls".
Vishishta Advaita, on the other hand, accepting the temporal reality of soul and world partially accepts dualism. It is a doctrine suitable for adepts of medium maturity [madhyama] and at least some of little maturity [manda], who also readily accept Dvaita's doctrine; mature adepts [teevra] and even more so fully mature adepts [ati teevra] will accept neither Vishishtadvaita's nor Dvaita's teachings.
______________
(3) As the name suggests [neo=new] neo-Advaita is a new approach to the ancient Advaita Vedanta derived from the Upanishads.
The term neo-Advaita is used to describe a movement that formed in the second half of the 20th century, whose main - though not only - initiator was a previously completely unknown Hindu teacher H.W.L. Poonja, better known as Papaji (1910-1997), who was hailed as a new guru by former followers of Osho, who had died a while earlier and was a teacher who tried to combine spirituality with sensual pleasures, known, among other things, for encouraging his students to break traditional rules, affirm life, joy and sexual freedom; he himself was eager to put these ideals into practice, being, among other things, the owner of a collection of 93 Rolls Royce cars (!), and was given by some people somevery meaningful pseudonym: "vagina guru".
Neo-Advaita was born as Poonja's experiment to spread throughout the world the "satsangs" conducted by him and his disciples, intended, according to their initiator, to change the course of the world's history, which in his opinion was on a downward spiral leading to destruction and needed help. Poonja believed that such a "satsang" was the only sensible solution to the problem of the human mind or ego, being the root cause of all wars and conflicts threatening humanity.
Traditional Advaita requires many arduous years (preceded by numerous incarnations) of intensive practice, which ultimately lead to the realization of Self [Liberation] upon attaining which one becomes competent to teach and guide others. However, without taking this completely into account, Poonja sent his disciples to teach others immediately after their first experiences of spiritual awakening, which he called "finding the diamond".
For finding this diamond he attempted to use an incorrectly interpreted method of Atma-vichara taught by Sri Ramana Maharshi, which he understood to be asking oneself the question "Who am I?" and "sitting quietly" while waiting for a lightning-like answer, which he believed would complete the adept's spiritual journey in a split second and make him competent to begin to teach spiritual teaching others.
How far such a practice is from Atma-vichara taught by Sri Ramana Maharshi, who teaches withdrawing attention from mental objects other than "I am", fishing out, grasping and keeping attention on this "I am" until all wasanas are burned out and the bonds of karma are broken, which requires constant, intense and prolonged effort. To think that the same can be achieved with a quick insight indicates a disarming ignorance of the subject one is dealing with.
Some also claim - we are not sure if this is true, and today it is impossible to verify - that Poonja used so-called energies and shaktipat, with the help of which he induced his disciples states of temporary disappearance of thought, i.e. laya states - states on the spiritual path basically without value (if someone falls down the stairs, hits his head and loses consciousness for a moment, he will obtain quite a similar state) - which they took for "enlightenment" and set off - completely green - to teach others.
The quintessence of Poonji's teaching, on which all neo-Advaita has grown, can be encapsulated in one attractive and catchy slogan: " There is no teacher; there is no student; there is no teaching. This is teaching!".
In his assumptions, Poonja sought to focus exclusively on the supreme, non-dual, absolute truth of Advaita stating that the nature of our existence is pure non-dual consciousness, which by its very nature is always realized and liberated; the simple recognition of this truth in instant insight was, according to Poonja, to be equivalent to ultimate Liberation. It is difficult to agree with this given that the assumption of being always liberated is true in an absolute sense, but completely untrue in a relative sense, upon which we function entangled in the ego or deep conviction of being body or mind veiling our always liberated essence, which is extremely difficult to break, and without which there can be no talk about Liberation.
This oversimplification of the whole thing has resulted in the absolutely erroneousyet widespread among neo-Advaita adepts and their ilk belief that a brief one-time insight into our essential nature is equivalent to Liberation and release from the karmic wheel of samsara. This assumption has evolved into the unquestionable neo-Advaita dogma that anyone can be effortlessly liberated in an instant, and the naive belief that no sadhana postulated by traditional Advaita or other spiritual paths is necessary.
These ideas are based on a complete disregard for the teachings and practice required to realize the Self. Of course, the concept of instant realization, of no requirements, no effort, no teachings, or the need to find a teacher is attractive and many burn with ardent love for it at first sight, but it is pure fantasy of Western minds thinking that one can bypass the rigors of the spiritual practices necessary for Liberation.
Some accounts even say that Poonja himself did not believe in the possibility of complete transcendence of the ego and breaking its fetters; if true, this is the fundamental antithesis of Ramana Maharshi's lofty teaching, explaining many of the misunderstandings of neo-Advaita.
Looking at neo-Advaita, it can be said to be the product of oversimplification and truncation of Advaita and Ramana Maharshi's teachings resulting in an uncomplicated, effortless "spirituality" that is ineffective on the difficult path to Liberation, yet assures its followers that no path or effort is needed and they "already have it", thus serving them the subtle illusion of reaching spiritual peaks.
Adepts of neo-Advaita are taught the highest non-dual truths with the exclusion of most of the intermediate steps necessary for a spiritual aspirant. People caught up in corporeality and empirical experience are being persuaded that, behold, they are already "non-dual" and "enlightened" by which they are induced to superimpose the mental idea of non-duality on relative reality. Absolute, spiritual truths that have nothing to do with the disciple's relative experience are superimposed on the relative level of the personal self. Shrouding the adept's ego in this way with the illusion of superficial "enlightenment" is the great trap of neo-Advaita.
Looking at neo-Advaita, it is difficult to find this experiment successful, which is not surprising if one considers that already at the root of this movement one can see a number of questionable assumptions.
First, the very attempt to save or reform the world based on Advaita philosophy, which questions the reality of the existence of the manifested world, is surprising to say the least. Ramana Maharshi, declaring [Padamalai]: "Although those who do not know consciousness find fault with things that happen in the world, all events that occur do so in accordance with a unique divine ordinance", apparently has a different opinion on this matter than Poonja, making it even clear in other teachings that the reformers of the world are not those who know the experience of the Self.
Secondly, the ancient method referred to as " Satsanga/statsang" is by no means about any person after their first spiritual awakening meeting others who want to listen to he or her, but about an encounter with the reality of SAT, realized either by communing with a realized sage - a Jnani or Jivanmukta (no such living in the body is currently known) - who has broken the bonds of karma and exists as sat-cit-ananda in a transcendental state beyond waking and dreaming, or by communing with the SAT or Self within one's own being, which is accomplished in Silence [Mouna] by means of properly performed Atma-vichara practice; neither of these conditions is fulfilled in the case of neo-Advaita "satsangs" - they are simply meetings of the people who are still on the spiritual path, usually at the beginner level. Some not unreasonably suggest that for this reason they those who run them should not even be called "teachers", but only "spiritual friends", simply sharing their thoughts on spiritual topics with others.
Third, an incorrect technique for practicing Atma-vichara has become widespread among neo-Advaita adepts. Properly performed Atma-vichara does not consist of mentally asking oneself the question "Who am I?" and a one-time insight giving an instant, supposedly all-ending answer, which, except in a rare cases, cannot even be called the beginning of an arduous, long-term Self-enquiry practice, but at best only one of the first steps of an introduction to Atma-vichara.
On the other hand, however, it must be admitted that the idea of neo-advaitist "satsangs" has spread (and is still spreading) around the world at a rapid pace, so in this respect its success cannot be denied. The halls of "satsangs" are bursting at the seams, there is a shortage of accommodations, dozens or even hundreds of people are pushing through the doors and windows, some even have to draw lots for the lucky ones from among the excess of those willing to attend. By the way, such "satsangs" have also become a lucrative source of income - a weekend "satsang" in Poland costs several hundred zlotys, the price for a week's stay abroad reaches even several thousands, so it is hardly surprising rumors that the leaders of the "satsang peloton” have already earned themselves private planes, raking in millions of euros in proceeds from such meetings every year (recently, the trend to move such "satsangs" to the web and conduct them online is gaining ground, which creates almost unlimited opportunities for profit multiplication, as the physical limitations of the room space fall away; we know of cases when similar types of spiritual-healing sessions online gathered 1,200 people, which multiplied by the price gives an idea of the possible scale of earnings).
By the way, it is worth mentioning that in traditional Advaita no fees are charged on a commercial basis for the teaching of the Supreme Truth; if such commercial fees, motivated by the desire to make money, are charged there is contamination of the teaching and a whole series of resulting problems arise; neither did Ramana Maharshi charge such fees, relying only on voluntary donations and gifts from pilgrims (we discuss this topic in more detail later on this subsite).
However, we would like to point out that the modern [neo-?] Advaita is not unified movement, and along with teachers who shallow or infantilize Advaita's teachings, there are also those who try to explain them in depth to their adepts, paying attention to both the absolute and relative level of teaching, mentioning the difficulties, limitations and the effort advocated by the Advaita, without resorting to idiosyncratic answers to the questions posed, without promising pie-in-the-sky, without setting exorbitant price lists, but teaching for voluntary contributions or even for free, and so making materials (e.g., their books) available.
Such a branch of modern Advaita is referred to by some researchers as "traditional modern Advaita" (cutting off the prefix "neo") to emphasize that it respects the steps and conditions preached by classical Advaita, distinguishing it firmly from modern non-traditional Advaita that ignores most of the old teachings. When referring on our sites critically to the neo-Advaita movement we are not talking about such a faction respecting the traditional teachings and rules of Advaita Vedanta but only about that faction within which Advaita and Sri Ramana's teachings are oversimplified and infantilized, rendering them useless on the difficult path to Liberation [Mukti, Moksha].
Some of the neo-Advaita teachers hook up to the teaching of Sri Ramana suggesting its continuation in their own and their connection to Ramana, not infrequently attempting in this way to lend credibility and raise the profile of the teachings they preach, to warm themselves in Bhagavan's light and/or to attract more disciples. Based on this phenomenon, some commentators associate Ramana Maharshi with neo-Advaita, classifying Ramana as one of the teachers of neo-Advaita.
This is a fundamentally wrong thesis.
Ramana Maharshi is in no way a teacher who simplifies, shallows or distorts the teachings of Advaita. He is a widely recognized authentic realized sage [Jnani, Jivanmukta, Great Rishi] who has fully confirmed the necessity of Advaita's gradual and requiring effort path, and who, through his teaching on the ultimate practice of Atma-vichara [Self-attention, Self-enquiry], has completed Advaita Vedanta's teachings - charting a simple but challenging path to the highest spiritual peak - and breathed new life into them. The figure of Ramana Maharshi is as - if not more - groundbreaking in the history of Advaita Vedanta as the figure of Sri Shankara.
Thousands of people have received a darshan from Sri Ramana, and those who know Ramana's teachings and follow them to some degree, no one will forbid calling themselves his disciple. A one-time (or even multiple) encounter with Ramana Maharshi living in the body, even if associated with a great spiritual experience, does not yet give one a patent for teaching in Sri Ramana's lineage.
Among those who have met Ramana Maharshi on their path of life are people of varying levels of spiritual maturity. There are high-level disciples (e.g., Sri Muruganar, Sri Sadhu Om, Swami Annamalai), who convey/transmit and expound the sage's teachings faithfully and without misrepresentation, but also disciples of lower level, whose understanding is fragmentary at best, and whose interpretations and further transmission of Ramana's teachings are captive to errors and distortions.
And while it may seem to some people at first glance that essentially neo-Advaita is preaching the same things as Sri Ramana, looking deeper it becomes clear that neo-Advaita's message is divergent from Sri Ramana's teachings in important aspects. Ramana never approved the teachings and practices preached and propagated by Poonja or neo-Advaita; in fact, he was unequivocally critical of the method of performing the Self-enquiry practice that neo-Advaita most often recommends - as it was already interpreted similarly during his lifetime in the body - comparing it to the attitude of a drunkard mumbling to himself "Who am I, who am I?", unequivocally making it clear that this is not the Atma-vichara [Self-enquiry] practice that he teaches. He also repeatedly emphasized the necessity of effort and gradual, arduous and slow climbing to spiritual heights, which is in strict opposition to the effortless and immediate "achievements” of neo-Advaita.
Simply put, Ramana Maharshi deepens, enriches and elevates the teachings of Advaita, while neo-Advaita shallows, impoverishes and drags them down - one might even be tempted to argue that Ramana Maharshi and neo-Advaita are two opposite poles of spirituality.
The cardinal sin of neo-Advaita is that it takes as its starting point the absolute teachings of Ajata describing the state of the realized sage, telling disciples entangled up to their ears in corporeality that they "already have it" (immediately and effortlessly), while Ramana Maharshi uses the protective doctrine of Vivarta, which takes into account the disciple's belief in the reality of the manifested world and his belief in being the body, from there leading him to the real realization of the non-dual truths of Ajata (slowly, with great effort, steeply uphill), and not just to imagining them.
Such is the most general difference between neo-Advaita and Ramana Maharshi.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: If any of the readers have encountered the teachings of neo-Advaita associated in one way or another with the person and teachings of Ramana Maharshi and have formed a negative opinion about these teachings, and through this association have also formed an unfavorable opinion about the teachings of Sri Ramana and about him himself, then this second conclusion is completely incorrect. To get a more accurate picture of things, one must make a clear distinction between neo-Advaita and Ramana Maharshi – otherwise, such an assessment would be similar to a negative evaluation of Mozart and his work based on performances of his compositions by amateur musicians who have no ear for music and sing mercilessly out of tune.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS The picture of neo-Advaita presented here is a static one, meanwhile the movement itself is evolving and changing. Neo-Advaitaists also read critical reviews of their model of spirituality and sometimes modify their theses or, for example, abandon the most controversial ones.
Nonetheless, as long as the key elements of Advaita's and/or Ramana Maharshi's teachings are interpreted in such a way that they cease to effectively guide one along the difficult path to Liberation, this whole movement flows away from the spiritual heights.
(3A) In the latest studies within contemporary Advaita, instead of or alongside the concept of “neo-Advaita,” two factions are distinguished: traditional modern Advaita, respecting the steps and conditions preached by classical Advaita, and non-traditional modern Advaita, ignoring most of the recommendations of traditional Advaita and simplifying its teachings.
This distinction is made because a large group of contemporary Advaita followers disagree with the shallowing, simplifying and curtailing the classical teachings of Advaita, thereby creating a method that does not correspond to its fundamental purpose. They often protest loudly against this, following a different path themselves and pointing others in the same direction, while warning against neo-Advaita.
Whenever we refer critically to the neo-Advaita movement on our sites, we speak only of non-traditional modern Advaita ignoring most of the recommendations of traditional Advaita and oversimplifying it.
(3B) Sage in Eastern philosophy is not the same as sage in Western philosophy. In the East, this is the term used to describe a person who has attained the highest state of Oneness with the Supreme, the realization of the Self. Being a realized sage is more than being a yogi or a saint. A sage is one who has irreversibly broken the bonds of karma, is in the Turiya state and no longer belongs to the order of the manifested world, although as long as his body is alive he can be taken for that body by those around him. The issue of functioning in the world after realization of the Self is complex, difficult or even impossible for the mind to comprehend, and as understanding it is a superfluous thing for the spiritual adept, we give no further room to this subject.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Teaching the highest Truth and money.
In addressing this issue, which is unclear to many, it is worth starting with a clear and unambiguous distinction between two categories of spiritual teachers, counting as the first the realized sages [Jnanis, Jivanmuktas], who have broken the body-consciousness knot thus annihilating the ego and continue to live among us while being continuously in the so-called fourth state [Turiya], while as the second counting those who have not yet reached the end of the spiritual journey, who have not broken the body-consciousness knot, who still identify with the body (or mind) and live on earth passing, like all of us, successively through the three states of waking, dreaming and deep sleep.(4)
The former are called Satguru, because being reality [Sat] they have the ability to lead disciples from darkness [gu] to light [ru], while the latter are called spiritual teachers at best, because, being still caught up in the unreal [asat], they show a willingness and ability to share their insight into spiritual teachings and experience on the spiritual path with other adepts, which often provides more or less help to those adepts - especially some who are not yet able to follow the direct guidance of the Satguru.
Basically, the Satguru functions on an absolute, non-dual level of experience on which everything is one reality - without identification with the body, and therefore without any concern for satisfying its needs.
As a general rule, authentic Satgurus never charge for engaging spiritual aspirants in the process of realizing spiritual teachings or studying the eternal Truth [sanatana dharma] - if they do charge admission/fee or ask (directly or indirectly) for money for giving spiritual instruction [upadesa] or advice, they are not authentic Satgurus. Any activity that shows a greater or lesser trace of being directed toward fulfilling material needs and caring about them clearly indicates the existence of the ego, so we are not then dealing with an ego-free Satguru [Jnani, Jivanmukta].
The case is different for spiritual teachers, who still have a living ego and thus an attachment (of varying strength) to the body, which they have not yet managed to break.
Among this group, a whole range of different behaviors and attitudes can be observed: from a strictly commercial approach(4A), through making spiritual teaching a source of livelihood coexisting with the idea of helping others by explaining spiritual teachings or giving them the "good news", to trying to get closer to the Satguru ideal and teaching without charging money, leaving the possibility of donations/offerings/gifts. A simple correlation can be observed here - the more advanced a given spiritual teacher is, the weaker his ego and attachment to the body, the less importance he places on his welfare, the more willing he is to teach for free. Along with this correlation there is often another one - the quality and depth of the teachings being imparted tends to increase in the same proportion as the tendency to commercialize them decreases.
There is a fundamental principle in the field of spiritual culture: if your intention, spirituality and dharma is authentic and pure, and you have enough "faith” to lay all your affairs at the feet of the Supreme, he will easily find a way to satisfy the material needs of your body, without you worrying and striving about it. This is the assurance that Sri Krishna left in the Bhagavadgita and Jesus in the Gospel, which has sometimes found and still finds confirmation in the lives of followers or disciples of Sri Ramana and beyond. Today, however, few of those teachers who eagerly declare left and right "everything is God" have the courage to live, entrusting everything to that God without striving for their material needs, which should give their students food for thought.
Ramana Maharshi himself never charged any money for his teaching or the darshanas he gave, and from the age of 16 he never even touched money (with one reported exception, when a few banknotes were suddenly and surreptitiously pressed into his hand), but during his life in the body benevolent people always provided for the basic material needs of his body and the disciples living with him. What's more, in the early 20th century stately Ramanasramam was built at the foot of Arunachala with a grandeur beyond the needs of the time, which no doubt absorbed considerable funds, which came in the form of devotees' donations just when they were needed. Thus Ramana himself by no means closed off the possibility of making voluntary donations, gifts and endowments from which his body, his disciples and the entire Ramanasramam were maintained, but he never either directly or indirectly asked for or suggested them(4B).
Supporting those who give their lives to the Supreme and dedicate it to practicing lofty tapas is normal, natural and welcomed in Hindu tradition; such people's reliance on the generosity of others' hearts has no pejorative overtones there, is not associated with indolence or common begging, and supporting them - in addition to generosity of heart - is also the result of a desire to win favors for oneself through this act or even stems from a sense of duty. Many Indians believe that good or bad done to the practisers of the highest tapas returns amplified in double. It is customary for a sannyasin in India to receive respect and support rather than derision and indifference, and service to realized sages is considered an honor and privilege(5).
(In one of his teachings, Sri Bhagavan even said [Guru Vachaka Kovai]: "If he does holy service to a Great One [a Jnani], the deluded soul will lose his delusion, the wellestablished and permanent wealth of Grace will be attained [by him] in the heart, and he will [thereby] live as the most fortunate person").
This is a radically different approach from the Western one, and it is worth remembering this important difference.
According to Indian tradition derived from the Sages and aligned with the conduct of Sri Ramana's and his closest disciples and our opinion, the teaching of Bhagavan Sri Ramana and the related teaching of the eternal Truth should be preached, made available and distributed for free. On the part of the disciples, listeners, students, and devotees or other people benefiting from such free teachings is the understanding that it is also their duty to accept the traditions that follow, ordering them to take care of material needs of the people who indulge in the highest tapas - even without asking for it on their part - who offer them generously the fruits of their tapas.
Unfortunately, such understanding is still at a very low level in Western societies and there is no sign of change on the horizon. This raises the question of whether or not it is appropriate in our conditions to demand such donations/endowments from those who visit and benefit from the tapas of others.
We leave the reader with this question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those who have problems with Atma-vichara practice and are looking for the cause of these problems are advised to look at how they are dealing with the issue of gratitude for the teaching of the Supreme Truth received for free, and the balance between what is received for free and what is given for free. Inadequacies in this area can also result in problems with practice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________
(4) If a Jnani's body goes to bed at night, it does not at all mean that the Jnani goes into a state of sleep or dreaming; he is invariably in a state that transcends waking, dreaming and deep sleep, as Ramana Maharshi confirmed drawing from his experience. The issue of functioning in the world and the relation to the body after realization of the Self is impossible to comprehend with a dualistic mind; it has been partially approached in works such as Guru Vachaka Kovai, where, however, the ultimate conclusion is that only Jnani can comprehend Jnani. Thus, in order to comprehend the state of Jnani one must be a Jnani i.e. realize the Self.
(4A) For those who want to know more or less what the process and mechanism of creating/functioning pseudo-gurus looks like, we recommend the film "Kumare" [A Guru for Everyone].
(4B) Sri Ramana once said that Liberation cannot be gained by any other method than making a sacrifice [dana]. But not material sacrifice - that sacrifice is the disciple's ego, which is to surrender the mind to the Guru/Self in Silence [mouna]. Bhagavan did not accept any other gifts or offerings for his teaching.
As is well known, during his lifetime in a body a stately ashram was built at the foot of Arunachala, for which donations were made by pilgrims or devotees. However, donations for the construction or maintenance of the ashram were never teaching fees. They were not given to Sri Ramana, but to the management of the Ramanasramam, and were used for the benefit of the ashram, the people living there and visiting pilgrims.
The direction pointed out by Bhagavan, then, seems to be the following: demanding fees for teaching motivated by the desire to make money and defined by a price list is inappropriate, while accepting voluntary gifts/offerings, including those in the form of money, flowing from the generosity of the giver's heart, which enable/help keep the body alive (plus all related matters), is not inappropriate.
In the discussed context, the following words, that Ramana Maharshi said about himself when interrogated around 1933 by a court envoy, are noteworthy [The Mountain Path]:
"[...] By birth I am a Brahmin. I was a Brahmachari, when I came here. Within an hour of arrival I threw away my sacred thread, clothes, etc.; I shaved my head clean. I had about three rupees which were thrown away. Since then I do not touch money.[...]
I am an 'athyashrami' (one beyond the ashrams and castes) not falling within the category of any of the ashrams. This state is recognised in the sastras. It is explained in the Suta Samhita. The athyashrami can own property if necessary. He needs a guru, but the Self is my Guru. The athyashrami is not bound to observe any rites. I have no desire to acquire properties, but things come and I accept them. I agree that to own property is worldly, but I do not hate the world".
(5) Here we caution against showing ingratitude towards those who, with pure intentions, offer spiritual teachings and practices to others for free or for some voluntary donation.
We know of examples of people who for a multi-day workshop with accommodation and food, for which the predetermined fee was a voluntary donation allocated by the organizers for free workshops for subsequent groups, left the proverbial zloty with an ironic comment: "Voluntary donation, so I gave one zloty, let them learn humility, ha ha".
Maybe it might be fine from a formal point of view, but it is uncertain whether from a karmic one as well. The ruler of karma may not happen to show much of a sense of humor in such a case and meticulously settle all balances in karmic accounts, issuing salty bills for ingratitude and mockery. Enough to say that the aforementioned person shortly thereafter landed on the "spiritual bottom" and is still scouring over it to this day. The measure he gave, was the measure he got back: he gave one zloty, then his spiritual condition was also reduced to the level of one zloty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Siddhis.
„Ulica Miła wcale nie jest miła.
Ulicą Miłą nie chodź, moja miła [...]”.
~ Władysław Broniewski, „Ulica Miła”, Krzyk ostateczny, 1938
"Why is it that, even if one wishes, it is not possible
to achieve the eight-fold siddhis as well as Self-Knowledge? Because wealth and wisdom, being
contrary to each other, will not generally be gained
together in this world".
~ Ramana Maharshi, Guru Vachaka Kovai
Siddhis, or miraculous/supernatural powers, attract many with magnetic force. Eastern spiritual schools refer to these powers in different ways: some regard them as integral to the spiritual path, while others regard them as obstacles on the path that can lead the unwary to fall. Siddhis, they say, can be a byproduct of a yogi's spiritual process, but they can also appear as a result of specific activities directed toward attaining these powers.
The Yogashikha Upanishad speaks of two kinds of such powers: artificial [kalpita] and natural [akalpita, literally: non-artificial]. The former arise from five causes: by birth, use of herbs, repetition of mantras, asceticism and concentration; they are transient and do not give much effectiveness. The latter arise from the fact of pure existence, are natural, permanent, highly effective and pleasing to God; they manifest spontaneously in those who are free of desire [vasanas] and mark the true master. Yogashikha even postulates that one who lacks such powers is still bound to the world.
The eight great siddhis called maha-siddhis are most commonly mentioned, but some scriptures provide a more extensive catalog of supernatural powers. Some claim that maha-siddhis obligatorily accompany Liberation, while others state that they are not necessary for it, although they are not entirely useless either. Many scriptures emphasize that the powers should be kept secret and not demonstrated, as a yogi doing so who has not yet completed the spiritual path may be drawn into the snare of pride, conceit or a sense of superiority by the siddhis, which will result in karmic complications. Indian literature knows many stories in which ascetics or yogis have fallen as a result of the misuse of such powers.
In one of Swami Sivananda's works [Samadhi Yoga] we find the following words concerning siddhis:
"Siddhis have no spiritual value. Worldly people are enamoured of persons who exhibit Siddhis and run after them with curiosity. They are under the wrong impression that those who exhibit Siddhis are real Mahatmas or Jivanmuktas. This is wrong. Patanjali Maharshi also says: 'The Siddhis are regarded as perfections by the undisciplined mind only but are serious obstacles to spiritual meditation. (Chap. III-37)'. The Siddhis have no proper place in the spiritual life. You will have to shun them ruthlessly even if they manifest during the course of Sadhana".
So much for Sivananda, and what does Ramana Maharshi and his closest disciples say about the siddhis?
In Part Two of The Path of Sri Ramana by Sadhu Om, we encounter the important move in this context, placing siddhi on one of the steps of the spiritual ladder, which allows us to adopt a relevant perspective in considering their significance. Sadhu Om classifies the mastery of siddhi as only the fourth step on a seven-step spiritual ladder, barely a rung above the ordinary worship practiced by average followers of certain religions. He also notes that such average devotees (of the third degree and below) generally unreflectively accept the siddhis wielding person [siddha] as one who has realized God, whereas he has not yet even attained the love of God characteristic of the fifth rank, but continues to have love for objects of this and other worlds.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sadhu Om talks about six grades in the aforementioned book, including grades A and B and grade zero. On our website, to make everything clearer, we have broken this classification down into seven levels, while sticking to Sadhu Om's guidelines.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sadhu Om, in a similar tone to Sivananda, clearly declares that from the point of view of more advanced spirituality, indulging in siddhis charms is a sign of decline. Although when viewed from the initial two, maximum three stages miraculous powers appear to be a great achievement, from the fourth stage onward, and even more so from the perspective of the direct path of Sri Ramana, these powers appear quite different.
In Guru Vachaka Kovai, Bhagavan Ramana is critical of desiring siddhis and striving for them, declaring that greedily begging God - who is willing to give us all, i.e. himself - for petty siddhis, is like asking "for stale gruel from a philanthropist who has the heart to give everything that is asked for". He also cautions that "if an aspirant treading on the path of Liberation develops a liking for siddhis, his ego will wax and hence his bondage will become denser". For the manifestation of miraculous powers, ego and mental effort are needed, while for Liberation it is necessary to annihilate both of them, so siddhis stand in opposition to Liberation and keep it from being achieved. Anyone walking on the path of Sri Ramana who would get the unwise idea of acquiring miraculous powers will downfall.
Ramana Maharshi also warns against applying the measure of siddhis to Jnanis and judging them on the basis of having or not having such powers. As he says, manifesting siddhsi is meaningless from the Jnana's point of view, and sages shine with the same pure radiance of the Self, whether with or without siddhis. He likens attempts to make such judgments to the attitude of a six-year-old son of a Nobel Prize winner, who, having difficulty memorizing the multiplication table, asks his father if he could repeat it. When the father effortlessly does so, the stunned boy exclaims with delight: "Oh, how clever my dad is! That's why the world honored him with the Nobel Prize! He really deserves it!". The worldly people, tending to recognize the greatness of Jnani only if he presents siddhis, are no wiser than this boy - concludes this thread Guru Vachaka Kovai.
Only people deluded into thinking that externally existing objects are real will consider the eightfold miraculous powers to be wonderful and worth acquiring. However, one who knows himself as the Self, existence-consciousness, and who has thus abandoned all relative knowledge, understands the worthlessness and unreality of all siddhis, and therefore discards them as trivial and clings only to the happiness of the Self.
The possession of such powers is neither omniscience, nor omnipotence, nor any spiritual achievement; using them is similar to the tricks of an illusionist, with the difference that the illusionist is aware of performing tricks, while the siddha believes that his tricks are real and that through them he has achieved greatness - concludes bluntly Guru Vachaka Kovai.
"O aspirant, having come to the Lord’s feet for refuge,
with great devotion and with a spirit of self-surrender,
give up completely the desire for occult powers and
siddhis, and aim only to attain and enjoy the Bliss of
Liberation, which is Itself Sada-Shivam [the Supreme
Lord]".
~ Ramana Maharshi, Guru Vachaka Kovai
However, not all siddhsi have the same character described above.
Firstly, says Sri Ramana, one who has realized the Self is also one who has simultaneously attained all other siddhis, because this one [attainment of the Self] is the highest and true siddhi and also the greatest treasure, and the power of realizing the Self is far greater than all other powers. Bhagavan asks rhetorically what is the greatest good that can be given to others, answering, that it is happiness. This happiness that we seek is attained only with "experiencing" and realizing the Self - in no way through siddhis - and it is only the Jnani who has the ability to impart this gift to others (although for him there are no "others") and to the world at large.
All the other eight siddhis belong only to the mind, the powers of its imagination and the realm of Maya. An adept who achieves the dispassion required to embark on the direct path should no longer have any inclination for these powers in him or her(6). In the heart of one in whom the fire of supreme surrender has been kindled, all siddhis merge - instructs Ramana. But such a devotee, whose mind has become all adoration of God, will never feel attracted to them; one who has tasted the ambrosia of the Self will never desire trivial siddhis.
Secondly, in a Jnani - or an advanced adept walking the direct path to Liberation - extraordinary powers may appear spontaneously, without desire for them, as a phenomenon accompanying the performance of the practice or a by-product of it. If such powers do appear, they are generally a legacy of previous lives. However, such siddhi neither bind nor seduce such a person; they are carried out without a sense of doership manifesting on their own, by the power of the presence of the Self, and do not arouse any passion, do not hinder Liberation, nor can they cause any harm.
In contrast, in the powers manifested by the ordinary siddha, the role of performing actions is still assumed by the ego, they are tainted with tamas and rajas and are not necessarily free from danger.
On the path to Liberation, such ego-based siddhis are a great, great obstacle.
______________
(6) As an aside, it may be noted that the craving, fascination and desire for siddhi, and considering them as signs of spiritual greatness, can serve as a litmus test indicating where on the spiritual ladder a given adept is; such feelings should no longer appear after crossing about halfway up that ladder.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Satsanga/satsang.
"Attachment to the mischievous and harmful ego is bad association
[dussanga]. Satsang, which destroys that attachment, is abiding
as the Self, the 'I am'".
~ Ramana Maharshi, Padamalai
The Sanskrit term "satsanga" combines two words: "Sat", meaning Absolute Truth, and "sanga", meaning community, bond, companionship, association or union. Literally, "satsanga" means meeting/association/community/relationship with Sat or Absolute Truth, also called Reality, Pure Existence or Self. Since the meeting with Absolute Truth/Pure Existence can only take place in the absence of the veiling mind-ego, whose root is the I-thought, the condition for true satsanga is the disappearance of the I-thought. Satsanga - but only satsanga understood in this way – is a powerful tool for removing attachment to the body and objects of this world, destroying hidden inclinations, destroying the ego and leading to Moksha. Such satsanga is one of the guardians of the gates of Liberation - Yoga Vasistha proclaims.
Nowadays, however, the meaning of the word has evolved to such an extent that it is commonly used to describe the first better meeting - especially one that is part of the non-duality stream - that has any spiritual context with no requirement to commune with Sat. At such meetings spiritual teachings are discussed, explained, badhanas and mantras are chanted, discussions are held, questions are answered and more or less spiritual advice is given, etc. Perhaps the most popular type of such "satsang" is the model of public confessions and the advice given in response reminiscent of American Oprah Winfrey-type TV talk shows.
And although such "satsangs" can sometimes be interesting and helpful to some adepts, helping, for example, to understand some teachings, build a sense of community with other sharers, recharge energetically, de-stress, etc., in general, their value is paltry, without any comparison to true satsang, communing with pure Sat.
No man reading that satsang is a powerful tool leading to realization of the Self should think that it is about such new-fashioned "satsangs". Sadhu Om warns against such meetings for serious aspirants, saying that it is better for an adept to remain alone than to engage in them. It's worth at least knowing what one is participating in and realizing that such gatherings are called "satsangs" as a result of expanding the definition of this word, not as a result of meeting the exorbitant criteria of a true satsang.
And how does Ramana Maharshi look at satsanga?
One day he was asked the question [Living by the Words of Bhagavan]: "What is satsang?".
Bhagavan replied: "Satsang means only Atma sang [association with the Self]. Only those who cannot practise that are to practise being in the company of realised beings or sadhus [...]".
On another occasion, a pilgrim asked Sri Ramana a question about whether satsang was necessary and whether his coming to Bhagavan for this satsang made sense.
Bhagavan answered [Day by Day with Bhagavan]: "First you must decide what is satsang. It means association with Sat or Reality. One who knows or has realised Sat is also regarded as Sat. Such association with Sat or with one who knows Sat is absolutely necessary for all".
So the first and foremost recommendation of Sri Ramana to any serious adept is to adopt the correct definition of satsanga - the correct one, that is, the one given and approved by the sages, and set aside other casual understandings of the term forged by modern spiritual movements.
Further on, Bhagavan informs about two possible methods of contacting Sat or two types of satsanga.
The first and loftiest satsanga is experiencing the Self within, which can be achieved by means of properly performed Atma-vichara practice at its proper stage. This is the supreme, most advisable, but also the most demanding satsanga.
If it is unattainable for the adept, the second best choice is to find a realized sage and be in his/her company.
Swami Annamalai warns, however, that not every stay or even life alongside a realized sage will be satsanga. The experience of satsanga requires attunement to the Sat of the Jnani and in the absence of this quality despite physical proximity there will be no satsanga. Swami points out that even with Bhagavan there were people living under the same roof as he who ignored his teaching and failed to get in touch with the grace he emanated. They ate and worked in the ashram, but got almost no benefit from staying there. Such people had no satsanga with Bhagavan - he claims. It was the same with the pilgrims who visited him - some of them experienced satsanga, a connection to the power of the presence of the Self and the grace that Bhagavan emanated, another part came closer to it to some greater or lesser degree, but there were also those who found absolutely nothing special in Bhagavan, leaving with what they came with.
Thus, an indispensable requirement for the occurrence of this kind of satsanga is the right disposition in the person meeting the realized sage.
In Sadhanai Saram Sadhu Om talks about another third choice and a third type of satsanga recommended in the absence of being able to take advantage of the first two. Such a satsanga, in his opinion, is contact with the teachings of realized sages done through constant reading of their teachings provided that the teachings insistently say that:
- only Self is reality, so always abide in the Self;
- to abide in the Self, practice only Atma-vichara and follow no other path;
- practice Atma-vichara right now, direct yourself within and immerse yourself in it.
Although some texts written by realized sages and translated (if necessary) and/or discussed at the proper spiritual level are capable of awakening deep insight and being a channel for contact with the Guru, sometimes even acting as a stream that lifts the aspirant reading them upward [i.e., into the depths, toward the Self], we doubt that up to the level of disappearing the I-thought and experiencing Pure Existence. Perhaps in some very exceptional cases, but we as a rule refer to the study and reflection of the teachings traditionally as shravana and manana.
Besides, Ramana Maharshi also points out that mere reading without undertaking practice is useless and cannot lead to Liberation, while Sri Shankara goes even further by calling the excessive predilection for studying spiritual scriptures powerful iron fetters that shackle the feet of spiritual seekers.
Sadhu Om also points out that, following the words of Sri Ramana, Arunachala is the Reality [Sat] embodied in the visible and tangible form of the mountain/hill. Thus, he says, taking refuge at the feet of Arunachala is the highest satsang available on the physical plane, while thinking of her with love is the highest satsang available on the mental plane. However, in doing so, one must keep in mind that, as Bhagavan mentioned, the true Arunachala is the Self in the Heart, while truly remembering/thinking of her and true satsanga is abiding in the Self; such physical or mental contact can be helpful in bringing the disciple closer to true satsanga in the Heart.
There is also a fairly widespread belief among Arunachala adherents that people living within a few dozen kilometers of Arunachala achieve Liberation without any effort, or that those who die there achieve it at the moment of death. Some people for this reason move near Arunachala to live there hoping for effortless Moksha. We, before taking such a step, would first ask ourselves a few questions, for instance:
a) why did Ramana Maharshi insistently teach adepts - including those living near Arunachala - the difficult art of Atma-vichara, instead of simply ordering them to live and die near Arunachala, so that the matter would be effortlessly resolved?
b) why, in the Upadesa Undiyar, where he summarizes the entirety of man's spiritual path from karma kanda to the highest tapas, did he not describe this method of achieving moksha, but described and highlighted vichara-marga?
c) why he performed special procedures when his mother was dying, in order to raise her spiritual level (according to some) at the time of her death or (as others claim) to enable her to attain Jnana, when this would be given to anyone who dies there?
The issue of how Arunachali power works is discussed in detail by Swami Annamalai in one of the texts posted on our site, where we refer the reader for more information(7).
There is also a group of adepts maintaining that contemplation of Ramana Maharshi's photos, which capture the state of samadhi, is satsanga. Swami Annamalai also addresses this topic, pointing out that yes, it is a certain indirect method of darshan with the Self through the form of Bhagavan, giving many people a sense of joy and contact with Him. However, Swami cautions not to get attached to such states of mental peace and bliss and not to place them above Self-enquiry, but to go further with their help and come to experience the true peace and true bliss of the Self.
We, from ourselves, additionally draw attention to two rarely described cases, when it would also be possible to talk about satsanga.
Firstly, the experience of the Self can occur to some people spontaneously, for no apparent reason, in an unexpected place and time, and this too would be a satsanga - as far as we know, however, these are very rare cases.
Secondly, it can also come through contact with an advanced practiser, when that practiser experiences pure "I am" - then, as with contact with Jnani, this state may or may not be "imparted" (fully or in some part) to those in contact with him at the time. Such adepts, however, will generally be very wary of exhibiting this phenomenon, nor will it necessarily occur in every advanced adept, so it can be suspected that such cases will be as rare as the previous ones (7A).
With all this said, when it comes to satsanga, we should not forget two things:
1. Reality [Sat] is non-dual and there are not two Selves. Whether we experience satsanga within or it seems to come from outside, we are always dealing with the same Reality, which is our true Self.
2. Although a true satsanga is a powerful tool with enormous benefits, a one-time satsanga still doesn't get the job done.
As Sri Shankara said [Vivekachudamani]:
"Even when the Truth has been experienced, there still remains strong, beginningless, obstinate residual impression [vasana] that one is the doer and the experiencer, which is the cause of one's transmigration. That impression has to be carefully removed by living in an inward state of the Self. The annihilation of these impressions [vasanas], here and now, is called liberation by the sages".
______________
(7) Swami says there that the desire to stay at Arunachala is a good desire and can be encouraged. We in no way discourage anyone here from visiting Arunachala quite the contrary, but we do not share the view of effortless Moksha by the mere fact of staying or dying at Arunachala.
Arunachala is a powerful power place, a center of Atma-vichara practice, able to help visiting practisers significantly. If someone comes to Arunachala to practice Atma-vichara and puts all his strength into it, Arunachala will respond adequately to his commitment by helping him make progress quickly. However, if someone comes there for spiritual entertainment, there is rather no hope for miracles.
This is confirmed by the words of Sri Ramana, who one day, seeing people coming to the ashrama and engaged in everything else but earnest practice, said the following [The Power of the Presence, part one]: "Such people will have cause to regret their ignorance in their last days. [...] Having the belief that residence in the ashram will make Self-realisation, which is most difficult to achieve in other places, easy to attain, one should always remain intent upon the realisation of one's true nature. There is no meaning in people who are not interested in that [Self-realisation] taking this place to be a special place".
We know of cases of fighters with very strong mumukshu who went to Arunachala to practice earnestly and obtained the experience of the Self there; we also know of cases of good-hearted moderate people who returned from there with their minds a bit cleansed and visible elements of sattva; but we also know of cases of those who went there full of self-complacency and conviction of their greatness, not surrendering to the power of Arunachala but nurturing various strange ideas in their heads, and then returning frustrated and disappointed, claiming that "there is nothing there, it's just a pile of rocks...".
(7A) You can read about an interesting case of initiating satsanga here.
" If you have a desire to have satsang, or a desire to be always
engaged in meditation on the Self, these things will happen. If
your desire is strong enough the power of the Self will make all the
arrangements for you. It will send you a Guru, or satsang , or
whatever else you might need. If you are earnestly doing meditation on the Self, everything you need will automatically come to
you".
[~ Swami Annamalai, Living By The Words Of Bhagavan]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Depersonalization, ego annihilation, support and protection.
On the path of Sri Ramana, which is the culmination of Advaita Vedanta, the annihilation of the ego is set as an obligatory condition for Liberation, without the fulfillment of which there can be no complete success. The annihilation of the ego is considered here as the price absolutely necessary to pay for happiness and the realization of our true nature.
Some adepts accept this without any problem, but in some it raises anxiety or fear.
Speaking of disappearing of the ego, is there really anything to be afraid of?
Some people are undertaking to investigate this issue. They rely on research work on brain function conducted with the help of magnetic resonance imaging in people who meditate, take psychedelics or suffer from psychosis, juxtaposing them with each other, and even equating the first with the second (8). Based on this research, they conclude that real dangers may lurk in the depersonalization process.
They present examples of people who are supposed to have experienced ego loss as a result of meditation, who don't know what is happening to them and can't deal with it. They bring up examples of worrying reactions to meditation by those who experienced a "negative effect" concerning their sense of the self, the most common of which was - as they put it - a change in the boundaries between the inner self and the outer world.
They pose the thesis that depersonalization occurring in meditative processes and while taking psychedelics can lead to a dangerous state, although it is also possible for someone to be drawn in a more spiritual direction and experience depersonalization as a mystical experience. They argue that depersonalization can be a vector for both exploration of depth and profound loss.
Whether one experiences the former or the latter may depend on the support systems one has, they say. They consider religions, for example, with their entire institutional and ideological system, to be such a support system, which they believe provides this experience with right support and a sense. Religions offer care and shelter - they say - which are lacking with secularized meditation.
To address these theses and conclusions in the context of the path of Sri Ramana, which leads to the annihilation of the ego and emphasizes its necessity, it is necessary first to clarify some basic points, starting with the most elementary division of spiritual paths into indirect and direct ones.
The former, as Sri Ramana or his disciples explain, require a acting personal self [ego] to follow them, and in no way lead to the annihilation of the ego - the ego will never destroy itself, and when subjected to pressure it will only take increasingly sublime forms, but it will never be annihilated.
In contrary to that, the direct path, where the ego is not the subject doing the practice, has within it the real power to destroy it, when the ego is dissolved into the Self by means of the pure light of the Self or in other words grace, not the efforts of the ego.
What follows, in the indirect practices these researchers focus on there can be no talk of full depersonalization if by this term we mean the complete annihilation of the person-ego, but only of certain transformations taking place within the ego-mind-person structure, which, however, do not destroy this structure. These people, however, put an equals sign between such partial depersonalization and ego destruction without distinguishing between them. Such an approach calls for looking at their research with a great deal of caution from the outset.
Moreover, the phenomenon they focus on, that is, the changes in the functioning of the personal self or "coming out of the body” indicated in the descriptions of meditators whom they took under consideration(8A), happens to budding spiritual aspirants and is a mere leaping of the spark of bodily identification between bodies, which these people mistakenly take to be a loss of ego. However, it is not any loss of ego; the phenomenon is similar to going into a dreaming state, when a similar leap occurs.
On waking, this process can happen in an uncontrolled way, and then it may not be quite safe and by all means can cause anxiety. In this case, these researchers are quite right - the support of a teacher or some broader structures, though not necessarily religious, can be helpful and advisable for a person having such experiences. What this would look like would have to be asked of specialists in specific paths or meditation techniques.
It is also possible to control this process - similar things are taught in some yogic or shamanic schools. However, we emphasize that in any case this is far from ego transcendence/annihilation.
Another process - which seems to have been overlooked in these studies - is going into a mano-laya state similar to deep sleep, called "emptiness" by some, which is much more difficult to achieve, but which, as Sri Ramana points out, does not give ego annihilation either and is inadvisable on the spiritual path. His disciples go even further by calling the states of laya states of dense tamas, while Sivananda says they are acrobatic tricks without value. Their shortcoming (not the only one) is that the deposit of hidden inclinations is not disposed of in them, and the adept comes out of them with the same bundle of sanskaras and vasanas as he came into them; they do not give effects especially different from deep sleep, do not lead to the annihilation of the ego and the attainment of the happiness of the Self. Nevertheless, they are considered by many to be the pinnacle of mysticism.
And although they do not result in the annihilation of the ego, if partial "depersonalization" occurring on spiritual paths is already being studied in broad terms, this condition should be included in such studies.
By the way, it's worth adding that when it comes to psychedelics, treated in these studies as equal to meditation, the states obtained after taking them (or narcotics more broadly speaking), considered by some people to be twinned with or even equal to spirituality, are referred to in some spiritual schools as "demonic fringes of mysticism" - the idea of equating them with normal spirituality is more than controversial. Investigating circumspiritual experiences with psychedelics without taking into account the surrounding but invisible to most people world of non-material entities, unmeasurable by glass and eye and therefore ignored by scientists, is like investigating the causes of car accidents without taking into account the drivers' state of sobriety; it has quite a disadvantage. What kind of support will a person taking such drugs find in even a controlled experience in a psychologist or psychiatrist standing next to him, if there is interference from that side in the course (which can take place secretly and without the fireworks of American films)? How will this psychiatrist recognize this and how will he help that person? And those who hope that religious structures are safe from such things may be sorely disappointed.
Getting to the point, i.e. the talk about the real annihilation of the ego, we must turn to the direct path taught and shown by Ramana Maharshi. On this path, by directing the force of all attentiveness to one's own "I" in search of the source from which this "I" rises, one reaches the point where this personal "I" [ego] disappears immersed in the Self, while in that place where it disappeared the non-ego "I am I" [I-I] spontaneously appears. From that point on, the process begins in which those hidden inclinations are exposed to the light of pure consciousness [the divine grace of "I am I"] and are ultimately destroyed [vasana kshaya]. Only this is the annihilation of the ego and the realization of our true nature: existence-consciousness-happiness. This is a place far, far further along the spiritual path than the states analyzed by the aforementioned researchers.
The adept reaching this lofty stage will by no means find help or support in any institutions. Since this is a direct path, he can only find support and backing directly in God by clinging to and relying on His grace, not on intermediaries operating at the level of personality or structures built from that level - all of them are completely useless here.
The adept walking the proper stage of the path of Sri Ramana generally does not need outside support. If, however, he had significant difficulty with this or was still in the preliminary stage of the practice, he can only get help from an ego-free realized sage (no knowledge of the availability of such in the world) or an advanced practiser who, by his own efforts, firmly and repetitively reaches the point of disappearance of the I-thought in practice.
We recommend caution in asking for help from novice adepts, as there is a high probability that they may give erroneous advice. The same is true of those using Ramana Maharshi's and his instructions as a decoy to attract people who later preach teachings that contradict Sri Ramana's teachings or teach counterproductive to Self-enquiry practices. Nor does it make much sense to seek advice from people unfamiliar with this path, even if they are the most prominent masters on other indirect paths.
As far as protection is concerned, the path of Sri Ramana is undoubtedly powerfully protected(8B); the more powerfully, the more zealously and faithfully the adept adheres to it; and vice versa. This care and protection is based on four pillars:
1. The pillar of required complete surrender to God, culminating in a state of pure existence that results in God's care and support; God, although unbound by anything, is said to be obligated by such surrender.
2. The pillar of the required total reliance on "I am”, which is communing with the active source of divine grace present within us, which protects and helps.
3. The guru relevant to this path which is Ramana Maharshi, who has personally promised that if one clings to the Self within, he will protect him ensuring that no harm comes to him.
4. It is also said that a sadhaka pursuing Liberation is actively guarded by sages of all times who have previously attained this state.
Ramana Maharshi is unequivocal and leaves no doubt - there is no chance for happiness and true spirituality as long as the ego or personal "I" is in charge. However, when in the practice of Atma-vichara this "I" disappears, man does not at all - as some people are afraid - become a zombie, a jelly, an empty puppet incapable of performing basic functions, or an ordinary idiot, because in the place where the "I-thought" [ego] disappeared, there spontaneously appears the "I am I" of the divine nature, which is the core of the word "I", which takes over all these functions performing them in its own proper way.
As Bhagavan once said to a pilgrim with similar doubts, asking how people without egos function [Guru Vachaka Kovai]: "Rest assured that, since their inner attachments have died, they have God Himself residing in their heart and doing all those actions".
The path of Sri Ramana is not the path of the blind man - from the moment of embarking on the proper stage of Atma-vichara, the adept knows what the disappearance of the ego entails. If such a person - who, rest assured, is not a brainless man, and who has had to work hard for many years and many incarnations to get to this place - does not run away from this state in terror, but on the contrary: like the biblical farmer who plowed up the treasure in the field leaves everything for this one thing, then perhaps this annihilation of the ego is not at all as terrible as outsiders paint it.
______________
(8) We actually don't have a conviction whether spirituality translates reliably into brain function, and whether testing it with an MRI is a good idea. Not likely. Some parameter will be captured by this measurement, but will it be acutely the essence of things? It is even more controversial to equate meditation with taking psychedelics - the correct indirect meditation, while it may have its drawbacks, does not open the door to the world of darkness, contrary to narcotics (which the latter may or may not necessarily do).
(8A) We stipulate that in assessing this phenomenon we are not privy to the full documentation of the research conducted, we rely only on the fragmentary references contained in the article summarizing it, which point exactly to the occurrence of such processes.
(8B) Because of this protection, it is a very unwise idea to try to do harm to people practicing the highest, leading to Liberation tapas, or even more so to realized sages. In the literature, one can find descriptions of cases where such attempts soon turned sternly against the wrong-doer, including death. Some writings further warn that such actions produce fatal consequences after the death of the body.