Chapter 3.3 - Ramaṇa Maharṣi on Brahman

The Upaniṣads declare the Brahman as the supreme Reality and the substratum of the world. Similarly, these texts emphasize that the Brahman is itself the Self of everyone. The svarūpa-lakṣaṇa of the Brahman is saccidānandaṃ Brahma. The Brahman is Sat (Existence), Cit (Consciousness) and Ānanda (Bliss) itself. These are not the qualities of the Brahman, but they form the very nature of the Brahman. Ramaṇa Maharṣi approves this definition.^[1] Furthermore, according to him, the Brahman is indescribable, so even the definition Saccidānandam cannot define the Brahman correctly. The Brahman transcends the opposite pairs of sat-asat, cit-acit and ānanda-anānanda. It is said to be Saccidādandam only to distinguish it from the asat, acit and anānanda. ^[2] Therefore, by the terms Sat, Cit and Ānanda, Maharṣi expects the transcendence of the plane of duality. Furthermore, these terms are found to be wrongly attributed to the objects in the empirical world. So, it is necessary to see, exactly in which sense they define the Brahman.

The term Sat suggests the pure Existence, namely the Existence devoid of appearances. All the appearances exist only for some time. On the other hand, the Sat is the only Reality which underlies them. While speaking of the Reality, Ramaṇa Maharṣi always expects the pure Existence which transcends the time and the space;which underlies the multiple phenomena; and which is the firm ground of the illusory display of the trinity, namely knower, knowledge and things to be known.^[3] The definition of the Reality, in his words, is “That alone is Real which exists by itself, which reveals itself by itself and which is eternal and unchanging.”^[4] Ramaṇa Maharṣi describes the pure Existence as being the ground of three basic concepts, namely Īśvara, jagat and jīva. The Īśvara means all plus Being; the jagat means variety plus Being; and the jīva means individuality plus Being. The pure Being, found in these three prime principles, is the Reality and it transcends all of them.^[5] This very Reality shines in the form of the Self in every individual. Ramaṇa Maharṣi, emphasizing this point, says that the Reality is none other than the Self. Everything else is an appearance. In each and every experience, one has to assume one’s own existence. The common factor in each experience is the feeling ‘I am’. One cannot deny it. It is the fundamental Reality underlying all the diversity. It is the Self underlying one’s own individuality.^[6] While explaining the nature of the Reality he says that the Reality transcends the speech, so it is inexpressible. It cannot be explained in a particular way, since it is simply as it is.^[7] While speaking of the degrees of Reality, Ramaṇa Maharṣi mentions the traditional viewpoint of sattātraya viz. three planes or orders of the Reality. These are vyāvahārika-sattā (empirical plane), pratibhāsika-sattā (plane of illusory appearances) and pāramārthika-sattā (transcendental plane or the ultimate Reality). Further, he notes that some of the thinkers deny to accept the empirical plane, but consider it as the illusory plane alone. According to Maharṣi, the Reality is only one. These planes are told by the thinkers by loosely applying the sense of Reality to the objective phenomena. At the beginning of the practice, the aspirant regards the world as a myth by seeing its temporal existence. But, when he gets established in the Self, he realizes the non-difference of the world from the non-dual Brahman. At that stage, he regards the world as Real in the viewpoint of the absolute Brahman.^[8]

The other aspect of the Reality is the Consciousness. The Reality is the Consciousness itself.^[9] Ramaṇa Maharṣi stresses that the Consciousness is not different from the Self-consciousness, which is seen to be ever present in every objective experience. One’s Existence without any attribute is the Consciousness itself. So, one’s inherent nature consists of Existence-Consciousness.^[10] The Consciousness is the Selfluminous entity. It does not require any other consciousness to illumine it. In the light of the Consciousness, one experiences all the worldphenomena.^[11] While explaining the Śrutis entence ‘tasya bhāsā sarvam idaṃ vibhāti’ ([Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad] II.2.10), Ramaṇa Maharṣi shows the exact role of the absolute Consciousness in illumining all other objects. He explains that the Consciousness is not different from the Brahman. Without this Consciousness anyone cannot perceive any object. The Consciousness is the Self itself in which light all the things shine forth. Although it is called a light, it is different from the ordinary lights. The ordinary lights are insentient, since their illumination is known by the subject. Secondly, the darkness cannot remain in those lights. On the other hand, both the light and the darkness are perceptible in the light of the Consciousness. The things appear and disappear in different states, but the Consciousness always remains the same illumining the presence and the absence of the objects.^[12] Further, Maharṣi says that this Consciousness is the absolute one, which is beyond the relative knowledge. Anything cannot stand apart from the Consciousness.^[13] In some dialogues, He asserts the relative knowledge as vijñāna and the absolute Consciousness as Prajñāna and further explains that the Prajñāna is the source of the vijñāna. The Prajñāna continues to shine in all the three states. It transcends these three states, because it shines even in the absence of these states.^[14] Going into further details, Maharṣi explains that the vijñāna means the specific knowledge. It never shines independently. When it pertains to the Self, it is the true knowledge and when it pertains to the non-self, it is the ignorance. The basic Reality, on which the vijñāna depends for its manifestation, is the prajñāna.^[15]

The very state of Existence-Consciousness is not different from the Bliss. The Bliss is the essential nature of the Brahman. ^[16] Ramaṇa Maharṣi always insists that the Bliss is inherent in a man and it does not depend on the external objects. For instance, he argues that a man tries to get rid of the headache, because he knows the state when he was free from the headache. Similarly, everyone tries to get rid of the misery, since it is not natural to one. One always desires to be in the natural state. The Bliss, being natural to one, is not to be newly attained. The necessary thing is to remove the obstruction of the non-self or the misery in the way to the Bliss.^[17] Maharṣi distinguishes the Bliss from the pleasure by saying that the pleasure is relative, whereas the Bliss is absolute and perfect. One thinks that the Bliss is gained after fulfilling the desire or removing the unwanted things, but it is only the pleasure and not the Bliss. The pair of the pleasure and the pain indicates one’s finite state, whereas the Bliss is the very nature of the infinite Self.^[18] Further, Ramaṇa Maharṣi observes that the mental mode turns inward and enjoys the Bliss of the Self, when one obtains a desired object or goes away from the disliked ones. Similarly, the mind temporarily merges into the Self in the states of deep sleep, samādhi and fainting as well. However, this is not a permanent state. One is bound to return from that happy state. On the other hand, the jñānī abides in the Bliss permanently not allowing the mind to return from it.^[19] In the connection of various types of Ānanda, Ramaṇa Maharṣi affirms that there is only one Bliss, even if it is named differently in the context of different states, such as suṣupti-ānanda, turīya-ānanda, upādhi-ānanda etc. and even if it is experienced by various beings from the lowest animal to the Brahmā. ^[20]

In the taṭastha-lakṣaṇa, the Brahman is considered as the cause of the world. Ramaṇa Maharṣi too describes the Brahman as the sole cause of the world. According to him, all the systems have to accept the omnipotent source of the world and also of the jīva. This source is the Īśvara, who possesses various powers and thereby creates the world. While creating the world, the Īśvara himself has become the seer, the objects to be seen, the screen and the illuminating light in the picture of the world. Thus, the Īśvara cannot be different from the jagat or the jīva. ^[21] Here, Kapali Sastry comments that the Brahman alone manifests itself in the form of the jagat and the jīva with the help of various powers. Hence, it is denoted here that the Brahman is the material as well as the efficient cause of the whole world, which comprises of the seer and the objects to be seen. The jīva too has its root in the Brahman. ^[22] Further, Ramaṇa Maharṣi makes clear that the Īśvara does not get involved in the worldly activities, even though he creates the world. All the worldly activities go on in the mere presence of the Īśvara. He does not have any motive or desire behind creating the world or governing the various activities in the world. It is like the sun, in which light various functions of the world take place, such as blooming of the buds etc.^[23]

The concept of the Īśvara is invariably connected with the whole world. In the absence of the world, there cannot be the idea of the omnipotent and the omniscient Īśvara, who governs the world.

Additionally, the whole world continues to appear to one, until the deeprooted notion of individuality persists. In this manner, the triad of Īśvara, jagat and jīva does not have permanent existence. They depend on eachother for their existence. Considering this, Ramaṇa Maharṣi asserts that these three prime entities viz. Īśvara, jagat and jīva are only the appearances on the ultimate Reality, which is not different from the Self. They cannot be separated from the Reality. Then, why do all the religions and the philosophies postulate these three entities? Maharṣi answers that this is only because of the immaturity of the aspirants. They do not easily accept the non-dual Reality.^[24] Thus, the Īśvara is also an appearance, if he is thought to be different from the underlying Reality viz. the Self. In this sense, Ramaṇa Maharṣi says that the Īśvara is only a mental concept, if he is seen to be different from the seer. In reality, the Īśvara cannot be bifurcated from the seer. So, realizing the Īśvara means seeking the source of the individuality and abiding there firmly. The Īśvara is not apart from the Self. Furthermore, in the non-dual state of the abidance in the Self, the jīva does not remain different to see the Īśvara. ^[25] In other dialogues also, Maharṣi frequently tells this truth to the disciples using various ways. He says that the Īśvara must be present even in the state of deep sleep, if he is accepted as real i.e. he is believed to be different from the Self. The Self is seen to be continued in the three states, but not the Īśvara. The Īśvara can be thought of as long as the mind is active. So, it follows that the Īśvara is nothing but the mental concept.^[26] In another dialogue, he asserts that the Īśvara is all-pervading. So, it is absurd to see him in all excluding oneself. Seeing the Īśvara in the all i.e. filling him in one’s mind is the dhyāna, which proves to be a necessary step in the Selfrealization. Even if so, one cannot avoid the Self in the Self-realization.^[27]

While explaining the concept of Īśvara, Ramaṇa Maharṣi does not allow one to ignore the Self. He is not totally inattentive to the concept of the Īśvara, but he firmly says that this concept, if believed to be other than the Self, can be accepted up to a certain level only. Furthermore, he does not oppose the Īśvara having a form. But, at the same time, he states that the Īśvara or the world can be accepted as having the form, until one limits himself with the form. In the formless state of the Ātman, there remains no one to see the forms of the Īśvara and the world. In that allpervasive sight of the Self, there do not remain the seer and the seen different from it.^[28] While explaining the omniscient nature of the Īśvara, Maharṣi repeats that the notion of omniscience is also a relative term. It is real to one, who limits himself and perceives the world. However, this notion ends along with the particularized or the relative knowledge, when one attains the absolute knowledge.^[29] Ramaṇa Maharṣi approves the worship of various deities too, considering the eligibility of the disciples. However, he mentions the same thing that the personal gods or the goddesses are not different from one’s mind. Even their visions too appear only in the mind. When one transcends the plane of the mind, these deities are found to be none other than the Self.^[30] Thus, he often turns one’s attention from the personal deities to the Self. For example, while answering the question about the incarnations of Viṣṇu, he says, “Let us know our own avatara; the knowledge of the other avataras will follow.”^[31] Therefore, the main saying of Ramaṇa Maharṣi is that nothing can be different from the Self, including the Īśvara. Therefore, he always emphasizes to concentrate on the true nature of the Self ignoring all the mental thoughts. He tries to turn almost every conversation from the Īśvara to the Self. Moreover, he often defines the Īśvara as the source of the ego, namely the Self.^[32] He argues that the Īśvara is external to one and one does not know him. On the other hand, the Self is the most intimate entity to everyone, so it is more appropriate to enquire into the true nature of the Self.^[33] In this manner, Ramaṇa Maharṣi mainly shows that the Īśvara cannot be separated from one’s Self.

The Upaniṣads declare that the Brahman is the Self itself.^[34] This very truth is repeatedly affirmed by Maharṣi in the dialogues. Considering this essence of Vedānta-philosophy, he often instructs one to concentrate on the Self rather than on the concept of the Brahman.^[35] About the authority of the existence of the Self, Ramaṇa Maharṣi says that the Self is self-evident. Since the Self is the base of the internal and the external organs, they cannot be the evidence in the case of the Self.^[36] Furthermore, He frequently declares the oneness of the Self and the ‘I’, and says that the existence of the ‘I’ cannot be denied by anyone.^[37] Here, by the word ‘I’ he certainly means the pure ‘I’ which is the source of the I-thought viz. the ego. He has distinguished these two ‘I’s very often. According to him, the pure ‘I’ is the Self. It is infinite, perfect and eternal. It does not have birth and death. On the contrary, the impure ‘I’ is the ego or the I-thought. It is contaminated by the adjunct, namely the body. It has the birth and the death, so it is transitory. On account of the rise of the I-thought, the pure ‘I’ remains concealed.^[38] Here, by calling the I-thought ‘unreal’, Maharṣi certainly wants to indicate the unreality of the adjuncts and not of the Consciousness concealed in it. So, in his view, the pure ‘I’ is the Self or the Reality. So, he frequently defines the Reality or the Self as ‘I am that I am’. According to him, this is the best way to define the Reality. In this connection, he rejects some of the descriptions about the Self, seen in the Upaniṣads and observes that the definitions, such as the Self is of the size of one’s thumb or the tip of the hair are not the ultimate ones. The Self is only attributeless or pure Existence.^[39] Furthermore, he approves the statement ‘I am that I am’ in the Bible and also accepts the Hebrew word Jehovah which means ‘I am’.^[40] The purport behind this definition seems to be that Maharṣi does not want to attach anything to the Reality, but wants to show it in its pure form. However, at some places, he points out that this ‘I’ is the turīya Ātman (transcendental Self), which witnesses the three states. The absolute Reality is turīyātīta. So, the Reality transcends even this witnessing ‘I’.^[41]

Ramaṇa Maharṣi has always pointed out the hṛdaya (heart) as the seat of the Self in respect of the body. The hṛdaya is described by him as the source of all, so the hṛdaya plays a vital role in his philosophy. The verse ‘hṛdayakuharmadhye…’ ([Śrī-ramaṇa-gītā] II.2) is his first Sanskrit composition, which tells the essence of his philosophy. In this verse, he proclaims that the non-dual Brahman shines forth spontaneously in the form of the Self in the heart-cave. The illumination of the Self is experienced directly in the form of the throbbing of the ‘I’. This experience can be attained by entering and abiding firmly in the heart. One can enter into the heart by the means of the enquiry or by merging the mind in the heart or by controlling the breath.^[42] So, the hṛdaya is the place, wherein the ahaṃ-sfuraṇa viz. the throbbing of pure ‘I’ is experienced. This pure ‘I’ is different from the I-thought. According to Ramaṇa Maharṣi, the I-thought or the ahaṃ-vṛtti is a function of mind, whereas the ahaṃ-sfuraṇa transcends the mind. It is the continuous experience of the jñānī. This ahaṃ-sfuraṇa is experienced only after the annihilation of the I-thought.^[43] In the opinion of Maharṣi, even the pure ‘I’ in the ahaṃ-sfuraṇa is not the supreme Reality, since the supreme Reality is unmanifested. It is manifested in the form of the ahaṃ-sfuraṇa at the beginning. So, the ultimate Reality is beyond the pure or uncontaminated ‘I’.^[44]

One can experience the ahaṃ-sfuraṇa, when the ego gets totally annihilated in the heart. So, it is necessary to discuss the location of the heart within the body. In the opinion of Ramaṇa Maharṣi, the heart is situated on the right side of the chest and not on the left side. Therefore, the spiritual heart is totally different from the physical heart.^[45] To prove this, he illustrates a very common expression of a human being that one puts his hand on the right side of the chest when his identity is asked.^[46] In this connection, Maharṣi sets forth some textual evidences too. He has selected two verses from the Malayalam edition of the treatise ‘Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayam’ for the collection of the Forty Verses on Reality -Supplement. Therein, the exact shape and place of the spiritual heart is mentioned. According to this text, the hṛdaya resembles with the lily-bud.^[47] In addition to this, Maharṣi has referred to the Āyurvedic text on Malayalam, the Sītā Upaniṣad, the Bible, the Yoga-vāsiṣṭha, and the psychological review related to the heart to support this view.^[48] However, his own experience is the most direct evidence above all these textual evidences and he mainly speaks according to his experience.^[49] He has also mentioned that he experienced the heart-centre first and then started to use the word hṛdaya after reading the treatises related to that subject.^[50] Thus, he always stresses that the spiritual heart is different from the physical heart and it is located on the right side. Further, the heart is generally confused with the anāhata-cakra, i.e. the fourth cakra among the six yoga-cakras. Ramaṇa Maharṣi removes this doubt too by arguing that the anāhata is not the heart-centre, since the yogī does not stop at the anāhata-cakra, but passes through it and goes further to the sahasrāra. ^[51] At another place, he points out that the anāhata-cakra is located behind the spiritual heart. There, he distinguishes the anāhata and the heart by quoting the lines from the treatise ‘Lalitā-sahasranāma’ wherein the anāhata-cakra and the heart are separately mentioned as the residing places of the goddess Latitā. ^[52] In this way, Maharṣi confirms that both the anāhata-cakra and the heart are different from each other.

Ramaṇa Maharṣi describes the heart as the seat of the Self and also shows its particular place within the body. However, it is not his final opinion. In his viewpoint, the heart is the Self itself and therefore it is infinite. Then, why are its place and shape mentioned in the sacred texts? Maharṣi answers that it is for the sake of the people, who believe that they reside in the body. The Self is immanent in all the beings. It does not have particular place, since it is all-pervasive. It cannot be limited within the body. On the other hand, it is the source wherefrom the body rises, in which it sustains and into which it merges. The place of the heart is shown within the body only to turn one’s attention within, so that he will seek the source of the body.^[53] In this connection, he frequently puts forth the etymology of the term hṛdaya. It is hṛd-ayam, i.e. this Self is hṛd. Thus, the word hṛdaya stands for the Self.^[54] In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, the etymological sense is asserted as hṛdi ayam, i.e. the Self is within the heart.^[55] About the etymological meaning of the hṛdaya, Kapali Sastry comments that the statement ‘the Self resides in the heart’ is appropriate when one is seeking the Self. However, when one knows the nature of the Self, the statement ‘the Self is the heart itself’ is more appropriate.^[56]

Ramaṇa Maharṣi instructs the heart for Self-investigation and not for meditation.^[57] He defines the heart as the birthplace of the ahaṃ-vṛtti (I-thought). The ahaṃ-vṛtti is the aggregate of all other vṛttis (thoughts), hence the heart is the source of all the thoughts. In this way, the heart is the centre whence the I-thought springs forth along with other thoughts. So, according to Maharṣi, locating the heart means locating the origin of the I-thought in respect of the body. The other descriptions of the heart, such as its particular location, shape, etc. are mere mental ideas, since they are based on the thoughts.^[58] The heart is the place wherefrom all the thoughts originate and wherein they merge. So, here Kapali Sasrty comments that there does not remain any thought to explain the heart. The heart cannot be known with the help of the thoughts, but the true knowledge of the heart is possible only when all the thoughts get annihilated in the heart.^[59] In this way, according to Ramaṇa Maharṣi, all the vāsanās or the thoughts including the I-thought can be uprooted thoroughly only in the heart. The thoughts become activated in the brain, but they originally dwell in the heart. Maharṣi has established this view by persuading Kāvyakaṇṭha Ganapati Muni from his opinion. Ganapati Muni opined that the brain is the seat of the vāsanās, since the vāsanās are contained in the countless cells of the brain. To erase this opinion, Ramaṇa Maharṣi argued that the vāsanās should get totally destroyed and one should not attain the rebirth, if his head is cut off. However, it is not so, since the root of the vāsanās still remain undestroyed in the heartplace. All the vāsanās stay only with the subject viz. the I-thought, which springs forth from the heart viz. the Self. Providing another argument, Ramaṇa Maharṣi says that the brain cannot be said the seat of the Self and thereby of all the vāsanās, since the head bends down when one sleeps. And, also, one does not say ‘I’ by touching his head.^[60] In this manner, Ramaṇa Maharṣi firmly establishes that the heart is the birth-place of the vāsanās.

All the vāsanās live in the heart with their possessor, namely the Ithought. They become manifested in the brain in the light of the Self. In this way, the mind depends totally on the heart for its manifestation. In the Ramaṇa-gītā, the relation of the mind and the heart is explained using the simile of the sun and the moon. The heart is said to be the centre of the body, just as the sun is the centre of the earth. The mind, reached to the sahasrāra, is similar to the moon. The Sun bestows the light on the moon. Similarly, the heart gives the light to the mind.^[61] The light flows from the heart to the sahasrāra through the suṣumnā nerve. From the sahasrāra it pervades the whole body and then one experiences the differences in the world. One thinks the various objects to be different from the Self and thereby he gets bound in the saṃsāra. ^[62] Thus, the world can be seen only in the mind, i.e. in the reflected light of the Self. This reflected light is not permanent, since it is not seen in the deep sleep. On the other hand, the light of the Self illumines continuously in all the three states.^[63] Further, Ramaṇa Maharṣi says that the jñānī always remains established in the heart, so he sees the mind merged in the light of the heart. It is just like the moon-light disappearing in the light of the sun. On the contrary, the ignorant one, who is not established in the heart, sees the mind alone. It is just like the moon-light, perceived in the night wherein the sun-light is absent.^[64] Not knowing this truth, the ignorant one wrongly believes that the mind is real and thus he wanders in the worldly life.

Further, Ramaṇa Maharṣi explains the way through which the mind or the thoughts become activated in the brain. It resembles with the cinema-show. The vāsanās are contained in the heart in the subtlest form. When they get released from the heart, they expand in their way to the brain. The images of the vāsanās are thrown on the screen of the brain and their functions are also determined in the brain. When a particular vāsanā becomes activated, the other vāsanās are suppressed for that time. This reflection of the vāsanās takes place only with the help of the light of the Self. The objects are believed to be perceived, when the vāsanā is reflected on the screen of the brain. Here, Ramaṇa Maharṣi mentions that this concentration of the light of the Self on the particular vāsanā, is known as saṃyamana in the Yoga-śāstras. Various siddhis can be attained and many things can be discovered through this process. But, in truth, these are not new discoveries since it is only the manifestation of the internal subtlest vāsanās. Further, Maharṣi observes that, a single vāsanā springs forth from the heart and then it multiples in the form of experiencer, experience and objects to be experienced. In this way, the object can be manifested, only if it is contained in the mind in the form of the vāsanā. The whole world is not external, but it is only a play of the vāsanās. ^[65] This very view of Ramaṇa Maharṣi is mentioned in the Ramaṇa-gītā as follows: the whole world is contained in the body and the body is enclosed in the heart. Hence, the entire universe is seen collectively in the heart. The world is none other than the mind and the mind is originally not different from the heart. Thus, all the differences come to an end in the heart.^[66]

In this way, it is the heart from which everything arises. So, Ramaṇa Maharṣi construes the Upaniṣadic sentence ‘yato vā imāni bhūtāni jāyante…’ ([Taittirīya Upaniṣad] III.1.1) with the heart and says that the heart is none other than the Brahman. It is the centre of all. Nothing can be apart from it.^[67] One can never stay away from the heart whether he knows it or not. Even when he is passing through the other cakras while following the yoga-path or he is doing the practice of the Self-enquiry, he always stays in the heart.^[68] Further, Ramaṇa Maharṣi says that one feels the other centres as the dwelling place of the Self only due to the power of the concentration of the mind. However, leaving the true centre viz. the heart, if one meditates on the other centres, he will attain the laya (temporary absorption of mind) alone and not the permanent peace of the samādhi. The true Self-experience can be achieved only in the heart.^[69] In this way, Maharṣi always emphasizes that the notion of individuality can be permanently destroyed only in the heart-centre, which is nothing else but the Self alone.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

“Though existence [sat], consciousness [chit] and bliss [ananda] are spoken of as [though they were] different, when actually experienced these three are [found to be] one [namely ‘I’, the Self] just as the harmonious three qualities, liquidity, sweetness and coolness, are [in substance] only the one water.” [Guru Vachaka Kovai] III.979

[2]:

“Because we are in the phenomenal world we speak of the Self as Sacchidananda.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 419; See also [Day by Day with Bhagavan] p. 48 “Sat denotes being beyond sat and asat; Chit beyond chit and achit; Ananda beyond bliss and non-bliss.” TRM p. 420; See also [Spiritual Instruction]-III, Q. 10, p. 68

[3]:

“The triads are only appearances in time and space, whereas the Reality lies beyond and behind them.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 30

[4]:

[Maharshi’s Gospel] p. 51

[5]:

“The Be-ing is in all cases real. The all, the variety and the individual is in each case unreal.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 109

[6]:

“The only permanent thing is Reality; and that is the Self… You know that you are. You cannot deny your existence at any moment of time.” Ibid p. 506

[7]:

“Reality is that which is. It is as it is.” Ibid p. 126

[8]:

“Being absorbed in the Reality, the world also is Real… Again Reality is used in a different sense and is applied loosely by some thinkers to objects.” Ibid pp. 42-43

[9]:

“Sat (Being) is Chit (Knowledge Absolute); also Chit is Sat; what is, is only one.” Ibid p. 507

[10]:

“Consciousness is always Self-consciousness… Reality is therefore known as satchit, Being-Consciousness, and never merely the one to the exclusion of the other.” [Maharshi’s Gospel] p. 51; See also [Guru Vachaka Kovai] III.1001

[11]:

“It is the Self-luminous existence-consciousness which reveals to the seer the world of names and forms both inside and outside.” [Spiritual Instruction]-III, Q. 1, p. 66; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 566

[12]:

“He and His Light are the same…this consciousness is pure Knowledge in which both knowledge and ignorance shine.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 404-405; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 478; [Day by Day with Bhagavan] pp. 18-19

[13]:

“There is only one consciousness…The Absolute consciousness is our real nature.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 171

[14]:

“Prajnana (Absolute Knowledge) is that from which vijnana (relative knowledge) proceeds.” Ibid p. 477 cf. “Prajnana is also beyond the three states, because it can subsist without them and in spite of them.” [Maharshi’s Gospel] p. 68

[15]:

“This vijnana becomes manifest only as pertaining to either the Self or the not-self, and not by itself…” [Self Enquiry], Q. 32, pp. 27-28; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 287-289

[16]:

“Perfect Bliss is Brahman… That alone exists and is conscious.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 32; See also [Guru Vachaka Kovai] II.584

[17]:

“The desire for happiness (sukha prema) is a proof of the ever existing happiness of the Self. Otherwise how can desire for it arise in you?... Duhkha nasam = sukha prapti.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 607; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 169

[18]:

“Pleasure and pain are relative and refer to our finite state, with progress by satisfaction of want.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 32-33

[19]:

“Thus the mind moves without rest alternately going out of the Self and returning to it.” [Who am I?], Q. 24, p. 45; See also [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.453; [Maharshi’s Gospel] p. 31

[20]:

“There are not different anandas. There is only one ananda…” [Day by Day with Bhagavan] p. 135

[21]:

[Sad-darśanam] 3

[22]:

[Sad-darśana-bhāṣya of Kapali Sastry] 3 cf [Aruṇācala-pañcaratna] 2 [Aruṇācala-pañcaratna-darpaṇa] 2

[23]:

“God is untouched by activities, which take place in His presence; compare the sun and the world activities.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 33; See also [Who am I?], Q. 17, pp. 42-43

[24]:

“…Because the mind, which is tossed about by objective knowledge, would not agree to believe in the One unless the Sages condescended to teach It as three.” [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.114, 115; See also [Who am I?], Q. 16, p. 42

[25]:

[Sad-darśanam] 22

[26]:

“If God be as true as your Self, God must be in sleep as well as the Self. This thought of God arises only in the wakeful state.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 206; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 280

[27]:

“You want to see God in all, but not in yourself?” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 222

[28]:

[Sad-darśanam] 6; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 112-113, 277, 367

[29]:

“But when the true knowledge dawns, omniscience will also perish completely like the little knowledge.” [Guru Vachaka Kovai] III.928, 929

[30]:

“Individual Gods and Goddesses and their particular powers will appear to be real only in the imagination of those minds which admire them.” [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.118; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 217

[31]:

[Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 280

[32]:

“The source of the ego is God. This definition of God is probably more concrete and better understood by you.” Ibid p. 104; See also [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.344-350; [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 205

[33]:

“Leave God alone. Speak for yourself. You do not know God. He is only what you think of Him. Is he apart from you?” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 448; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 113, 579; [Maharshi’s Gospel] p. 42

[34]:

अयमा मा । [Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad] II

[35]:

“Leave Brahman alone. Find who you are. Brahman can take care of Himself.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 590

[36]:

“The indriyas (senses) and the mind arising from the ego cannot serve as evidence relating to the Self.” Ibid p. 418; cf. [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 632

[37]:

“Unless you exist you cannot ask questions. So you must admit your own existence.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 612-613

[38]:

“After the rise of the ‘I-thought’ there is the false identificationof the ‘I’ with the body, the senses, the mind, etc. ‘I’ is wrongly associated with them and the true ‘I’ is lost sight of.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 232; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 344-345; [Day by Day with Bhagavan] pp. 343-344; [Maharshi’s Gospel] p. 25

[39]:

“The best definition is ‘I am that I AM.’ The Srutis speak of the Self as being the size of one’s thumb, the tip of the hair, an electric spark, vast, subtler than the subtlest, etc. They have no foundation in fact. It is only Being…” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 113-114; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 506

[40]:

“Of all the definitions of God, none is indeed so well put as the Biblical statement “I AM THAT I AM” in EXODUS (Chap. 3). There are other statements, such as Brahmaivaham, Aham Brahmasmi and Soham. But none is so direct as the name JEHOVAH = I AM. The Absolute Being is what is -It is the Self.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 104; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 109

[41]:

“The ‘I-less’ Supreme Brahman which shines in all bodies as interior to the light in the form ‘I’ is the Self-ether (or knowledge-ether): that alone is the Absolute Reality.” [Self Enquiry], Q. 9, p. 10; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 520

[42]:

[Śrī-ramaṇa-gītā] II.2

[43]:

“When Aham represents the Self only it is Aham Sphurana.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 279

[44]:

“The Supreme Being is unmanifest and the first sign of manifestation is Aham Sphurana (light of ‘I’).” Ibid p. 520

[45]:

[Śrī-ramaṇa-gītā] V.5-6; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 34-35, 180

[46]:

“When asked who you are, you place your hand on the right side of the breast and say ‘I am’.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 95; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 561

[47]:

“Between the two paps, below the chest, above the stomach, there are six organs of various colours. Of these, one, looking like a lily bud, is the Heart, at two digits’ distance to the right of the centre. Its mouth is closed. Within its cavity is seated a heavy darkness, filled with all desires; all the great nerves are centred there; the home it is of breath, mind, light of knowledge.” [Reality in Forty Verses] 18-19, pp. 125-126; See also [Spiritual Instruction]-II, Q. 9, pp. 57-58

[48]:

Still you can find confirmation in a Malayalam Ayurvedic book and in Sita Upanishad…” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p 2—“The Modern Psychological Review speaks of the physical organ on the left and the Heart centre on the right. The Bible says that a fool’s heart is on the left and a wise man’s on the right. Yoga Vasishta says that there are two hearts; the one is samvit; and the other the blood-vessel.” Ibid p. 408; cf. Yogavāsiṣṭha  V.78.33-36

[49]:

“I had been saying all along that the Heart centre was on the right, notwithstanding the refutation by some learned men that physiology taught them otherwise. I speak from experience. I knew it even in my home during my trances.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p 399; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p 2

[50]:

“I began to use the word after seeing literature on the subject. I correlated it with my experience.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 123

[51]:

“Anahata is not the same as the Heart-centre.” Ibid p. 382

[52]:

“Lalita Sahasranama has it, Anahata chakrasthayai namo namah (Salutations to the core situated in Anahata) and the next mantra Hrit (in the Heart).” Ibid p 409

[53]:

“The heart-lotus is not a place. Some name is mentioned as the place of God because we think we are in the body.” Ibid p. 236; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 35, 95, 507; [Maharshi’s Gospel] p. 55; [Spiritual Instruction] -II, Q. 9, pp. 57-58

[54]:

[Śrī-ramaṇa-gītā] V.5; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 95;[Self Enquiry], Q. 9, p. 10

[55]:

See II.138, p. 56

[56]:

[Śrī-ramaṇa-gītā-prakāśa] V.5

[57]:

“Investigation of ‘I’ is the point and not meditation on the heart-centre.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 119

[58]:

[Śrī-ramaṇa-gītā] V.2-3; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 35, 375

[59]:

[Śrī-ramaṇa-gītā-prakāśa] V.2

[60]:

“If, as you say, the vasanas be contained in the brain and the Heart is the seat of the Self, a person who is decapitated must be rid of his vasanas and should not be reborn… Now can you say that the Self is in the brain with the vasanas? If so, why should the head bend down when one falls asleep? Moreover a person does not touch his head and say ‘I’.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 600; See also [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.249; [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 393

[61]:

[Śrī-ramaṇa-gītā] V.13,14; See also [Maharshi’s Gospel] p. 12

[62]:

[Śrī-ramaṇa-gītā] V.6,7; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 96

[63]:

“These thoughts are absent in sleep but rise up on waking. So this light is transient, having an origin and an end. The consciousness of ‘I’ is permanent and continuous.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 469

[64]:

[Śrī-ramaṇa-gītā] V.15 Ibid V.17; See also [Guru Vachaka Kovai] II.857, III.1002

[65]:

“The vasanas which lie imbedded in an atomic condition grow in size in their passage from the heart to the brain… When the thought is reflected in the brain it appears as an image on a screen. The person is then said to have a clear perception of things… The world is thus within and not without.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 600-602; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 392-393

[66]:

[Śrī-ramaṇa-gītā] V.11-12

[67]:

“Yatova imani bhutani jayante (that from which these beings come into existence) etc. is said to be Brahman in the Upanishads. That is the Heart. Brahman is the Heart.” [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 95

[68]:

“Practice of yoga or vichara is done, always remaining in the centre only.” Ibid p. 383

[69]:

“Leaving aside Self, the Heart… if one concentrates upon any other centre [as if one were dwelling there], one will only be absorbed in a delusive laya and one cannot thereby know Self and be saved.” [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.251-252