More Talks With Maharshi

I like to choose randomly

Maharshi on Self-Illumination: The ‘I’ concept is the ego. I-illumination
is the Realisation of the Real Self. It is ever shining forth as ‘I-I’ in
the intellectual sheath. It is pure Knowledge; relative knowledge is
only a concept. The bliss of the blissful sheath is also but a concept.
Unless there is the experience, however subtle it is, one cannot say
“I slept happily”. From his intellect he speaks of his blissful sheath.
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.
Experience is not possible without simultaneous knowledge of it
(i.e. relative knowledge).
The inherent nature of the Self is Bliss. Some kind of knowledge has
to be admitted, even in the realisation of Supreme Bliss. It may be
said to be subtler than the subtlest.
The word vijnana (clear knowledge) is used both to denote the
Realisation of the Self and knowing the objects. The Self is wisdom.
It functions in two ways. When associated with the ego the knowledge
is objective (vijnana). When divested of the ego and the Universal Self
is realised, it is also called vijnana. The word raises a mental concept.
Therefore we say that the Self-Realised Sage knows by his mind, but

his mind is pure. Again we say that the vibrating mind is impure and
the placid mind is pure. The pure mind is itself Brahman; therefore it
follows that Brahman is not other than the mind of the sage.
The Mundaka Upanishad says: “The knower of Brahman becomes
the Self of Brahman.” Is it not ludicrous? To know Him and become
Him? They are mere words. The sage is Brahman - that is all. Mental
functioning is necessary to communicate his experience. He is said to
be contemplating the unbroken expanse. The Creator, Suka and others
are also said never to swerve from such contemplation.
Such ‘contemplation’ is again a mere word. How is that to be
contemplated unless it is divided (into the contemplator and the
contemplated). When undivided, how is contemplation possible? What
function can Infinity have? Do we say that a river after its discharge
into the ocean has become an ocean-like river? Why should we then
speak of contemplation which has become unbroken, as being that of
unbroken Infinity? The statement must be understood in the spirit in
which it is made. It signifies the merging into the Infinite.
Self-Illumination or Self-Realisation is similar to it. The Self is ever
shining. What does this ‘I-illumination’ mean then? The expression
is an implied admission of mind function.
The gods and the sages experience the Infinite continuously and
eternally, without their vision being obscured at any moment. Their
minds are surmised by the spectators to function; but in fact they
do not. Such surmise is due to the sense of individuality in those
who draw inferences. There is no mental function in the absence of
individuality. Individuality and mind functions are co-existent. The
one cannot remain without the other.
The light of the Self can be experienced only in the intellectual sheath.
Therefore vijnana of whatever kind (of object or of the Self) depends
on the Self being Pure Knowledge.

Mr. Cohen had been cogitating on the nature of the Heart, if the ‘spiritual
heart’ beats; if so, how; or if it does not beat, then how is it to be felt?
M.: This heart is different from the physical heart; beating is the
function of the latter. The former is the seat of spiritual experience.
That is all that can be said of it.
Just as a dynamo supplies motive power to whole systems of lights,
fans, etc., so the original Primal Force supplies energy to the beating
of the heart, respiration, etc.
D.: How is the ‘I-I’ consciousness felt?
M.: As an unbroken awareness of ‘I’. It is simply consciousness.
D.: Can we know it when it dawns?
M.: Yes, as consciousness. You are that even now. There will be no
mistaking it when it is pure.
D.: Why do we have such a place as the ‘Heart’ for meditation?
M.: Because you seek consciousness. Where can you find it? Can you
reach it externally? You have to find it internally. Therefore you are
directed inward. Again the ‘Heart’ is only the seat of consciousness
or the consciousness itself.
D.: On what should we meditate?
M.: Who is the meditator? Ask the question first. Remain as the
meditator. There is no need to meditate.
Talk 206.
Mr. B. C. Das, a Lecturer in Physics of Allahabad University, asked:
“Does not intellect rise and fall with the man?”
M.: Whose is the intellect? It is man’s. Intellect is only an instrument.
D.: Yes. Does it survive man’s death?
M.: Why think of death? See what happens in your sleep. What is
your experience there?
D.: But sleep is transient whereas death is not.
M.: Sleep is intermediate between two waking states, so also death
is between two successive births. Both are transient.

D.: I mean when the spirit is disembodied, does it carry the intellect
with it?
M.: Spirit is not disembodied. The bodies differ. It may not be a
gross body. It will then be a subtle body, as in sleep, dream or daydream.
Intellect does not alter; the bodies may differ according to
circumstances.
D.: The spirit-body is the astral body then?
M.: The intellect is the astral body now.
D.: How can it be?
M.: Why not? You seem to think that the intellect cannot be limited
like a body. It is only an aggregate of certain factors. What else is
the astral body?
D.: But intellect is a sheath?
M.: Yes. Without intellect, no sheath is cognised. Who says that there
are five sheaths? Is it not the intellect that declares thus?
Talk 207.
Deep sleep is only the state of non-duality. Can the difference between
the individual and Universal souls persist there? Sleep implies
forgetfulness of all differences: This alone constitutes happiness. See
how carefully people prepare their beds to gain that happiness. Soft
cushions, pillows and all the rest are meant to induce sound sleep,
that is to say to end wakefulness. And yet the soft bed, etc., are of no
use in the state of deep sleep itself. The implication is that all efforts
are meant only to end ignorance. They have no use after realisation.
Talk 208.
It is enough that one surrenders oneself. Surrender is to give oneself
up to the original cause of one’s being. Do not delude yourself by
imagining such source to be some God outside you. One’s source is
within yourself. Give yourself up to it. That means that you should seek
the source and merge in it. Because you imagine yourself to be out of
it, you raise the question “Where is the source?” Some contend that the
sugar cannot taste its own sweetness and that a taster must taste and
enjoy it. Similarly, an individual cannot be the Supreme and enjoy the

Bliss of that state; therefore the individuality must be maintained on the
one hand and God-head on the other so that enjoyment may result! Is
God insentient like sugar? How can one surrender oneself and yet retain
one’s individuality for supreme enjoyment? Furthermore they say also
that the soul, reaching the divine region and remaining there, serves the
Supreme Being. Can the sound of the word “service” deceive the Lord?
Does He not know? Is He waiting for these people’s service? Would not
He - the Pure Consciousness - ask in turn: “Who are you apart from Me
that presume to serve Me?”
Still more, they assume that the individual soul becomes pure by being
divested of the ego and fit for being the body of the Lord. Thus the
Lord is the Spirit and the purified souls constitute His body and limbs!
Can there be a soul for the souls? How many souls are there? The
answer must be, “There are many individual souls and One Supreme
Soul.” What is soul in that case? It cannot be the body, etc. What
remains over after all these are eliminated must be said to be the soul.
Thus even after realising the soul as that which cannot be discarded,
the Supreme Soul must be known to exist. In that case, how was the
soul realised to be the ultimate reality after discarding all that was
alien to it? Should this be right, the soul which was described as that
inalienable reality is not the true soul. All such confusion is due to the
word ‘soul’ (atma). The same word atma is used to signify the body,
the senses, the mind, the vital principle, the individual soul and the
Supreme Being. This wide application of the word has given rise to
the idea that the individual soul (jivatma), goes to constitute the body
of the Supreme (Paramatma). “I, O Arjuna! am the Self, seated in the
heart of all beings; ...” (Bhagavad Gita, X-20). The stanza shows that
the Lord is the Atma (Self) of all beings. Does it say, “the Self of the
selves”? If, on the other hand, you merge in the Self there will be no
individuality left. You will become the Source itself. In that case what
is surrender? Who is to surrender what and to whom? This constitutes
devotion, wisdom, and investigation.
Among the Vaishnavites too, Saint Nammalvar says, “I was in a maze,
sticking to ‘I’ and ‘mine’; I wandered without knowing my Self. On
realising my Self I understand that I myself am You and that ‘mine’
(i.e., my possessions) is only You.”

Thus - you see - Devotion is nothing more than knowing oneself. The
school of Qualified Monism also admits it. Still, adhering to their
traditional doctrine, they persist in affirming that the individuals are
part of the Supreme - his limbs as it were. Their traditional doctrine
says also that the individual soul should be made pure and then
surrendered to the Supreme; then the ego is lost and one goes to the
regions of Vishnu after one’s death; then finally there is the enjoyment
of the Supreme (or the Infinite)!
To say that one is apart from the Primal Source is itself a pretension;
to add that one divested of the ego becomes pure and yet retains
individuality only to enjoy or serve the Supreme, is a deceitful
stratagem. What duplicity is this - first to appropriate what is really
His, and then pretend to experience or serve Him! Is not all this
already known to Him?

Talk 209.
Mr. B. C. Das, the Physics Lecturer, asked about free-will and destiny.
M.: Whose will is it? ‘It is mine’, you may say. You are beyond will
and fate. Abide as that and you transcend them both. That is the
meaning of conquering destiny by will. Fate can be conquered.
Fate is the result of past actions. By association with the wise the
bad tendencies are conquered. One’s experiences are then viewed
to their proper perspective.
I exist now. I am the enjoyer. I enjoy fruits of action. I was in the
past and shall be in the future. Who is this ‘I’? Finding this ‘I’ to
be pure Consciousness beyond action and enjoyment, freedom and
happiness are gained. There is then no effort, for the Self is perfect
and there remains nothing more to gain.
So long as there is individuality, one is the enjoyer and doer. But if
it is lost, the divine Will prevails and guides the course of events.
The individual is perceptible to others who cannot perceive divine
force. Restrictions and discipline are for other individuals and not
for the liberated.

Free-will is implied in the scriptural injunctions to be good. It
implies overcoming fate. It is done by wisdom. The fire of wisdom
consumes all actions. Wisdom is acquired by association with the
wise, or rather, its mental atmosphere.
Talk 210.
Man owes his movements to another Power, whereas he thinks that
he does everything himself - just like a lame man bluffing that, were
he helped to stand up, he would fight and chase away the enemy.
Action is impelled by desire; desire arises only after the rise of the
ego; and this ego owes its origin to a Higher Power on which its
existence depends. It cannot remain apart. Why then prattle, “I do,
I act, or I function”?
A Self-realised being cannot help benefiting the world. His very
existence is the highest good.