Ramana Maharshi about aham-sphurana.

Between March and August 1931, Ganapathy Muni lived in the city of Sirsi located in the state of Karnataka, writing a series of more than twenty letters to his Guru Sri Ramana Maharshi during that time. Since Sri Ramana did not respond to these letters, the replies were written by clerks from the ashram's office, with the exception of a letter dated May 20, 1931, when Bhagavan gave verbal answers to questions written down by a devotee and sent to Ganapatii.

Here are his words:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concerning this unbroken awareness, in Vivekacudamani, verse 380, it is said:

'Self, which is self-effulgent and the witness of all ever shines (as 'I-I') in the mind. Taking this Self, which is distinct from what is unreal as the target (of your attention), experience it as 'I' through unbroken awareness'.

The non-existence of the sense of limitation is the fruit of meditation. This is indeed the unbroken experience. This is natural to God and liberated souls.

When the mind, having pure sattva as its characteristic remains attending to the aham-sphurana, which is the sign of the forthcoming direct experience of the Self, the downward-facing heart becomes upward-facing, blossoms and remains in the form of that (the Self); (because of this) the aforesaid attention to the source of the aham-sphurana alone is the path. When thus attended to, Self, the reality, alone will remain shining in the centre of the Heart as 'I am I'".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our comment:

Bhagavan's answers to Ganapati's questions were published in The Mountain Path in 1982 and accompanied by an explanatory commentary.

In the commentary at one point the commentator says:
"[...] when the mind or 'I'-thought turns 180 degrees away from the non-Self and turns towards the Self, it is caught in the grip of the Self, and after this, it cannot turn towards the non-Self again [...]", posing a certain thesis - the thesis of a one-time full (by 180 degrees or by 100% ) turning of the mind away from objects causing that mind to be "caught" by the Self and "stuck" to it so that it can never again turn away from that state back towards objects.

However, such an assertion is by no means an obvious matter, and there is no consensus on this among commentators on Sri Ramana's teachings and adepts walking his path. Sri Ramana did not explain this issue expressis verbis either in his reply to Ganapati or in any of his own written or verified texts.

Admittedly, in one of the conversations recorded in Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, we find a passage when Bhagavan, when asked about "maintaining this state" says: "Having once gained the Self [...] It is never lost", however, this is such a general context of the statement that it is unclear whether the reference is to the aham sphurana as a foretaste of the Self or the ultimate realization of the Self - in our opinion the latter. Moreover, in the same conversation Ramana adds that "Abhyasa is investigation into the Self", to state in another that "Abhyasa consists in withdrawal within the Self every time you are disturbed by thought", thus indicating the existence of disturbing thoughts "throwing out" from the experience of the Self and the need to return back to it, which contradicts the claim made in the quoted commentary.

In yet another talk [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi], we find quite a different explanation of the issue:

"D.: How long can the mind stay or be kept in the Heart?
Maharshi: The period extends by practice.
D.: What happens at the end of the period?
Maharshi: The mind returns to the present normal state [...]".

There is no confirmation in these words that reaching the Self/Heart once guarantees that this state will never be lost - on the contrary, there is a clear denial of this.
The differences are most likely due to the fact that in one conversation Bhagavan spoke of realizing the Self, while in the other he spoke of gaining and losing the experience of the Self during practice. However, we don't know the exact context of these talks, we don't know to which people of what spiritual maturity they were addressed, and we have no guarantee that they were 100% correctly written down.

Deciding subtle moot points based on recorded in such a way conversations with Sri Ramana is not easy task; we have limited trust in them in this regard due to how they were written down, to whom they were addressed, as well as their lack of verification and/or authorization by Bhagavan. Considered without taking into account other reliable sources and own deep practice, they can sometimes lead to different, even contradictory conclusions. In our opinion, they are not very suitable for resolving issues such as this, and if they are, they should be further supported by Sri Ramana's authorized teachings from other sources and/or by the comments of his closest disciples and the commentator's own arriving at the proper stage of Atma-vichara practice.

It is worth noting that Ramana Maharshi also did not say - which is equally important from the point of view of interpreting this teaching - at what time after the grasping of the aham-sphurana the realization of the Self comes; whether it is five seconds, five minutes, five years or fifty years.

The quoted commentary doesn't specify this either; however, its author assumed that the 100% diversion is only once after which there is no way out of the gained state; this, however, is either the commentator's invention or a conclusion rewritten from somewhere - it doesn't follow directly from Sri Ramana's words and is by no means obvious. Instead, one can find Bhagavan's teachings indicating that the opposite is true; similar conclusions are drawn from own practice [proper stage] as well.

On this ground arises a second interpretation of the phenomenon of aham sphurana claiming that yes, an adept can lose the thread of sphurana once grasped and lose it again and again, and that the essence of proper practice is precisely to maintain, stabilize and establish oneself in this state and abide in it. Which is not so easy.

The various interpretations of this important nuance and spreading them carry fundamental differences in understanding the practice process among aspirants. On the basis of this discrepancy, which exists and is replicated to this day, two and even three differing conceptions of how to perform Atma-vichara practice were born - we will discuss them briefly here.

The first one assumes that the practice consists in the first step of turning the mind away from objects and directing it to the I-thought, which, under the influence of such an operation, disappears revealing the I-I sphurana, which is a foretaste of the Self, foreshadowing its coming realization and giving the adept a taste of its happiness, after which, in the second step, this state must be maintained and established, and when this happens the realization of the Self will follow, which may take years.
There are two stages here where effort is required: the first stage of turning the mind away from objects (the effort stage) the second stage of maintaining and establishing the state of aham sphurana (the effort and happiness stage); the rest is carried out of by Grace, also indispensable to undertake this practice at all. Both stages take a long time and progress on them is gradual, where on the latter there is less and less effort and more and more happiness/bliss as progress is made.

The second one assumes that the practice consists in the first step of turning the mind away from objects and directing it to the I-thought, which, under the influence of such an operation, disappears revealing the I-I sphurana, which is a foretaste of the Self, foreshadowing its coming realization and giving the adept a taste of its happiness, which sphurana once grasped is never lost again and is kept by the grip force of the Self, without the effort of the adept. So there is only one stage requiring effort here: the stage of turning the mind away from objects (the effort stage), the rest is taken carried out by Grace without effort on the part of the sadhaka. As you can easily see, this model involves about half the effort and even halves the path (those opting for this solution usually believe that moments after grasping the sphurana Self-realization takes place, while in the first option it still takes a long time).

The third one, on the other hand, is a considerable simplification of the whole process, because it assumes that one should concentrate and perform the enquiry into the root of the mind once and for all in order to reach the Self, then realization will immediately follow. There is no great strenuous effort here, there is concentration, compression to jump into the depths of one's own being and that's the end of the story. Once and done - its proponents proclaim.

This "once and done" concept is not worth paying too much attention to: you can get good at speeding up and jumping over a stream in the woods, but not the ocean. Because in the case of Liberation, we are talking about crossing the ocean of life and death, which is so difficult to cross, trying to jump over it with the "once and done" method is, in our opinion, not worth bothering with - no great effect will come of it. Sri Ramana himself has stressed more than once that everything is done gradually and slowly; the concept of "once and done" can therefore be put between fairy tales without regret.

On the other hand, the concept of grasping aham sphurana once without losing it is tempting - it seems quite logical and tempts with less effort required; unfortunately, it doesn't stand the Atma-vichara`s fire test. Since reaching sphurana is not unheard of, if the concept were true and if a moment after the first grasping of sphurana was followed by Self-realization, we would have a good number of realized ones walking the streets today - unfortunately, this is not the case.

We take the position that although Sri Ramana did not elaborate on this issue in his written down handwritten or authorized teachings, he did explain it quite well indirectly - or in written down unauthorized conversations. In the text quoted at the beginning, he says [Ramana Gita]: "During the time of practice the natural state is called upasana (meditation), and when that state becomes firmly and permanently established it is called jnana". If this state, in order for it to be "transformed" into Jnana, must be firmly and permanently established, then it is obvious, that in the beginning it is neither firm, nor permanent [continuous], nor established (implicitly: it is discontinuous, not firm, lost and again gained), because if it were, there would be no need to establish and solidify it into a permanent state. This rules out the possibility that the sphurana is no longer "lost" after it is once grasped.

In one talk, when asked whether a sadhaka's temporary experience of the Self and a jnani's realization of it are the same, and if so, why they differ in their effects, Ramana Maharshi said [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi]:

"[...]Bhagavan: The experience is the same.[...]
A practiser may by long practice gain a glimpse of the Reality. This experience may be vivid for the time being. And yet he will be distracted by the old vasanas and so his experience will not avail him. Such a man must continue his manana and nididhyasana so that all the obstacles may be destroyed. He will then be able to remain permanently in the Real State. [...]

Questioner: The Srutis say: Sakrit vibhatoyam brahmaloka (This knowledge of Brahman shines forth once and forever)?

Bhagavan: They refer to the permanent realisation and not to the glimpse".

These are basically conclusive arguments and they close further discussion. However, for the sake of dispelling all doubts in the unconvinced, we draw reader's attention to a few more teachings of Sri Ramana and his disciples clarifying this issue.

In the Guru Vachaka Kovai, verse 786, in the subsection on the duties of a sadhaka (one who is at the sadhana stage, not a realized sage), Bhagavan instructs:
"When it is said that even the mere slipping down from [abidance in] the state of the pure non-dual Self is a crime for those who have started to do their duty [namely the true tapas of Self-abidance], will it on consideration be proper for them to interfere in the affairs of others?"- if it is possible for a sadhaka "slipping down" of the state of being in the Self - and Bhagavan, writing these words, admits this possibility - then the concept discussed cannot be correct.

In Padamalai he says:

"Always practise holding tightly to the Heart, which is full of perfect peace, without abandoning it through desire or inattention" - if it is possible to abandon holding/clinging to the Heart (which Bhagavan earlier referred to as sphurana) as a result of rising desires [vasanas] and inattention, then the concept mentioned cannot be correct.

In The Path of Sri Ramana, the most prominent as of today (other than Sri Ramana's works) printed work describing extensively the practice of Atma-vichara, eminent Atma-vichara practiser Sadhu Om says:

"...Those who experience many times this removal of the ego through practice, since they have an acquaintance with the experience of their pure existence-consciousness as 'I am' even after the removal of the ego..." - the phrase used: "many times this removal of the ego through practice", excludes the possibility of just removing the ego once and grasping the "I am" sphurana without losing it.

"...By greater and more steadfast practice of abiding in this existence-consciousness, we will experience that this state seems to come often..." - if something comes up more and more often, it cannot be something that, having been grasped once, no longer slips away.

"...Why has it been said (in the above two verses of ‘Sadhana Saram’) that one ought to make effort repeatedly to be in that state (our existence-consciousness) and ought to abide in it with more and more love? Because, until all the tendencies (vasanas) which drive one out of it are completely exhausted, this state will seem to come and go..." - if sadhaka should make a repeated effort, it is not a one-time job; if it comes and goes, it is not "just once".

The same Sadhu Om writes in his commentary on verse 1111 of Guru Vachaka Kovai:
"He who experiences Self only in the state of samadhi and who experiences the body and world when he is not in samadhi, is only an aspirant [abhyasi] and not a sthita-prajna" - clearly pointing out that in the aspirant there is an intertwining of the experience of the Self taking the form of sphurana and its absence associated with turning towards sense objects.

In a similar line, another prominent practiser, Swami Annamalai, speaks of experiencing the peace and bliss of the Self, which may be interrupted by emerging thoughts, which deepens and which culminates in being the peace and bliss of the Self.

To sum up:

Those trying to penetrate too much with their intellect⁽²⁾ into areas that do not yield to the intellect, Bhagavan Ramana sometimes advised: "Go into that state and then tell me about it".
We, too, recommend a similar course to those who are still not convinced by the arguments presented, suggesting the only certain way to dispel their doubts: to verify for oneself in practice. All one has to do is to perform the practice needed to grasp the sphurana (the required abandonment of clinging to objects, redirection of the mind to the source, removal of all traces of tamas and rajas and a pure sattvic mind) and find out for oneself which concept will stand and which will fall in ruins.

______________
⁽¹⁾ An almost identical definition of sphurana appears in Self Enquiry in response to question 32: "The state in which this mind clings to the Self and shines as the form of the Self is called the aham sphurana. This sphurana cannot remain independently, leaving the reality. This sphurana is the correct sign of the forthcoming direct experience of the reality. However, this sphurana cannot itself be the state of reality. That source to which this sphurana clings, alone is called the reality..."

In the 30th verse of the Ulladu Narpadu, Bhagavan says:

"When the mind turn inward seeking "Who am I?" and merges in the Heart, then the "I" hangs down his head in shame and the one "I" appears as Itself. Though it appears as 'I-I', it is not the ego. It is Reality, Perfection, the Substance of the Self".

(It is a translation taken from "The collected works of Sri Ramana Maharishi".)

⁽²⁾ If the comments postulating the theses of a sufficient one-time 180% diversion, a grip on the Self that no longer releases, and a quickly followed realisation were written from one's own experience of arriving at the state of aham-sphurana, and were correct, then the man writing these comments would have to be a realised and liberated sage, while e.g. nothing of the sort is known about the writer of the commentary in question in The Mountain Path; moreover, in such a situation, he would be rather unlikely to write commentaries on such periodicals, commentaries on his teachings would probably be written then.

If one were writing from experience and if , on the other hand, experience showed that these theses were incorrect, one would not put them forward.

This leaves only a third option - writing on the basis of intellectual understanding/insight or taking over from others all or part of the theses discussed.

We see no other option.