Chapter 3.1 - Ramaṇa Maharṣi on Jīva

This chapter is also divided into four sections. It contains the views of Ramaṇa Maharṣi regarding jīva, jagat, Brahman and mokṣa.

The concept of jīva suggests the association of the Self with the non-self. It is not the all-pervasive Consciousness and also not an inert entity. It is an identification of the Self with the body. Ramaṇa Maharṣi defines the jīva as an entity, which rises in between the Self and the body. It is of the measurement of the body. The inert body does not know anything and the absolute Existence does not have birth. The jīva is seen to be risen and it is a conscious entity as well. It is known by various names, such as ego, knot between conscious and inert entities, obstruction to the liberation, subtle body, mind, transmigration and jīva. ^[1] The Iconsciousness which rises in respect of the body is the jīva and Maharṣi often mentions it as ‘I-thought’ or ‘I-am-the-body-thought’. The Ithought is the subtle aspect of the individuality. The identification with mind, body etc. takes place only after the rise of the I-thought.^[2] Focusing on the continuous connection of the jīva with the body, Ramaṇa Maharṣi says that the jīva rises with the body, it is sustained on the series of the body, it grows up by eating the food of the body and after leaving one body, it grasps another body. Thus, the jīva can be hardly separated from the body in day to day life. However, when one keenly enquires into its nature, the jīva-ghost runs away, i.e. the concept of jīva disappears.^[3] Furthermore, he explains the complex nature of the jīva by putting forth the traditional example of the heated iron rod. The iron rod seems just like the fire due to its union with the fire. The identification of the body with the Self takes place in a similar way.^[4] In the opinion of Ramaṇa Maharṣi, this identification is the very cause of one’s misery. One acts in the world and gets bound by their results on account of his association with the body. So, the root cause of the saṃsāra is nothing but the identification with the body.^[5]

According to Ramaṇa Maharṣi, the cause of the identification is the ignorance.^[6] Sometimes, he equates the ignorance with this identification.^[7] He defines the ignorance as an obstruction in the way to the Self. The Ithought or the ego is the very obstruction of the Self-realization. So, it is none other than the ignorance.^[8] Owing to the ignorance, the jīva forgets the non-dual nature of the Self and experiences the variety in the world. In the viewpoint of Maharṣi, one cannot see the world in the sheer darkness of avidyā and also in the bright light of the Self. But he sees it, when the light of the Self reflects through the darkness of avidyā. It is like the pictures in the cinema show, which can be seen only in the diffused light.^[9] He also mentions two aspects of the ajñāna. The āvaraṇa (veiling-aspect) hides the Self and the vikṣepa (multiplicity-aspect) becomes responsible for the appearance of diversity in the world.^[10] Further, speaking of the relation of the ignorance with the Self, Maharṣi frequently asserts that the ignorance is non-existent in the view-point of the Self. It is only an assumption accepted to explain the empirical plane. Its existence is assumed because of the existence of the ego. In the absence of the ego, there would not remain any question regarding the ignorance.^[11] Further, he remarks that all the spiritual practices are surprisingly taught in great length only to remove the non-existent ignorance.^[12] To remove the ignorance, Maharṣi often instructs one to enquire into the root of the ignorance, namely the ego.

According to him, the elimination of the individuality is the key to know the unreality of the ignorance.^[13]

The body, which seems to limit the Self owing to the ignorance, is of three kinds: sthūla, sūkṣma and kāraṇa. The identification of the jīva with these bodies is seen in the three avasthās (states of being). These are jāgrat, svapna and suṣupti. The jīva passes through these three states daily. At various places, Ramaṇa Maharṣi has described these three phenomenal states and their relation with the turīyāvasthā (forth state). In this context, he often stresses that these states are of the jīva. The Self, which is the source of the ego, always transcends these states.^[14] The jīva identifies itself with three bodies successively in the three states. They can be explained as follows:

Jāgradavasthā:

The jīva identifies itself with the gross body in waking state. He perceives the gross objects through the senses. This sense-perception is an essential characteristic of the waking state. While explaining the waking state, Ramaṇa Maharṣi always rejects the reality of the gross body and the gross world. In his view, the existence of the body depends on the consciousness of the body. In the waking state, one becomes aware of the body because of the rise of the body-consciousness. On the other hand, there is no body in the absence of its consciousness in the state of deep sleep.^[15] Further, Maharṣi generally does not consider the gross entities apart from one’s thoughts. According to him, the sense-contact is not the standard of reality, and if it were so, one must admit the reality of the mirage, since it is perceived through the eyes.^[16] In this connection, he convinces that the gross manifestations are only materialized thoughts. They seem to be real as long as one identifies himself with the gross body. One believes his body to be originated from another physical body and so he thinks about the truth of other bodies also in a same way. However, this situation can be considered in a different way also. The ego and the thoughts along with the gross senses are illuminated in the light of the Self. As a result, the thoughts appear to the senses to be materialized in the form of the gross world and thus they become objects of the ego. So, here, it can be understood that the Self is the source of the ego and also of the other thoughts or the saṃskāras.^[17] Thus, in the viewpoint of Ramaṇa Maharṣi, both the gross body and the gross world are not external to one and they cannot stand apart from one’s thoughts. Moreover, he often mentions the non-difference between the waking and the dream and also uses dream analogy for the waking to eradicate the waking experience.^[18]

Svapnāvasthā:

In the state of dream, the duality exists just like in the waking. Here also, a subject is found to be set against an object. However, the gross body and sense organs do not work in this state, so gross objects are not perceived. But the mind is active, when one dreams. So subtlety of experience is the main characteristic of the dream state. Ramaṇa Maharṣi says that the ego identifies itself with the subtle body and perceives the subtle objects in the dream state.^[19] Speaking about this subtle experience, he observes that the dream occurs due to the latent tendencies gathered from the waking state. There is a combination of waking and deep sleep in the dream.^[20] One sees only the impressions of the waking experience in the dreams. One does not act in the dreams in real sense, because the gross body is inactive. So, Maharṣi says that the actions seemed to be performed in the dream state, do not give the results in the waking state.^[21] Besides this, he mentions the subtle body as a link between the inert gross body and the sentient Self. It is none other than the mind which is none but the reflection of the Self.^[22] Suṣuptyavasthā:

The existence of duality is a salient feature of waking and dream states. The diversity and the limitation of body pertain to these states only. But the deep sleep has totally opposite characteristics in comparison with these two states. It is described as a non-dual state, since one loses his individual identity in this state. Ramaṇa Maharṣi often uses an analogy of deep sleep to prove the bodiless existence of the individual soul and thereby to establish the falsity of the notion of duality. He says that the ego has no limitations in the deep sleep, so it does not perceive the world. The ego sees the world and feels different from it, only when it delimits itself with the body.^[23] In this way, Maharṣi maintains the loss of individuality and diversity in deep sleep. But he confirms that this loss is not permanent. For that, he elaborates the passage from the Chāndogya Upaniṣad (VI.9.1-3). The individuals become unified with the Sat (Existence) and lose their individuality in deep sleep. It is just like the honey-bulk from which each drop cannot be separately recognized. However, after waking up, they regain their individualities again by the force of their vāsanās. Further, Maharṣi provides the example of a river to prove this. The river loses its separate identity when it merges into the ocean, but it flows again when the water of the ocean evaporates and falls on a mountain in the form of rains.^[24] Furthermore, he explains the illustration of the hen and her chicks to show how the individuality merges and comes out along with the other thoughts. The chicks hide themselves in the wings of the mother-hen at night and then the hen goes to the nest for rest. The hen comes out again with these chicks at sunrise. Here, the hen stands for the I-thought and the chicks for the other thoughts. The I-thought collects all the thoughts and then merges into the Self in the deep sleep, but it emerges again from the Self along with all other thoughts in the waking.^[25] Thus, one experiences the duality again after the deep sleep.

One recollects the experience of happiness and ignorance, when he wakes up from deep sleep. About the happiness, experienced in the deep sleep, Ramaṇa Maharṣi says that a man possesses nothing in deep sleep, but he feels happy. This leads to the conclusion that the happiness is inherent in a man and it does not rely on the possession of the external objects.^[26] Further, Maharṣi denies accepting the happiness in deep sleep as the absolute one, but notes that it is nothing but an extremely subtle concept.^[27] Again, if such an experience takes place in deep sleep, why is it not known in that very state? According to Maharṣi, the answer to this question is the unity of the individual soul with the Self. He explains this with an illustration of a man, who has dived into the water to bring out a valuable thing from the bottom. This diver cannot speak until he comes out of the water. So, the experience of happiness cannot be spoken in the deep sleep itself. One can speak about it only after possessing the body.^[28] Another recollected experience of the deep sleep is of the ignorance. One knows nothing in this state. Here, Ramaṇa Maharṣi strictly rejects to call it the unconscious state. He says that one cannot remain unconscious. The unconsciousness in deep sleep can be explained as the absence of the relative consciousness. In the deep sleep, the consciousness of the duality does not prevail.^[29] Further, he makes this clear by illustrating the experience of cloudy dark night, in which one cannot perceive the individual objects but only the sheer darkness. In the same way, one experiences the nescience alone in deep sleep.^[30] Further, to prove the continuity of the consciousness in the deep sleep, Maharṣi argues that one’s unawareness in the deep sleep is declared by the mind, which is not present itself in that very state. So, the testimony of the mind is not valid in this case.^[31]

Ramaṇa Maharṣi often confirms the unity in deep sleep. But he answers quite in a different way when he explains how the experience of happiness in deep sleep takes place. He accepts some kind of relative knowledge in this state also. He explains that one has to infer his existence in deep sleep owing to one’s statement ‘I slept happily’. The vijñānātma viz. the jīva exists in the deep sleep also, but on extremely subtle level. He experiences the happy prajñānātmā viz. the pure Self through the māyā-modes. So, according to Maharṣi, the process of cognition exists in deep sleep also. But this experience is too subtle in comparison with the other two states.^[32] Thus, Ramaṇa Maharṣi approves the potential existence of the individuality in deep sleep.

The three bodies, which limit the jīva in three states, are explained in the terms of pañca-kośa also. These five sheaths are: annamaya, prāṇamaya, manomaya, vijñānamaya and ānandamaya. Ramaṇa Maharṣi agrees with the tradition while explaining the five sheaths, but he does not describe them elaborately.^[33] Mostly, he explains the vijñānamayakośa (sheath of intellect) and the ānandamaya-kośa (sheath of happiness) in his dialogues. There also he mainly concentrates on saying that these sheaths are only transitory appearances on the Self. He explains that the various modifications arise in the intellectual sheath. If these modifications are removed, there remains the pure Consciousness alone in the place of intellectual sheath. This thoughtless state is itself the pure Bliss which is the substratum of the sheath of happiness.^[34] Furthermore, he mentions that it is only the intellectual sheath, which determines that all these are the sheaths. If the I-thought and the other thoughts which rise in this sheath are removed, then there remains no sheath.^[35] While explaining the sheath of happiness, he says that this sheath is made of priya, moda and pramoda. One experiences the priya, when the desired thing is near at him. He experiences the moda after possessing that thing, and the pramoda arises when he enjoys that thing. One enjoys these experiences and becomes happy. The reason behind it, according to Maharṣi, is that all the thoughts become overpowered by a single thought and that single thought also finally sinks down into the Self at the time of enjoyment. And, in this manner, one experiences the happiness. But, this happiness is enjoyed in the sheath of happiness and it is not the pure Bliss. The Self is the essence of all these five sheaths. It transcends the five sheaths as well as the three states.^[36]

The limiting adjunct gets subtler in each state or in each sheath successively. The substratum of these three states is called the turīyāvasthā, which is none other than the Self. According to Ramaṇa Maharṣi, when one attains the Self, these three states disappear. In that place, the Self itself shines as turīyātīta, i.e. the state which transcends the fourth state. There is no difference in the turīya and turīyātīta states, since the term turīya is used considering the previous three states. In the absence of these three states, the turīya is itself the turīyātīta. ^[37] In the same sense, Maharṣi tells that the Self can be said as the sākṣī or the kṣetrajña viz. the witness, only when the existence of the body is accepted. But in the absence of the body, i.e. in the pure state of the Self, the Self cannot be called the sākṣī. ^[38] These states or sheaths are explained by Maharṣi to discriminate the Self from the body. His main saying is that the body is not one’s true nature, since it is not found continuously along with the ‘I’. However, the same ‘I’ continues through all the three states indifferent of the perishable body. So the real ‘I’ certainly transcends the body.^[39] He puts forth another argument to prove one’s bodiless existence. In his words, “If you are the body why do they bury the corpse after death? The body must refuse to be buried.”^[40] In this context, he asserts the etymological meaning of the term śarīra (body), which suggests its perishable nature.^[41] He further stresses that one must experience the transcendental ‘I’ in the waking state itself, since the identification with the subtle and the causal bodies is based on one’s identification with the gross body. If one can remove the identification with the gross body, he succeeds in removing the identification with other two bodies also.^[42]

Ramaṇa Maharṣi always discriminates the Self from the body. However, according to him, all the insentient things including one’s body cannot be different from the Self in real sense. So, the discrimination of the body from the Self is only an initial stage and not the final opinion. The ultimate Reality is the Self and nothing can be separated of it.^[43] Furthermore, considering the transcendental state, he asserts that any upādhi (delimiting adjunct) can never arise separately from the Self, since the Self is all-pervasive. The upādhi seems to be born only in the viewpoint of the ignorant one. The spark can arise only from a limited fire-ball. Otherwise, it is not possible. Similarly, the individual soul or the world cannot be separated from the all-pervasive Self.^[44] Thus, from the standpoint of the transcendental Self, the jīva is non-existent and Ramaṇa Maharṣi always stresses on this point. In one of the dialogues, he sets forth two examples to prove the unreality of the jīva. One of them is of the ghost. A man fears, when he sees a strange object in the darkness. That object troubles him, unless and until he looks closely what that object is. Then he realizes that it is simply a tree or a post and not a ghost. The other example is of a stranger joined a marriage ceremony. Both the parties consider him as a respectful member of the other party and treat him with a great revere. But he runs away, when the people ultimately know the truth. In this way, the ego seems to exist, until its truth is found out.^[45] So, according to Ramaṇa Maharṣi, the ego does not really exist in the Self. However, considering the empirical plane, he has always shown that the jīva is a mere transitory appearance on the Self and it totally depends on the Self for its existence.^[46] And, according to Maharṣi, even though it is accepted considering the empirical plane that the ego rises from the Self, still it always tries to rejoin its source viz. the Self.^[47]

The next crucial point is the relation of the jīva with the Īśvara. According to the Kevala-advaita-vedānta-philosophy, the jīva and the Īśvara seem to be different from each other owing to the limiting adjuncts, but the consciousness in them is one and the same. Ramaṇa Maharṣi too says the same thing that both the jīva and the Īśvara are same from the standpoint of their essential nature, i.e. the supreme Reality.^[48] He does not explain the relation between the jīva and the Īśvara by elaborating each and every minute detail, but he mentions the traditional views regarding the aggregate and the individual levels at some places. In one of the dialogues, he says that the individual cannot be independent of the aggregate. Therein, he precisely explains the terms Īśvara, hiraṇyagarbha, virāṭ, māyā and Brahman, which are concerned on the aggregate level. Similarly, he explains the terms prājña, taijasa, viśva, ignorance and jīva, which are concerned on the individual level. Thereafter, he remarks that the scholars show the unity of these five groups, but this is none other than the polemics.^[49] Thus, Maharṣi is of the same view that the jīva and the Īśvara are essentially same. However, he does not encourage one to get engaged into the long scriptural discussions about the relation between the jīva and the Īśvara.

While explaining the concept of the jīva, Ramaṇa Maharṣi always shows a connection between the Self and the jīva. For instance, by using the simile of ocean and the bubbles, he says that the jīva appears on the Self just like the bubbles on the ocean. The bubbles can never be divided from the ocean; similarly the jīva cannot remain separate from the Self.^[50] Here, it must be noted that Maharṣi does not consider the jīva as being a part of the Self. He simply wants to show that the jīva is the Self in its essence, but it appears as if a part of the Self on account of its adjuncts. Further, in one of the dialogues, he asserts the stages of the viewpoint of the aspirant towards the God or the Reality, according to his progress in the spiritual practice. At first stage, the devotee thinks himself to be different from the God. Then, he believes to be a part of the God. The body-consciousness of the devotee is prevailing at this second stage also. However, ultimately he comes to know the truth that he is not different from the God. At this stage, there remains the non-dual Self alone.^[51] At another place, illustrating the grain, he says that the grain is called the paddy when it is covered up by the husk, but it is called the grain when it becomes husk-free. Similarly, the jīva is called the Śiva when it becomes free from adjuncts. Thus, the ego is the eternal Self itself in its essence.^[52] In this manner, Ramaṇa Maharṣi always stresses on the basic identity of the jīva with the Self.

The non-difference between the jīva and the Brahman is shown with the help of the mahāvākyās (principal sentences from the Upaniṣads) in the tradition. Praising the mahāvākyās, Ramaṇa Maharṣi says that the ignorance is removed only through the mahāvākyās, which state the eternal truth. So, every realized one owes his experience to the mahāvākyas. By hearing the truth of the identity of the jīva with the Brahman, the aspirant ignores the other diversions and focuses on the Self and finally realizes the Self.^[53] Thus, Maharṣi certainly admires the mahāvākyās considering their depth, but he opposes one to get engaged merely into the complicated discussions on the mahāvākyās, ignoring their true import viz. the Self.^[54]

While explaining the mahāvākya ‘tattvamasi’, Ramaṇa Maharṣi always makes one concentrate on the tvam. In his opinion, the tvam in this mahāvākya indicates the Self which is the most intimate entity to everyone. Ignoring this very truth, one tries to find out the tat that indicates the entity immanent in the world. Thus, it is futile to seek the Self outside when it is the very core of oneself. Further, Maharṣi speaks of the futility of such complex discussions by narrating his own experience. He was not familiar with such concepts at the beginning, but afterwards he came to know that such notions were expanded in the treatises.^[55] In another dialogue, he clearly denies the necessity of knowing the tat before understanding the tvam. He argues that the Self is always the Brahman. The world cannot stay different from the Self. So, one should focus only on the Self.^[56] Further, he asserts that the Brahman always shines as one’s own Self and this very truth is clearly affirmed in the mahāvākyā ‘tattvamasi’. However, one cannot attain the state of Selfabidance immediately after hearing the truth only due to the absence of the strength of mind.^[57] At another place, Maharṣi specifically says that the words tat and asi are used in the mahāvākya for the disciple who is not yet capable to understand the real import of tvam. ^[58] About the mahāvākya ‘aham Brahmāsmi’, which means ‘I am the Brahman’, there is a misunderstanding that it is an object of meditation. Ramaṇa Maharṣi removes this doubt by saying that one is not expected to concentrate on the thought aham Brahmāsmi. This mahāvākya states that the Brahman is none other than the aham and makes one to search the true nature of aham. ^[59] This mahāvākya expresses the state of direct experience of the egoless state.^[60]

In the later Śāṅkara-tradition, two streams have been developed regarding the number of jīva. They are: Eka-jīva-vāda (doctrine of one jīva) and Aneka-jīva-vāda (doctrine of multiple jīvas). These doctrines are minutely discussed along with their subtypes in the traditional treatises.^[61] Ramaṇa Maharṣi has not provided specific attention to build up the theory of any of these doctrines. The discussions of these doctrines are rarely found in his dialogues. However, it seems that he might be in favour of the Eka-jīva-vāda, because he does not regard the world and the individuals apart from one’s thoughts. He mostly holds the Dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭivāda to prove this. This is explained in the next sub-topic named Jagat. In the treatise ‘Guru-vachaka-kovai’, his approval to Ekajīva-vāda is clearly recorded. According to him, the Aneka-jīva-vāda is explained only for the less qualified aspirants.^[62] Furthermore, he puts forth the illustration of the dream state to refute the multiplicity of the jīvas. The multiple jīvas seen in a dream are not actually apart from the dreamer. When one wakes up from the dream, he realizes this truth and does not further enquire about the truth of the dream-phenomena. Similarly, after realizing the source of the jīva i.e. the Self, there do not remain the multiple jīvas. ^[63] Even though Maharṣi sometimes asserts the oneness of the jīva, he is certainly not a propounder of the Eka-jīva-vāda. At various places, he mentions the multiplicity of the jīvas also. He says that the Self is only one and the multiple jīvas appear to rise on it.^[64] However, according to him, the question of one or various selves is raised only due to the consideration of the body. One perceives the multiple selves only after identifying himself with the body. In the absence of this basic identification, there cannot remain various selves. For instance, in the state of deep sleep, one does not raise such question owing to the absence of the consciousness of the body.^[65] Thus, Ramaṇa Maharṣi mainly concentrates on saying that one’s individuality is responsible for the perception of multiplicity, since there does not remain any jīva to be counted in the non-dual state of the Self. So, his main purpose seems to make one concentrate on solving the problem of one’s own individuality.^[66] And, this might be the very reason behind his approval of the Eka-jīva-vāda. In this way, it seems that Ramaṇa Maharṣi approves the Eka-jīva-vāda to make one attend the nature of one’s own individuality neglecting the external phenomena.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

[Sad-darśanam] 26 [Sad-darśana-bhāṣya of Kapali Sastry] 26; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 212, 413;[Self Enquiry], Q. 3, p. 6

[2]:

“Ego is ‘I-thought’. In its subtle form it remains a thought, whereas in its gross aspect it embraces the mind, the senses and the body.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 254; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 132, 232-233

[3]:

[Sad-darśanam] 27; See also [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.110;[Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 83; [Day by Day with Bhagavan] p. 266

[4]:

“The rod is the jivatma and the fire the Self or Paramatma.” [Day by Day with Bhagavan] p. 262; See also [Self Enquiry], Q. 16, pp. 16-17

[5]:

“Do not confound yourself with the object, namely the body. This gives rise to the false ego, consequently of the world and your movements therein with the resulting misery.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 53; See also [Guru Vachaka Kovai] II.846

[6]:

“This false identification is due to ignorance.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 150; See also [Maharshi’s Gospel] p. 20

[7]:

“This ignorance is the identification of the Self with the non-Self.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 115

[8]:

“That which is eternal is not known to be so because of ignorance. Ignorance is the obstruction… The ignorance is identical with the ‘I-thought’.” Ibid p. 169; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 299, 554

[9]:

“…the world pictures are perceptible only in diffused, i.e. reflected light of the Self through the darkness of avidya (ignorance)… Avidya is the Cause of variety.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 362; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 299-300, 556, 619; [Day by Day with Bhagavan] p. 2

[10]:

“Ajnana has two aspects: avarana (veiling) and vikshepa (multiplicity).” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 516; See also [Ramana Puranam] lines 233-240

[11]:

“If you begin to enquire, the avidya which is already non-existent, will be found not to be or you will say it has fled away… However the worldly life requires the hypothesis of avidya.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 345; See also [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.456, III.1036; [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 172, 260, 336

[12]:

“So many efforts and so much discipline are said to be necessary for eradicating the non-existing avidya!” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 514

[13]:

“This ignorance must be traced to its origin. To whom is this ignorance?” Ibid p. 102; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 120, 345

[14]:

“These states belong to the ego.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 5; See also [Guru Vachaka Kovai] II.568; [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 100

[15]:

The body and body-consciousness arise together and sink together.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 9394

[16]:

“…if the world is real simply because it appears to your senses, then a mirage would be water.” [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.24; See also [Guru Vachaka Kovai] II.871

[17]:

“Because his body is imagined to have originated from another physical being, the other exists as truly as his own body.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 9

[18]:

“All that we see is a dream, whether we see it in the dream state or in the waking state.” [Day by Day with Bhagavan] p. 159; See also [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.47, II.553-565

[19]:

“If the ego identifies itself with the subtle mind, as in dream, the perceptions are subtle also.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 14

[20]:

“The dream is the combination of jagrat and sushupti. It is due to the samskaras of the jagrat state.” Ibid p. 390

[21]:

“All the karmas that one has seen that one has done in dream, will not give fruit in the waking state.” [Guru Vachaka Kovai] II.554

[22]:

“In this way the subtle body which is synonymous with the mind, is both sentient and insentient, i.e., abhasa.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 375

[23]:

“In sleep there was no world, no ego (no limited self), and no trouble.” Ibid p. 72; cf. See also p. 172

[24]:

“…the individuals going to sleep lose their individualities and yet return as individuals according to their previous vasanas unawares.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 106

[25]:

“…when the ego displays itself, it does so with all its paraphernalia. When it sinks, everything disappears with it.” Ibid p. 257; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 603

[26]:

“In deep sleep the man is devoid of possessions, including his own body. Instead of being unhappy he is quite happy.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 1-2

[27]:

“The bliss of sleep is but a concept to the person, the same as intellect. However, the concept of experience is exceedingly subtle in sleep.” Ibid pp. 178-179; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 605

[28]:

“…the sleeper cannot express his experience because he cannot contact the organs of expression until he is awakened by his vasanas in due course.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 604; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 376

[29]:

“We however say that we were unconscious in our sleep because we refer to qualified consciousness.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 278

[30]:

“…in sushupti the seer is aware of simple nescience.” Ibid p. 257

[31]:

“Seeking the testimony of the mind to disprove your existence or awareness during sleep is just like calling your son’s evidence to disprove your birth!” [Maharshi’s Gospel] p. 68

[32]:

“This brings us to the conclusion that the cogniser, cognition and the cognised are present in all the three states, though there are differences in their subtleties.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 289

[33]:

“Annamaya kosa is the gross body sheath. The senses with the prana and the karmendriyas form the pranamayakosa (sense-sheath)…” Ibid p. 245

[34]:

“…the vijnanamaya (intellect) is called a kosa or sheath. When pure awareness is left over it is itself the Chit (Self) or the Supreme… To be in one’s natural state on the subsidence of thoughts is bliss…” Ibid pp. 610-611

[35]:

“Without intellect, no sheath is cognised.” Ibid p. 181; See also [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.461

[36]:

“These are sheaths and not the core, which is interior to all these. It lies beyond waking, dream and deep sleep.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 607, See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 546

[37]:

“The state of turiya, which is Self, pure sat-chit, is itself the non-dual turiyatita.” [Guru Vachaka Kovai] II.937-938

[38]:

“In the clear view of Self, which is a single vast Space of Consciousness, there is no body at all and it is therefore wrong to call Self ‘Dehi’ or ‘Kshetrajna’ [the owner or knower of the body].” Ibid I.97-98

[39]:

“Hence the ego is not one with the body. This must be realised in the waking state. Avasthatraya… should be studied only for gaining this outlook.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 256

[40]:

Ibid p. 113

[41]:

“The term sariram means that which will perish.” [Day by Day with Bhagavan] p. 206

[42]:

“It is on the gross body that the other bodies subsist.” [Self Enquiry], Q. 5, p. 7

[43]:

“He must first discern consciousness from insentience and be the consciousness only. Later let him realise that insentience is not apart from consciousness.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 165; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 270-271

[44]:

“…it is impossible for jivas and the world to arise as tiny separate entities, ‘I’ [and ‘this’], from the Supreme Self, which is the unlimited Whole.” [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.96

[45]:

“What is the ego then? It is something intermediate between the inert body and the Self. It has no locus standi. If sought for it vanishes like a ghost.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 594-595

[46]:

“The ego-self appears and disappears and is transitory, whereas the real Self always abides permanent.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 344-345; See also [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.160, II.606; [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 55

[47]:

“…the soul rising up from Thee cannot be kept from joining Thee again, although it turns in many eddies on its way.” [Eight Stanzas to Sri Arunachala] 8, p. 103; See also [Guru Vachaka Kovai] II.631-632;[Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 379-380

[48]:

[Upadeśa-sāraḥ] 24

[49]:

“Jiva is not independent of Isvara; nor ignorance of maya… They say that all these five groups should be unified. This they call the unity of the Five. All these are only polemics!” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 557

[50]:

“Unbroken ‘I-I’ is the ocean infinite, the ego, ‘I’ thought, remains only a bubble on it and is called jiva, i.e., individual soul. The bubble too is water; when it bursts it only mixes in the ocean. When it remains a bubble it is still a part of the ocean.” Ibid p. 90; cf. [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 133

[51]:

“The second stage is when you think of yourself as a spark of the divine fire or a ray from the divine Sun. Even then there is still that sense of difference and the bodyconsciousness. The third stage will come when all such difference ceases to exist, and you realise that the Self alone exists.” [Day by Day with Bhagavan] p. 343

[52]:

“The jiva itself is Siva;Siva Himself is the jiva. It is true that the jiva is no other than Siva.” [Self Enquiry], Q. 37, pp. 32-33 “The ‘I’ is always Brahman. Its identity need not be established by logic and practice.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 632

[53]:

“The person is enabled to realise only after hearing the mahavakya.” Ibid p. 632

[54]:

“The mahavakyas and their interpretation lead to interminable discussions and keep the minds of the seekers engaged externally.” Ibid p. 520

[55]:

“The scriptures say “That Thou art”. In this statement ‘Thou’ is directly experienced; but leaving it out they go on seeking ‘That’!... I never bothered myself with such matters. Only after a time it occurred to me that men had investigated such matters.” Ibid p 620;See also [Guru Vachaka Kovai] II.505-508; [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 297

[56]:

“But why all this? Can the world exist apart from the Self? The ‘I’ is always Brahman.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 632; See also [Day by Day with Bhagavan] p. 17

[57]:

[Sad-darśanam] 34

[58]:

Only in order to turn inward the minds of less mature aspirants… [the Vedas] added the other two words ‘That’ [tat] and ‘Art’ [asi] to the word ‘Thou’ [tvam]… [Guru Vachaka Kovai] II.507

[59]:

“The text is not meant for thinking “I am Brahman” … Brahman abides as Aham in everyone.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 232; See also [Guru Vachaka Kovai] III.897; [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 632

[60]:

“The State in which the thought ‘I’ [i.e. the ego] does not rise even a bit is the State ‘I am Brahman’.” [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.356;See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 91

[61]:

[Siddhānta-leśa-saṅgraha] pp. 123-124

[62]:

“Let highly mature and courageous aspirants who have a bright and sharp intellect, firmly accept that soul [jiva] is only one [eka]… It is only to suit immature minds that scriptures generally say that souls [jivas] are many [nana].” [Guru Vachaka Kovai] II.534

[63]:

“Does a man who sees many individuals in his dream persist in believing them to be real and enquire after them when he wakes up?” Ibid p. 551-552

[64]:

“Aham -‘I’, is only one. Egos are different. They are in the One Self.” Ibid p. 253; cf. [Guru Vachaka Kovai] II.621, 631, III.1044

[65]:

“This is again due to confusion;you identify the body with the Self. You think: “Here I am; here he is, there is another; and so on”. You find many bodies and think they are so many selves.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 544; See also [Spiritual Instruction]-III, Q. 6, p. 67

[66]:

“Leave others alone. If you take care of yourself others can take care of themselves” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 626 “If you understand your jiva the other jiva is also understood” Ibid p. 228