Chapter 3.2 - Ramaṇa Maharṣi on Jagat

According to the Upaniṣads, The jagat which is full of variety has its root in the Brahman. The Kevala-advaita-vedānta-philosophy does not accept the reality of the world apart from its substratum viz. the Brahman. The world is regarded as mere illusion or unreal considering the transcendental plane.^[1] The concept of the world is generally seen to be discussed on three levels. These are: creation, sustainment and dissolution. In the later Śāṅkara-tradition, two streams have been developed regarding the creation of the world. They are: Sṛṣṭi-dṛṣṭi-vāda and Dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda. According to the Sṛṣṭi-dṛṣṭi-vāda, the world is created by the Īśvara and it is perceived through the senses. The sequence of the creation is according to the descriptions in the Vedas. This theory holds that the world exists apart from one’s perception. On the other hand, the Dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda holds that the creation is contemporaneous with its perception. It does not exist apart from its cognition. The cognition itself is the creation. Thus, the upholders of this theory reduce the vyāvahārika-sattā (empirical plane) to the prātibhāsika-sattā (illusory plane).^[2] Both these approaches are found to be discussed in the dialogues of Ramaṇa Maharṣi. He describes the sṛṣṭi-dṛṣṭi as krama-sṛṣṭi (gradual creation) and the dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi as yugapat-sṛṣṭi (simultaneous creation).^[3]

Ramaṇa Maharṣi describes the krama-sṛṣṭi very few times in comparison with the yugapat-sṛṣṭi. There also he mostly shows the flaws in this view. He is not at all interested in explaining the sequence of the creation. He slightly mentions it while explaining the tanmātrās (five subtle elements). In his view, the whole universe arises owing to the variations in the tanmātrās. These variations are caused by the influence of the three guṇas, namely the constituents of the prakṛti (nature). The gross objects are produced from the tamo-guṇa; the vital airs and the motor-organs are produced from the rajo-guṇa; and the sense organs are produced from the sattva-guṇa. He further explains this causal relation between the tanmātrās and the world by illustrating the ringing bell. Here, the bell is the gross object, which is the modification of tamo-guṇa. The sound is an effect of rājas tanṃātrā and the knowledge of sound is an effect of the sattva tanṃātrā. ^[4] In another dialogue, he explains the theory of creation quite in a different way. Therein, he mentions that the tanmātrās which proceed from the prakṛti, give rise to the inner organ, sense organs and motor organs after the process of pañcīkaraṇa. Further, he mentions that the creation occurs both on the samaṣṭi (collective level) and the vyaṣṭi (individual level). Further, he notes that the predominance of ether gives rise to jñāna under the influence of the sattva-guṇa, the predominance of vāyu gives rise to manas and so on. These tanmātrās are changed into sense organs and motor organs under the influence of rajoguṇa and tamo-guṇa successively on the individual level. Thus, according to him, the common factor is the tanmātras on both the srishti (simultaneous or sudden creation) collective and individual levels.^[5] Both these descriptions are obviously not in full length and do not give each and every subtle information of creation. In this context, Ramaṇa Maharṣi himself says that the process of the creation is found to be differently described, but the objective of all these descriptions is the source of the creation viz. the Self.^[6]

Speaking of the diverse opinions about the creation, Ramaṇa Maharṣi asserts that such theories are discussed on the mental or the intellectual plane. These are unable to give any final solution. So, it is futile to engage into the conflicting views of the creation.^[7] He further suggests to consider these theories elaborated in the Vedas as the arthavāda (eulogy) or to think that they are described for the sake of one, who is interested in the gradual creation. The principle objective of the Vedas behind explaining these theories is to show the illusory nature of the world and to bring one’s attention towards the eternal Self, which is one’s own true nature.^[8] Moreover, Maharṣi clearly mentions that it is not necessary to analyze the various categories to know the Self, but one must reject all of them, just like throwing away the garbage.^[9] In this manner, Ramaṇa Maharṣhi avoids to explain the various theories of gradual creation and also to solve the problem of the contradiction among them. On the other hand, most of the times, he supports the view of yugapat-sṛṣṭi. In his view, only a capable aspirant can grasp this view. The gradual creation of the world is explained for the less qualified aspirant, who is not able to understand the view of the yugapat-sṛṣṭi. ^[10]

The independent existence of the world from the subject is denied in the Dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi-vāda. Ramaṇa Maharṣi asserts the same thing that one’s individuality is responsible for the appearance of the world. The world appears with the rise of the I-thought viz. the ego and it comes to an end with the end of the I-thought. Therefore, the world is illuminated or known by this I-thought.^[11] To prove this, he frequently argues that the objects do not come and tell one that they exist but it is the individual or the subject, who affirms their existence. So, the objects depend on the sight of the subject.^[12] Considering this prominence of the I-thought, sometimes Maharṣi shows the sequence in the origin of the I-thought and other objective thoughts. He says that the I-thought is created at first and then the world which is not different from one’s thoughts. Hence, the problem of the world-creation can be solved, only if one solves the question of the creation of I-thought.^[13] Additionally, he tells that the nature of the world depends on the nature of the subject, namely the ego.

If the ego is with gross form, the worldly objects have a gross form, and if the ego is with subtle form, the world has a subtle form. These conditions refer to the waking and the dream states successively, where the ego is supposed to be with a particular form. On the other hand, the ego does not have such a form in the state of deep sleep, so there does not exist any object in the absence of the ego.^[14] The illustration of deep sleep is often used by Maharṣi to prove the non-existence of the world in the absence of the ego. So, his main focus is that the existence of the world depends on the existence of the body i.e. one’s identification with the body, since one cannot perceive the world in the absence of the body.^[15] Thus, Ramaṇa Maharṣi maintains the view of yugapat-sṛṣṭi on the strength of the relativity of the subject and the object.

One of the salient features of Ramaṇa Maharṣi’s philosophy is the manomayatva of the world. He always emphasizes the non-difference between the empirical objects and the mental thoughts. Therefore, he considers the waking-world as a mental creation just like the dream. A very common definition of a mind, which is frequently seen in his works, is that a mind is none but a bundle of thoughts. The world appears in the waking and the dream states, since the thoughts are active in these states. In the state of deep sleep, the thoughts are inactive and so the world is not seen. In other words, the world appears with the rise of the mind and it comes to an end when the mind gets absorbed into the Self. The projection of the world from the mind occurs, just like the threads are produced from the spider and also withdrawn back by the spider itself.^[16] Maharṣi proves this dependence of the world on the mind by using another argument. He says that the whole world is none other than the five sense-objects. These sense-objects depend on five sense-organs for their illumination and the sense-organs are governed by the mind. Hence, the world is none other than the mind.^[17] In this way, according to Maharṣi, the subjective and the objective modes or thoughts are contained in the mind and they get projected out of the mind.

While explaining the way, in which the mind appears in the form of subject and object, Ramaṇa Maharṣi describes the concept of the mind in more intricate manner. For instance, while explaining the 6^th stanza of the poem ‘Aruṇācala-aṣṭaka’, he puts forth some profound details about the appearance of the subject and the object in the mind. The summary of this description can be said as follows: The light of the Self is reflected on the ego owing to the power of the Self. The ego is the aggregate of all the thoughts or the latent tendencies. According to one’s destiny, this reflected light manifests the latent tendencies as the external gross world and again withdraws the gross world back in the form of the subtle internal tendencies. The objects cannot be seen either in the bright light of the Self or in the total darkness of the ignorance. In the reflected light alone, one can experience the world. It is just like the rope which cannot be mistaken for the snake in the clear sunlight or in the dense darkness. But one sees the snake on a rope only in dim light. Similarly, the Self appears as the ego and the world only when the light of the Self diffuses through the original ignorance. This reflected light is called the pure or sāttvika mind or the Īśvara. The rājasika and tāmasika aspects of the mind are related to the ego and the antaḥkaraṇa respectively. This is the impure mind. The antaḥkaraṇa appears as the external world. If the four parts of the antaḥkaraṇa are considered, they can be divided into two major parts. Combining the intellect with the ego, it is said to be the vijñānātmā or the subject; and combining the mind with the citta, it is said to be a mental sheath or the objects. Both these subject and object are only the passing phenomena on the substratum of the Self. Then, how does the outer world appear? The reflected light passes through certain tendencies and then expands as the outer world. The tendencies work as the magnifier in this process. Thus, the Īśvara, the jīva and the jagat are none other than the reflected light. And, the light of the Self transcends the reflected light.^[18] At some places, Ramaṇa Maharṣi describes the mind as an ether principle. He says that the mind, which comprehends the world or the physical ether, is itself the ether principle. It is contained in the cidākāśa (ultimate consciousness). It is called the ether, because it is the principle of knowledge. The word ‘ether’ denotes not only the insentient physical ether but the pure knowledge also, where no objects are found. In the sattva aspect, the mind remains pure. The dynamic and the dull aspects of mind manifest as I-thought and all other objects.^[19] At another place, Maharṣi clearly says, “The manokasa (mind-ether) is reflected as bhootakasa (element-ether) and objects are seen as being separate from the subject.”^[20] Other dialogues, describing the creation of the subject and the object from the mind, mostly resemble with the above description, although some variations are found. However, all these descriptions focus on the same thing that the world is a mental creation.

Ramaṇa Maharṣi considers the reflected light, just before the creation of the world and the individual, as the Īśvara or the pure cosmic mind, in which the simultaneous appearance of the subject and the object takes place. At the same time, he asserts that the individual sees his own vāsanās as the outer gross world. For example, while explaining the mahat-principle, he repeats his saying that the ego and the objects are visible only in the reflected consciousness, which is the cosmic consciousness. Further, he explains the creation of the body and other objects on the microcosm level. According to him, the brain is comprised of the impressions of the body and the objects. These impressions manifest when the light of the Self is projected on the brain. And, since the ego identifies itself with the body, the world is considered to be separate from oneself. It is just like a dream. One sees the crowd in the dream and identifies himself with one of the bodies in the crowd. Here, the space and the time do not enter into the brain but they are projected from the brain. In this way, the entire waking world is also a projection of the brain, i.e. the internal tendencies.^[21] However, Ramaṇa Maharṣi certainly does not limit the mind to the brain, since he asserts that the body, of which the brain is a part, is itself the projection of the mind.

Creating the body along with the brain and also saying that the brain is a seat of the mind, is a play of the mind.^[22] In one of the dialogues, Maharṣi uses the terms jīva-sṛṣṭi (creation of the individual) and Īśvara-sṛṣṭi (creation of the Īśvara) and says that only the jīva-sṛṣṭi is responsible for pleasure and pain. Further, he does not elaborate these views in full length.^[23] In short, Ramaṇa Maharṣi considers both types of creation, namely the cosmic creation and the individual creation in his dialogues. Here, the question of some importance is, ‘Which type of creation does he approve the most?’ In this connection, he says that the world does not tell one that it is created by the individual mind or by the cosmic mind. The world is perceived only by the individual mind. In the absence of that mind there remains no world to be seen.^[24] So, it seems that the main focus of Ramaṇa Maharṣi is not to elaborate the cosmic creation in full length or to explain its relation with the individual creation. On the other hand, he mostly focuses on explaining how the world appears to the individual. He mostly insists one to concentrate on the individual level ignoring the details of the cosmic level.

It is now easy to prove the unreality of the world, after establishing its non-difference from the mind. Ramaṇa Maharṣi always tells that the mind never exists in the viewpoint of the ultimate Reality, which transcends the plane of the empirical world. The world is unreal, since it has no separate existence from the mind. The world is always thought in the limits of time and space, but both these entities are merely creations of the mind.^[25] These concepts appear only when one’s identification with the body takes place. In the absence of such identification, the Self shines everywhere and all the time. In other words, the time and the place do not exist in the ultimate Reality. They can play their role only on the mindplane.^[26] In this way, the dependence of the world on the mind proves to be the essential reason in establishing the unreality of the world. Apart from this, Ramaṇa Maharṣi approves various traditional and modern illustrations also to show the illusory nature of the world, such as mirages in the deserts, a thief appearing on a tree-stump, serpent on a rope,^[27] illusory ring of fire,^[28] silver on the shell,^[29] cloth on the cotton, letters on a paper, figures in a cinema^[30] etc. However, in this context, the most used example by him is of the dreams. He compares the waking experience with dreams and denies the reality of the waking state. He often emphasizes the oneness of these two experiences. Because, according to him, the standards which differentiate these two states are not quite logical. So, the difference between these two states is not real.^[31] Here, it must be noted that he speaks this from the viewpoint of the ultimate Reality. So, it is improper to say that he denies the vyavahāra or the empirical plane totally. He asserts that the entire world can be discarded only by one, who is established in the ultimate Reality. So, only in the viewpoint of the jñānī, the world does not exist.^[32] Further, Ramaṇa Maharṣi says that the permanence and the wholeness are the standards of the Reality. These are never found in the world, since it is transitory and divided in its nature. So it is unreal.^[33] But, at the same time, he says that one always believes in the reality of the world. This false belief cannot be removed merely by saying that the world is unreal and impermanent. It is necessary to see the eternal Self for removing this belief.^[34] Thus, Ramaṇa Maharṣi considers empirical level also. However, it cannot be ignored that he generally intends to show the non-difference between the waking and the dream worlds.

Considering the transcendental state, Ramaṇa Maharṣi frequently approves the Ajāti-vāda (doctrine of non-origination).^[35] He says that the ajāti is a matter of experience. The Self is not experienced, when one perceives the world. On the contrary, one does not perceive the world when he experiences the Self. Thus, the world does not exist in the state of Self-abidance. And, the truth of non-origination is understood after the attainment of the Self-realization.^[36] In this sense, he proclaims that the Self is not the cause of the world in the real sense of term. The names and the forms merely appear on the Self.^[37] At some places, he claims that the theory of causation cannot be established. He shows the fault in the illustration of bījāṅkura (seed and sprout) by saying that one cannot determine which comes first, the seed or the sprout. So, the causal relation cannot be stated accurately.^[38] According to Maharṣi, both the cause and the effect are imagined only by the mind. So, they do not exist in real sense.^[39] He has also quoted one of the Gauḍapāda-kārikās (II.32) at some places, which says that there is no destruction, no origination, no one is bound, no one is an aspirant, no one longs for liberation and no one is liberated. This is the highest truth.^[40] In the same way, considering the subject-matter of the Bhagavad-gītā he often tells that Śrīkṛśṇa advises the doctrine of ajāti in the Bhagavad-gītā at first, but later he speaks about his several births. These statements seem to be contradictory. However, it is not so, since these answers suggest different standpoints which are explained for the aspirants having different capacities.^[41]

Moreover, it is clearly stated in one of the verses of the Guru-vachakakovai that Ramaṇa Maharṣi himself explained many doctrines according to the eligibility of the aspirants, but the ajāti is his true experience.^[42] Thus, in the opinion of Ramaṇa Maharṣi, the world is not originated and therefore it is non-existent.

However, the doctrine of non-origination is stated only from the standpoint of the transcendental plane. On the empirical level, one’s experience goes totally opposite to this. One perceives the world in day to day life. So, now it becomes necessary to justify the world-appearance in a logical way. For this, the concept of māyā is used in the Kevalaadvaita-vedānta-philosophy. Ramaṇa Maharṣi does not discuss the concept of māyā in full length, but he mentions it at some places. In the Ramaṇa-gītā, he defines the māyā as the movement of the śakti (power of the Self). It is inexpressible and causes to create the world.^[43] Here, he slightly bifurcates the māyā from the śakti. But, at some places, he tells that they are one and the same.^[44] He does not elaborate the relation between the māyā and the avidyā. Sometimes, he shows the nondifference between these terms.^[45] However, it seems that he does not totally equate them. At some places, he considers the concept of avidyā on individual level and the concept of māyā on the cosmic level.^[46] At various places, especially in the Guru Vachaka Kovai, he regards the māyā as non-different from the mind.^[47] Further, he says that the māyā is responsible for concealing the truth of the Self. One believes in the reality of the trinity, i.e. the God, the world and the individual owing to the māyā.^[48]

Apart from all this discussion, the main thing what Maharṣi wants to say is that the māyā has no real existence apart from the Self. Almost in all the conversations, he says that the māyā is non-existent. He proves this by putting forth the etymological meaning of the term māyā. The māyā means yā mā, namely that which does not exist. This meaning is seen in the Gauḍapāda-kārikas.^[49] Thus, the māyā is unreal in viewpoint of the absolute Reality. Furthermore, he mentions that it is totally impossible for the māyā to bind the ever-shining Self.^[50] According to him, the truth of the non-existence of the māyā can be known only by transcending the mind or the vāsanās. Therefore, attaining the Selfknowledge is the only solution to eliminate the māyā. ^[51]

Ramaṇa Maharṣi has also expressed his opposition about the title Māyāvādin (upholder of the doctrine of māyā) that is found to be attributed to Śaṅkarācārya. In his opinion, the opponents blame the philosophy of Śaṅkarācārya under the name Māyā-vāda without proper understanding his views. Ācārya certainly regarded the world as a myth, but he proclaimed the statement ‘Brahman is the universe’ along with it. It suggests that the world is unreal when it is thought to be different from the Brahman and it is real, when it is regarded as none other than the Brahman. Further, Ramaṇa Maharṣi clearly turns this discussion to the method of Self-enquiry saying that Śaṅkarācārya focuses on the Self. He asks ‘To whom does the world appear? The answer must be the Self, since it is the perceiver. So, Ācārya concludes that the world is not apart from the Self, since it does not exist in the absence of the Self.^[52] In this context, it must be noted that Ramaṇa Maharṣi himself accepted the reality of the world, if it is seen none other than the Self. He opines that the names and the forms constantly change and perish. So, if the world is considered to be only names and forms, it is certainly mithyā (temporal). However, if it is considered none other than the eternal Self, then it is real. Herein, he puts forth the sentence ‘All this is Brahman’ and further says that the Advaitin negates mere names and forms of the world. But considering the world as the Brahman, he says that it is real. The jñānī experiences only the Self in the world. He always abides in the Self, which is the substratum of the world. In his viewpoint, the entire world is nothing but the Self itself.^[53] Additionally, Maharṣi says that the māyāvādin is one who affirms the reality of the māyā and its effect viz. the world. Śaṅkarācārya rejects the existence of māyā from the standpoint of the Brahman, so it is improper to call him the Māyāvādī. ^[54]

Besides the explanation of the māyā, Ramaṇa Maharṣi has described the role of the śakti in the context of the world. According to him, all the differences of triads appear on the substratum of the Svarūpa viz. the Self. And, the knowers of the Vedānta declare that the Self possesses the entire śakti. The śakti is not static, since the various worlds are created owing to its movement. The Self, which is the substratum of the movement, never moves.^[55] The individual wrongly considers this movement as being true. But, in the real sense, the Self never moves. The difference between the Īśvara and the śakti is assumed only by the individual sight. If this individual sight is merged into the Self, it can be realized that the Self and the śakti are one and the same. So, even though the supreme Self seems to be moving on account of his śakti, it is truly inactive. This is the highest secrete, which is realized only by the sages.^[56] Here, Kapali Sastry comments that the śakti is not different from the Self.

Even if so, it is accepted that only the śakti has movement and the Self is without movement. This contrast can be removed only by the true knowledge of the supreme Self and not by the complicated logic or empty arguments. This specific sense is indicated by the words ‘this supreme truth can be known only by the realized one’.^[57] Further, Ramaṇa Maharṣi particularly asserts that the creation, which is said to be the sport of the śakti, is the imagination of the Īśvara. When this imagination is transcended, there remains the Self alone.^[58] According to Kapali Sastry, here the word Īśa-kalpanā is used, so that there should not be the confusion that the whole creation is imagined by the jīva. ^[59] So, in the opinion of Kapali Sastry, Ramaṇa Maharṣi indicates here that the world is created by the Īśvara alone and not by the jīva. And, it is quite true. Ramaṇa Maharṣi frequently states that the world is not apart from the thoughts of the individual. Sometimes, he approves the doctrine of one jīva also. Still, he does not deny the creatorship or the governance of the Īśvara. The views of Maharṣi regarding the concept of Īśvara are explained in the next section, namely ‘Brahman’.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Brahma-jñānāvalī-mālā 20, Śrīśāṅkaragranthāvaliḥ: Prakaraṇaprabandhāvaliḥ, Vol. II.

[2]:

[Siddhānta-leśa-saṅgraha] pp. 355-356

[3]:

“Creation is explained scientifically or logically to one’s own satisfaction… Such explanations are called krama srishti (gradual creation). On the other hand, drishti is yugapad srishti. Without the seer there are no objects seen.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 369; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 636

[4]:

“The five senses mean the subtle functions (tanmatras), namely, hearing, touch, seeing, taste and smell. Variations of these form the whole universe; they vary according to the three gunas…” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 547-548

[5]:

“The relation between the external world and the individual now becomes easy because the tanmatras are common to them.” Ibid p. 266

[6]:

“The significance is not emphasis on creation but on the original source.” Ibid p. 266

[7]:

“There are so many theories, scriptural and scientific. Have they reached any finality? They cannot.” Ibid p. 369; cf. [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 449

[8]:

“Then treat all the rest as artha vada (auxiliary arguments) or expositions for the sake of the ignorant who seek to trace the genesis of things and matters.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 38; See also [Self Enquiry; See—Collected Works of Sri Ramana Maharshi], Q. 10, pp. 10-11

[9]:

“…one who wants to know the Self has no need to count the number of categories or inquire into their characteristics; what he has to do is to reject altogether the categories that hide the Self.” [Who am I?; See—Collected Works of Sri Ramana Maharshi], Q. 21, p. 44

[10]:

“Moreover, for the less qualified persons creation is taught, that is the phased evolution of prakriti (primal nature), mahat tattva (the great intellect), tanmatras (the subtle essences), bhutas (the gross elements), the world, the body, etc., from Brahman; while for the more qualified simultaneous creation is taught…” [Self Enquiry], Q. 10, p. 10-11; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 333

[11]:

[Sad-darśanam] 9 [Sad-darśana-bhāṣya of Kapali Sastry] 9

[12]:

“The objects are therefore what the seer makes of them. They have no existence independent of the subject.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 369; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 342, 476

[13]:

“The ‘I’ is first created and then the world. The world is created by the ‘I’ which in its turn rises up from the Self.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 449; See also [Spiritual Instruction]-II, Q. 11, p. 58

[14]:

“Whatever state one is in, the perceptions partake of that state… in the sushupti (deep dreamless sleep), the identification with the body being lost, there are no perceptions” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 1

[15]:

[Sad-darśanam] 7

[16]:

“Apart from thoughts, there is no such thing as mind. Therefore, thought is the nature of mind. Apart from thoughts, there is no independent entity called the world.” [Who am I?], Q. 8, p. 38; See also [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.29-31

[17]:

[Sad-darśanam] 8

[18]:

“Only in Reflected Light (Light mixed with Darkness or knowledge soiled by Ignorance) can the world, not independent of its Source, seem to rise up, flourish and be resolved. Its diversity too cannot be exclusive of the Reality, the original Source.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 298-301; See also [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.70; [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 555; [Day by Day with Bhagavan] p. 2; [Self Enquiry], Q. 11, pp. 1112

[19]:

“Is not the mind, which comprehends space, itself space (akasa)? … Being the principle of knowledge (jnana sattva), it is identified with ether (akasa) by metaphysics.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 443-444; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 480-481, 562-563

[20]:

[Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 497

[21]:

“The impressions in the brain become manifest as the body and the worlds.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 152-153; See also [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.36-38, 84; [Maharshi’s Gospel] p. 66

[22]:

“Where is the brain? It is in the body. I say that the body itself is a projection of the mind.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 309; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 473

[23]:

“Further, creation is to be considered in its two aspects, Isvara srishti (God’s creation) and jiva srishti (individual’s creation).” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 244

[24]:

“It is only the individual mind that sees the world. When this mind disappears the world also disappears.” Ibid p. 538; cf. [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 146

[25]:

Time and space are in the mind but one’s true state lies beyond the mind.” Ibid p. 577; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 78

[26]:

[Sad-darśanam] 18

[27]:

“The appearance of this illusory world, which is seen as real, is just like the serpent seen in a rope, the thief seen in a tree-stump or the water seen in a mirage.” [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.44

[28]:

“Since this world of dyads and triads appears only in the mind, like the illusory ring of fire formed [in darkness] by whirling the single point of a glowing rope-end, it is false, and it does not exist in the clear sight of Self.” Ibid I.35

[29]:

“Like silver in mother-of-pearl, these three appear at the same time and disappear at the same time.” [Who am I?; See—Collected Works of Sri Ramana Maharshi], Q. 16, p. 42

[30]:

“Think of the man who sees only the cloth and not the cotton of which it is made; or of the man who sees the pictures moving on the screen in a cinema show and not the screen itself as the background; or again the man who sees the letters which he reads but not the paper on which they are written.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 442

[31]:

“On account of some arbitrary standards about the duration of experience and so on, we call one experience dream experience and another waking experience. With reference to Reality, both the experiences are unreal.” [Day by Day with Bhagavan] p. 159

[32]:

“The Realised… will not say that the world, which has no existence in the view of the Supreme Brahman, is real.” [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.23, 27

[33]:

“Permanence is one of the marks of Reality… Wholeness is also a mark of Reality” Ibid I.63-64

[34]:

“Unless something permanent is held, the transitory nature of the world cannot be understood.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 332;See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 640

[35]:

“Though that which ever exists is truly only one [namely Self] and though Its nature is non-becoming, what a wonder it is that It appears to have become many jivas…” [Guru Vachaka Kovai] II.621; See also [Guru Vachaka Kovai] II.425, 535

[36]:

“So see the Self and realise that there has been no creation.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 450

[37]:

“Self Itself is seen [due to Maya] appearing as the many names and forms of this universe, but It does not act as the cause or the doer, creating, sustaining and destroying this universe.” [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.85

[38]:

“The creation is said to have an origin. How? Like a tree and the seed from which it has grown. How was the seed produced? From a similar tree. Where is the end to the series of questions?” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 536

[39]:

“…in fact the effect is not really produced by the cause, since both are produced only by the imagination of the ignorant mind.” [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.89; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 426

[40]:

[Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 363; See also [Guru Vachaka Kovai] III.1227 (B-28); [Miscellaneous Verses] 9; [Gauḍapāda-kārikās] II.32

[41]:

“It is said in the second chapter of Gita that no one is born or dies: but in the fourth chapter Sri Krishna says that numerous incarnations of His and of Arjuna had taken place… Which of these statements is true? Both statements are true, but from different standpoints.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p 426; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p 46, 130, 161-162, 228-229 “It is this same ‘Ajata’ that Sri Krishna revealed to Arjuna in an early Chapter [two] of the Gita, and know that it was only because of the latter’s bewilderment and inability to grasp the Truth, that other doctrines were then taught in the remaining sixteen chapters.” [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.101

[42]:

“Although Guru Ramana taught various doctrines according to the level of understanding of those who came to Him, we heard from Him that ‘Ajata’ alone is truly His own experience.” Ibid I.100

[43]:

[Śrī-ramaṇa-gītā] XII.11

[44]:

“The blissful silent real principle [Self or Brahman] alone is the stage or base for Maya–who is the great power of consciousness [maha-chit-sakti]…” [Guru Vachaka Kovai] III.1215; See also [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.103;[Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 390

[45]:

“…the cosmic maya which is nescience, of the nature of sheer darkness…” [Self Enquiry], Q. 16, p. 17

[46]:

“Jiva is not independent of Isvara; nor ignorance of maya.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 557

[47]:

“This world of empty names and forms… should be understood to be the mysterious play of Maya, the mind…” [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.22; See also [Guru Vachaka Kovai] II.560-561; [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 418; [Day by Day with Bhagavan] p. 94

[48]:

“Maya is that which makes us regard as nonexistent the Self, the Reality, which is always and everywhere present, all pervasive and Self-luminous, and as existent the individual soul (jiva), the world (jagat), and God (para)…” [Spiritual Instruction]-II, Q. 5, p. 56; See also [Ramana Puranam] lines 292-294

[49]:

“Maya is ya ma (maya is what is not).” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 129; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 17, 426; See -II.100, p. 43

[50]:

“To say that the destructible, non-existent [asat] and insentient [jada] Maya had once bound under its sway Self, the Light of knowledge… is more foolish and ridiculous than to say that a small mosquito had swallowed the vast sky and then vomited it.” [Guru Vachaka Kovai] II.596

[51]:

“If you realise the Self the possessions are not perceived. That is getting rid of Maya.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 248; See also [Guru Vachaka Kovai] II.831; [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 473

[52]:

“The tantriks and others of the kind condemn Sri Sankara’s philosophy as maya vada without understanding him aright… If the world appears, yet to whom does it appear, he asks… The phenomena are real as the Self and are myths apart from the Self.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 289-290

[53]:

“To limit the Self and regard it as these names and form is mithya. To regard all as Self is the Reality.” [Day by Day with Bhagavan] pp. 307-308; See also [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.20, 50-54; [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 42; [Day by Day with Bhagavan] p. 269

[54]:

“Shankara says maya does not exist. He who denies the existence of maya and calls it mithya or non-existent cannot be called a mayavadi.” [Day by Day with Bhagavan] p. 191; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 258-259

[55]:

[Śrī-ramaṇa-gītā] XII.8 Ibid XII.10

[56]:

Ibid XII.12 Ibid XII.13; Ibid XII.15; See also [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.48; cf. [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.58, I.201, I.434; [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 458

[57]:

… [Śrī-ramaṇa-gītā-prakāśa] XII.15

[58]:

[Śrī-ramaṇa-gītā] XII.35

[59]:

[Śrī-ramaṇa-gītā-prakāśa] XII.35