I is a Door
Date: 2017-09-03 04:00:00+00:00
Publisher: ZEN PUBLICATIONS

‘I’ is a Door

The essence of Advaita as taught by

Ramana Maharshi,

Atmananda (Krishna Menon) and

Nisargadatta Maharaj

Philip Renard

‘I’ is a Door

Copyright © 2017 Philip Renard

First Edition: August 2017

Original Dutch title ‘Ik’ is een deur

Original text © 2008 Philip Renard

Translated by Johan Veldman (chapters) and

Wybe van der Kemp (introduction and biographies)

Edited by Philip Renard and Wybe van der Kemp

Graphic of tablet on page 54 by Evert Teijen †

The four chapters of this book have been published
before as articles in (The) Mountain Path,

Sri Ramanasramam, Tiruvannamalai, India, 2004,

2006 and 2007. In French translation these articles
have appeared as ‘Je’ est une porte in the magazine

Revue 3e millénaire, in 2004 and 2005.

Published by

Zen Publications

A Division of Maoli Media Private Limited

60, Juhu Supreme Shopping Centre,

Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9,

JVPD Scheme, Juhu, Mumbai 400 049 India.

Tel: +91 9022208074
eMail: info@zenpublications.com

Website: www.zenpublications.com

Book Design: Red Sky Designs, Mumbai

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system without written permission from the author or his agents, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review.

Contents

Introduction

1. Ramana Maharshi

‘Enquiry’ is looking if something really exists

‘I’ is uninterruptedly the case

The ‘I’ doesn’t need to be replaced by some other ‘I’

Attention to Subject first

2. Atmananda (Krishna Menon)

‘I’ as such

The ‘I’-Principle is the only ultimate Reality

Think of your Guru only in the dualistic sphere

All activities are acts of worship to Me

You are always in your Real Nature

3. Nisargadatta Maharaj

‘I am’ is the greatest foe and the greatest friend

The touch of ‘I am’ is the first vibration

Worship this touch of ‘I am’

Knowingness and surrender

The dynamic aspect of Consciousness

The marriage of two qualities (sattva and rajas)

‘I’ is term for all levels

4. The Medicine (‘I am’ is a door)

The root of the mistake is the medicine

The pure, unmixed Beingness quality (Shuddha Sattva)

The knowing quality is what liberates

The ‘causal body’

Experience is the last Object

Short Biographies

1. Ramana Maharshi

2. Atmananda (Krishna Menon)

3. Nisargadatta Maharaj

Notes

Bibliography

I would like to express my thanks to

Johan Veldman
and

Wybe van der Kemp,
for their translating and editing work.

INTRODUCTION

One of the expressions often heard on the path of Self-realisation is ‘letting go of the ego’. What is actually meant by this?

It is of course not about the commonplace form of ego which everybody recognizes as egoism or selfishness, because it is clear that selfishness is in fact rejected by everybody, being on a way of liberation or not. Letting go of this ‘gross’ kind of ego is not enough if you really want liberation.

The ego as mentioned by teachers of the Vedantic and Buddhist ways of liberation as being the primary obstacle, is a thinking activity, in which you identify yourself with an external figure which consequently can be seen and judged. A figure which could be imagined as being ‘higher’ or ‘lower’ than other figures.

This ego in fact consists of acts of comparison. It could also be called ‘self-consciousness’, with all its implied inhibition of spontaneity or aliveness. It refers to the built-in split, a habitual groove in which one looks at another part of the same ego from a critical point of view, and bombards it with conflicting opinions. A principal characteristic of the ego is the attachment to the opinions about oneself. That is to say, a self-image has been built that does not want to dissolve and would rather continue as it is. This is what we call the ‘person’; it is the maintenance of a self-image. When it comes to the ‘person’, each conscious activity of the body-mind involves the supposition that there is an ‘I’ doing something, and that this ‘I’ is a continuous, enduring entity.

I prefer to call this ‘the I’, rather than ‘ego’, because this is easier to recognize as being something more subtle than the ‘gross ego’ mentioned earlier, even though the two flow into one another. The main difference, one could say, in the case of the ‘gross’ ego it is others that bother you and are bothered by you, whereas in the case of this subtle ‘I’ it is you being bothered by yourself.

Both Buddhists and Vedantists agree that this subtle ‘I’ should be given up if you want liberation, but disagree about the terminology and how belief in this ‘I’ can be annihilated. Buddhists say: ‘There is no entity at all, no ‘self’ or ‘I’, just a sequence of causatively conditioned psychic and physical processes.’ For the rest they do not talk about an ‘I’. They even disapprove of talking in terms of ‘I’, for instance in a statement like “When we regard the nature of this knowing as being ‘me’ or ‘I’, and hold onto that concept – this is a small view, and it is confused, mistaken.”[1]

Nevertheless in Dzogchen, the radical non-dualistic core of Tibetan Buddhism from which the last quote originated, a number of texts have been produced in the past in which the term ‘I’ is used, even with emphasis, to point out the highest principle, as being the ‘majestic creativity of the universe’. In one of the root texts of Dzogchen, the Kunjed Gyalpo, it is stated:

“I, the creativity of the universe, pure and total presence, am the real heart of all spiritual pursuits”; and

“Because all phenomena are none other than me, I, the all-creating one, am the decisive experience of everything.”[2]

From texts like these it becomes apparent how comparative the term ‘I’ actually is. The same term that deserves to be disapproved as signifying a mistake, is apparently also used to denote the highest principle.

The term ‘I’ is often put in the mouth of the Ultimate, or the Supreme Being, in the scriptures of the different monotheistic religions; it appears that in origin ‘I’ even belongs to his name. On his question to be allowed to hear the name of God, Moses (who has been acknowledged as a religious leader and prophet by Jews as well as Christians and Muslims) received the answer: “I am that I am (Eyeh Asher Eyeh).”[3] This well may be the name of names. The heart of the matter that ‘addresses’ itself. Shri Ramana Maharshi, one of the teachers highlighted in this book, said about this name that no definition of God was as well formulated as this one.[4] He addressed this statement repeatedly. Once he expounded:

“It is said: ‘I am that I am’. That means a person must abide as ‘I’. He is always the ‘I’ alone. He is nothing else.”[5]

Such a way of expressing is not very customary in a monotheistic religion. The shift from the Supreme Being, via an identical name, to me, a mortal being, is not customary. Usually, a distance, a gap is maintained. The Ultimate is immense and I am small. That’s why speaking about the Ultimate in first person grammar, literally ‘I’, is in general not customary in religion. No, it is common to speak in third person, usually ‘He’; which means a speaking about Him. If texts are put in the second person, phrasing a dialogue, for instance the book of Job, they are already conspicuous. The language is somewhat more direct.[6] The reader may feel more involved.

Still, it is a different thing when you indicate yourself and the Ultimate with the same word, i.e. first person, thus bridging the deepest gap. Ramana Maharshi was quite impressive in giving credibility to bridging this gap. Time after time, he showed that Reality is that what counts in religion, a Reality that is non-dualistic – meaning that contradictory opinions about the Ultimate are not real, because Reality precedes them. An example of a controversial subject is the question whether God is personal or impersonal. But to Ramana there was no contradistinction. To the question whether God is personal or not he replied:

“Yes, He is always the first person, ‘I’, ever standing before you. Because you give precedence to worldly things, God appears to have receded to the background. If you give up all else and seek Him alone, He alone will remain as ‘I’, the Self.”[7]

This is an invitation to see that ‘worldly matters’ (i.e. everything that is object to us) only exist thanks to the knowing of them, and that God is never an object to be known. Then it is apparent that That which is not an object cannot be different from That which is knowing now – ‘knowingness’ or seeing itself. This knowingness or seeing is uninterrupted ‘I’. It is the most immediate there is. Even ‘standing before you’, like in Ramana’s quote, is in comparison far away, being just a figure of speech.

“In the beginning this (world) was only the self (atma), in the shape of a person (purusha)”, was stated in the oldest Upanishad, as early as the eighth century before Christ. “Looking around he saw nothing else than the self. He first said: ‘I am’. Therefore arose the name of ‘I’ (aham). Therefore, even to this day when one is addressed he says first ‘This is I’ and then speaks whatever other name he may have.”[8]

Ramana added to this, speaking about the word aham (‘I’):

“That is the original name of the Reality.”… “Aham is the first name of God. The first letter in Sanskrit is A, and the last letter Ha – and Aha thus includes everything from beginning to end.”[9][*]

In Advaita Vedanta, one of the traditions that emerged from the Upanishads, the term ‘I’ (aham) is repeatedly being used – usually to denote the ego, the separate entity, but frequently also to show by means of this familiar term the entrance to recognize oneself as the Ultimate Principle.

The text fragments in which the Great Statement “I am the Absolute (Aham Brahma asmi)” is emphasized and commented on by Shankara and his students and followers, are famous.[10] This statement was made in the Upanishad from which was cited above, actually in line with that text fragment. It says: “Brahman, indeed, was this [whole universe] in the beginning. It knew itself only as ‘I am Brahman’.”[11]

Shri Nisargadatta Maharaj, the teacher who is discussed in chapter 3, entitled his book that appeared in the English language I am That. In the Advaita tradition the term ‘That’ signifies the Absolute. In a way, one could say that by this statement Nisargadatta joined the Advaita tradition, but that is only partially true. He pointed to the essence of Advaita, indeed, but at the same time he very often rejected all kinds of tradition, not only the advaitic – he actually also rejected everything that was ever written down, even the Upanishads. Seeing that you are ‘That’, Absolute Awareness, was the only thing that mattered to him. He considered the rest as being needless philosophy.

Nisargadatta touched a crucial point here, that should be acknowledged, in my opinion. The point is that no matter how great a certain tradition may have been in its core, it may not have succeeded in staying free of rigidity. Whether this has been caused by too much emphasis on philosophical argumentation, or a holding on to rituals or ascetic commitments and prohibitions – rigidity can often be identified, also in Shankara’s school of Advaita Vedanta.

Although both the other teachers in this book apparently spoke, somewhat more than Nisargadatta did, the language of the scholastic Advaita, they too can be considered as restorers of the primal core of Advaita – or put differently, the core of true non-dualism, that does not acknowledge religious or ethnical restrictions. All three of them showed that non-dualism is truly universal and not a branch of Hinduism. Ramana Maharshi, who usually adopted the terminology of Advaita Vedanta, could be very critical about Advaita, as if he had no part in it. In particular he could not appreciate its endless philosophizing and classifying.[12]

Shri Atmananda, also known as Shri Krishna Menon, the teacher that is highlighted in chapter 2, was seemingly more established in the tradition of Shankara’s Vedanta. At least he very often spoke in words of praise about it. He said for instance:

“Vedanta is, strictly speaking, the fulfilment of all religions”; and “Vedanta is really a spiritual atom bomb, and it is no wonder that intellectuals tremble to approach it.”[13]

But despite his enthusiastic talk, he is not a member of the scholastic (and conditional) form that Shankara’s tradition adopted.

All three teachers who will be discussed in this book, are free from whatever religious scheme, therefore making them in particular suitable as a source of teaching for Westerners. I consider these three, Ramana Maharshi, Atmananda and Nisargadatta Maharaj, as the ‘Big Three’ of the twentieth century Advaita Vedanta. To me, they are the ones that reduced Advaita to the heart of the matter: direct recognition of your true nature. All three of them used the word ‘I’ in a constituent term to point to the Ultimate Principle: the first two spoke in terms of ‘I-I’ and ‘I’-Principle respectively, and Nisargadatta offered his two step approach ‘I am’-principle and ‘I, the Absolute’. With this they showed that the way is a direct way in the first place, a way that cannot be found anywhere else than with you, with the direct experience of ‘I’. I don’t know of any teacher or writer, from East or West, who has investigated the truth of what ‘I’ really is, so thoroughly as these three. I don’t know any teacher either who has shown in a comparable way how ‘I’ is really the entrance for the most immediate there is. These three teachers have shown clearly that true Advaita, true nondualism, is not a path of knowledge or philosophy, but a path without methods, a ‘pathless’ path of liberation, an invitation to go nowhere.

This booklet ‘I’ is a Door is dedicated to this theme. It gives a view on the essence of Advaita Vedanta, the core of which is the present realisation of freedom. It offers a short overview of the phenomenon that in the Advaita of the ‘Big Three’ the term ‘I’ is retained, even to designate the highest level of Reality, the level that is prior to and beyond the person. Retaining this term is an aid because it points out that the sense of ‘I’, that seems to belong to a person so obviously, is in fact deeper than this temporary person, and that this sense of ‘I’ is uninterruptedly present, even right now. So it is not necessary to eliminate or exclude something in order to be in contact with the Reality that you are. ‘I’ signifies That which is limitless Light and sheer Freedom.

‘I’ is what everybody says. ‘I’ is the closest there is to anyone. Everyone recognizes it as utmost familiar, completely ‘oneself’, already now. It is all about self-realisation: you have to see the Truth yourself and realize it. ‘I’ is that which is always present, which turns out to be the entrance to Truth. The entrance will never be anywhere else, it doesn’t need to be searched. You don’t have to go anywhere to experience ‘I’. Wherever you go, you are already there. ‘I’ is already there. ‘I’ is a door, and it is always open.

[*] This way of speaking is akin to the one used in the Bible book The Revelation to John: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” (Rev. 22:13; alpha and omega being the first and last letter in the Greek alphabet).

ONE

Ramana Maharshi

Let us first listen to the most senior of the three, Bhagavan Shri Ramana Maharshi. He has had the strongest influence, and not for nothing Ananda Mayi Ma called him ‘the Sun’.[1] He has been recognized as the authentic voice of Advaita and its message of the possibility of being liberated in this lifetime.

Everything in his teaching dealt with the true meaning of ‘I’. He invited the visitor or devotee who requested guidance to ask themselves the question ‘Who am I?’ He considered this the true form of self-enquiry (vichara). He revealed the powerful nature of the question that when properly asked, it causes the dissolving of thoughts and identifications. Bhagavan let the effect of the question be experienced directly by the devotee who asked for guidance.

Yet he also understood that for most people the experience in itself required also the right foundation of understanding. The right interpretation of the experience is as important. Therefore he repeatedly explained in great detail the relation between ‘the I’ and that which is really ‘I’, the ultimate ‘Self’.

He indicated that ‘the I’ (aham-kara), or the ‘I-thought’ (aham-vritti) as he often called it, has to be killed, destroyed. I have always thought this is a very tricky linguistic usage, because it seems to invite conflict. Generally people are already engaged with struggles within themselves and I think this aggressive terminology requires an explanation. If ultimately the goal is peace, then the escalation of the inner conflict cannot be the intention.

Ramana Maharshi himself also spoke differently. If someone asked how this ‘I’ should be eliminated, he said for instance:

“You need not eliminate the wrong ‘I’. How can ‘I’ eliminate itself? All that you need to do is to find out its origin and abide there.”[2]

And at some other time he said about killing the ego:

“Can the ego ever agree to kill itself?… If you seek the ego you will find it does not exist. That is the way to destroy it.”[3]

And:

“How can anything that does not exist be killed?”[4]

‘Enquiry’ Is Looking If Something Really Exists

‘You will find it does not exist.’ This is again and again the essence of his argument. Nevertheless Ramana often talks about the ‘I’, and describes it as if it exists, so one starts to wonder: ‘but then what does exist, and what does not?’ The following quotation is pertinent in this respect.

“There is the absolute Self, from which a spark proceeds as from fire. The spark is called the ego. In the case of an ignorant man it identifies itself simultaneously with an object as it rises. It cannot remain independent of such association with objects. This association is ajnana or ignorance, whose destruction is the objective of our efforts. If its objectifying tendency is killed it remains pure, and also merges into the source.”[5]

If again we ignore the usage of the word ‘killing’ for a moment, the ‘association with objects’ mentioned above is the key phrase – the tendency of the ‘I’ to identify itself with objects. That is exactly the mistake.

What is associated with what? What or who is making this mistake? Ramana Maharshi repeatedly speaks about the association as being a ‘knot’ (granthi), the ‘knot in the Heart’.

“Though this insentient body cannot say ‘I’ (i.e. does not have the feeling ‘I’), and though Existence-Consciousness (Sat-Chit, Self) has no rising and setting, between these two rises an ‘I’ of the measure of the body (the ‘I am the body’ identification). Know this alone to be the knot between Consciousness and the insentient (Chit-jada-granthi), bondage (bandha), soul (jiva), subtle body (sukshma sharira), ego (aham-kara), this mundane state of activities (samsara), mind (manas) and so on.”[6]

Ramana says this knot must be cut. Again: what is meant by this act of seeming violence? In fact it always turns out what is meant is sheer looking. Just looking. You always thought you already were looking, but now you are requested to look as if you would look for the very first time. If you follow this instruction you would observe where this ‘I-person’ (which is what is meant by the term ‘knot’) really is. Where do I find this ‘I-person’? Ramana used a wonderful example to illustrate this.

“[The ego] is an intangible link between the body and Pure Consciousness. It is not real. So long as one does not look closely it continues to give trouble. But when one looks for it, it is found not to exist. Again, in a Hindu marriage function, the feasts continue five or six days. A stranger was mistaken for the best man by the bride’s party and they therefore treated him with special regard. Seeing him treated with special regard by the bride’s party, the bridegroom’s party considered him to be some man of importance related to the bride’s party and therefore they too showed him special respect. The stranger had altogether a happy time of it. He was also all along aware of the real situation. On one occasion the groom’s party wanted to refer to him on some point. They asked for him. He scented trouble and made himself scarce. So it is with the ego. If looked for, it disappears.”[7]

Because Consciousness connects with the insentient matter, the spark which rises from Consciousness apparently makes the mistake and immediately clings to this connection with the insentient. This is called an ‘attachment’. By closely paying attention to see whether this bond is indeed real, it becomes apparent nothing is there at all. Hence the ‘I’ exists owing to the fact it is not investigated.

This is one emphasis. It is the emphasis on the ending of something (this is why terms such as ‘destroying’ are used), by the seeing of the non-existence of something. There is another aspect as well, a more essential aspect as far as I am concerned.

‘I’ Is Uninterruptedly The Case

In the terminology that something has to be ended first (‘seen through’, ‘killed’ etcetera), there is the possibility after all to interpret it as an event in time, a sequence. ‘First this, and only then there is freedom’, seems to be the message. It is clear to me that in fact Ramana emphasizes as much the always-present, self-luminous aspect within ‘I’ – that which is now already present and available in me. In spite of the knot Consciousness has made with its object, the physical body, Consciousness as such has continuously remained pure, not entangled with anything whatsoever. We are invited to recognize and understand that in fact the ‘I’ always has been ‘made’ of Consciousness as such.

“The ego functions as the knot between the Self, which is pure Consciousness (Chit), and the physical body, which is inert and insentient (jada). The ego is therefore called the Chit-jada granthi. In your investigation into the Source of aham-vritti (the ‘I’-thought), you take the essential Chit-aspect of the ego: and for this reason the enquiry must lead to the realization of the pure Consciousness of the Self.”[8]

The aham-vritti mentioned here (the ‘I’-thought), Ramana also called aham-idam; this is the combination of ‘I’ (aham) with an object, something thought of, a ‘this’ (idam).[*] So Aham-idam consists of pure Consciousness, or pure ‘I’, and everything of which Consciousness is conscious of, that is to say, of everything that is an object of ‘I’. Most of the time this object (idam) is superseded by another one each millisecond. So in the ‘I’-thought a continuous gyration of ‘this’s is occurring, whereby the ‘I’ is identifying itself with a number of ‘this’s (‘I am this’, aham-idam), as well as separating itself from them (‘I and this’, also aham-idam). In the combination aham-idam, the idam always refers to a multiple, a continuous alternation. However aham always remains the same. It is always singular. This is an important point.

In fact that which we call an ‘object’ (whether it is a material object, sensory perceptible, or a psychic object, a thought) is always a simultaneous existence of subject and object, aham and idam (‘I’ and ‘this’). I am experiencing now that this particular object is present; now I experience that there is a new object; and now I experience that there is another object, etcetera. It is always aham-idam. There is always this mixture, this blend (which in fact is identical to the knot of Chit and jada which we mentioned earlier). And within this, aham always remains the same. Aham, ‘I’, is uninterruptedly the case.

In other words, all the time in which we imagine there are only objects in our attention, there is ‘I’ simultaneously, as subject. Please note, not as ‘the I’, because this personal form is in fact an object, which is only temporarily existent, but we refer to the subject (‘I’) without which no object is possible. Then, without that which is experiencing, quite simply nothing happens.

Ramana’s advice reads: remain with the always-present subject. And even though you are repeatedly attracted to objects, that does not matter. As soon as you become aware that you are enticed, you immediately recognize the subject (the light giving aspect) inevitably present within the luring object. It is always there. It is never absent.

The advice is to stay with aham, ‘I’, and it becomes more and more pure, and less and less distracted by beliefs such as ‘I am this’, ‘I am doing well’, ‘I am worthless’, etcetera. By following these instructions you recognize the presence of pure ‘I’, always subject, self-luminous, giving light from itself to whatever is an object. From itself? Yes, from itSelf, because the more you ask after the source of ‘I’, the more you can see that the ‘I’ in fact is mere ‘I’, totally objectless, radiating, continuous ‘I,I,I,I,I,I,I’.

Now already, ‘I’ is present and continuously radiant. Yes, it is still ‘entangled’ with all kinds of ‘this’s, but that does not alter its radiance and luminosity. Only the ‘this’s are to be recognized as such, and once released thereby they are dissolved in pure ‘I’. The effect of the question ‘who am I?’ is that all ‘this’s drop off and just emptiness remains, an absence of all objects. This is ‘I’ in the pure sense of the word. By abiding here you have merged with what Ramana called Aham sphurana, the very first ‘I’-vibration, the source of all manifestation.

Ramana repeatedly used the expression Aham sphurana as an indication for ‘I-I’ (Aham Aham),[*] for the most primary emanation of ‘I’. Sphurana is something like the very first radiation, the still totally pure vibration of the origin. Aham sphurana is continuously present, always new and fresh, and hence this is exactly what ‘I’ am always. In reality ‘I’ has never been devoured or entangled by anything whatsoever.

The ‘I’ Doesn’t Need To Be Replaced By Some Other ‘I’

This emphasis is crucial. Otherwise there will rise a misunderstanding that there is an ‘I’ that is actually bad, and must be destroyed, after which there is a kind of no man’s land from which a new, clean ‘I’ will arise. As a matter of fact there are no two ‘I’s; no ‘I’ needs to be replaced by any clean or pure ‘I’.[9] ‘I’ is always the same, always self-luminous and constantly present. Ramana’s term ‘annihilate’ (nasha) refers to the ‘I’-thought (aham-vritti), the entanglement of ‘I’ with an object (aham-idam), the inclination of the ‘I’ to present itself as an object.

This has already been noted in a quotation earlier in this chapter (page 19). Whilst describing the termination of the entanglement, Ramana uses the expression “the ‘I’ remains pure”, which means it “remains ‘I’ in its pure, primordial state.” He does not say: “a new ‘I’ comes into existence.” Something has always been there, and that remains in its pure form: ‘I-I’. In another place he says:

“The ‘I’ casts off the illusion of ‘I’ and yet remains as ‘I’. Such is the paradox of Self-realisation. The realised do not see any contradiction in it.”[10]

And further:

“Only the annihilation of ‘I’ [the ‘I’-thought] is Liberation. But it can be gained only by keeping the ‘I’-’I’ always in view. … There is only one ‘I’ all along; but what rises up from time to time is the mistaken ‘I’-thought; whereas the intuitive ‘I’ always remains Self-shining, i.e., even before it becomes manifest.”[11]

Attention To Subject First

When we accept the advice to confine our attention entirely to pure subject, the aspect which is pure consciousness that excludes all objects, the question then arises: isn’t this emphasis on ‘pure I’ a bit strange for an approach calling itself non-dualistic? Since the original starting point of two realities (Consciousness and inert matter) already sounds dualistic, and the advice to confine your attention totally to one of these two realities, pure Consciousness or pure ‘I’ (or ‘I-I’, Subject), is in fact excluding something, and indeed one could legitimately call it dualistic. Haven’t we arrived here at the pitfall of Advaita, which seems to encourage us to separate ourselves from our daily life as a thinking, feeling and acting being? How can such a dualistic approach ever lead to non-duality?

In reply Ramana would say that as long as you experience the objective as separate from the subject you are looking from a dualistic point of view at yourself, and so you have to stress the aspect of consciousness only.

“He must first discern consciousness (chit) from insentience (jada) and be the consciousness only. Later let him realize that insentience is not apart from consciousness.”[12]

And:

“Know the subject first and then question about the object. The subject comprehends the object also. That one aspect is an all-comprehensive aspect. See yourself first and then see the objects.”[13]

“ ‘I’, [and] ‘this’ appear together, now. But ‘this’ (idam) is contained in ‘I’ (aham) – they are not apart. ‘This’ has to merge into and become one with ‘I’. The ‘I’ that remains over is the true ‘I’.”[14]

This constantly present, true ‘I’ is ‘I-I’, that which remains when the combination ‘I-am-this’ or ‘I-this’ is purified from all ‘this’s by means of the question ‘who am I?’ The remaining ‘I-I’ can only become manifest (sphurana) when the veil of all ‘this’s has fallen off. This sphurana, this primary form of manifestation is not manifestation in the usual sense of the word. It is not something of which there is a multiple. You cannot turn it into an object. You can only merge with it, through recognition – I, I, I, continuous, unbroken, without form, without contents, without sound or colour. That is all you have to do; abide in this place, rest and relax in it. Everything possibly beyond that,[*] the ‘Absolute’, ‘Enlightenment’ or whatever term, is Grace. Abide in this place, ‘I-I’. It is here your search is over.

[*] See for Ramana’s use of aham-idam: Talks, nrs. 177, 277, 314, 323, 363, 569, 577, 589 and 626. I recommend those interested to read about the theme of aham and idam in the Advaita-tradition: Michael Comans, The Method of Early Advaita Vedanta. Delhi: M. Banarsidass, 2000; p. 425-436. These pages in this excellent book (the best book on the original teachings of Advaita I know of) deal with the approach of Padmapada, a direct disciple of Shankara. Padmapada was possibly the first one who used this terminology (an-idam, ‘not-this’, in place of aham). Aham-idam as a term also shows up in the tradition of Kashmir Shaivism; there it refers to the merging of the Absolute (Aham) with the manifesting (idam).

[*] Concerning the term ‘I-I’ (Aham Aham), I consider this term as actually more fitting than the better known term ‘the Self’, because ‘I-I’ expresses constantly the linguistic first person, while ‘the Self’ is third person - and by that seeming to be ‘somewhere else’. Possibly Ramana has taken the term ‘I-I’ from the Viveka Chudamani (attributed to Shankara, probably mistakenly); the term can be found there in the verses 137 and 219. Already at an early age Ramana had translated this text into Tamil. In his translation Ramana did add the term ‘I-I’ (in Tamil: Nan Nan) in several verses, namely 127, 213, 214, 381, 409 and 536. From my experience the best English translations of the Viveka Chudamani are the one by Anthony J. Alston, The Crest Jewel of Wisdom. London: Shanti Sadan, 1997; p. 86 and 135; and the one by John Grimes, The Vivekacudamani of Sankaracarya Bhagavatpada. Aldershot (UK): Ashgate, 2004; p. 124 and 156.

[*] ‘Beyond’ implies that the attitude of the seeker can be continued. Being carried by Aham sphurana actually means that even the power of discrimination, so far our most efficient tool, may be left behind. That power has served us well with the seeing of the difference between ‘I’ (aham) and ‘this’ (idam), but its role is over. Only surrender to the differenceless Reality is called for here.

TWO

Atmananda (Krishna Menon)

The approach of the second of the three great teachers, Shri Krishna Menon, also known as Shri Atmananda, was at first sight just traditional. He often expressed himself in a way as if repeating the words of Shankara and Sureshvara. But in fact he could be called very original, in several ways.

What is specifically original to his approach?

It is his own special linguistic usage, his particular logic (or ‘subjective’ logic[*]), his way of reducing all things to their ultimate nature, and in particular his entire emphasis on what he called the ‘‘I’-Principle’.

To him this ‘I’-Principle was a synonym of Ultimate Reality, the Absolute – there is nothing which precedes it; it is what is truly meant with the word ‘I’. He said for instance:

“Pure consciousness and deep peace are your real nature. Having understood this in the right manner, you can well give up the use of the words ‘Consciousness’ and ‘Happiness’ and invariably use ‘I’ to denote the Reality. Don’t be satisfied with only reducing objects into Consciousness. Don’t stop there. Reduce them further into the ‘I’-Principle. So also reduce all feelings into pure Happiness, and then reduce them further into the ‘I’-Principle.”[1]

Although Atmananda loved to use words like Consciousness and Happiness in order to refer to the Ultimate, a quote like this shows that ultimately he preferred the term ‘I’-Principle (he once even said that compared to the ‘I’-Principle the word Consciousness may be called theory![2]). He did so because he considered that the word ‘I’ has the least chance of being mistaken. Everything that can be perceived is liable to mistakes, however that which can be called ‘yourself’, that which cannot be perceived, ‘I’, cannot cause any mistaking.[3] He considered the ‘I’-Principle to be everybody’s true goal, because it is in fact contained in each endeavour.[4]

‘I’ As Such

The use of the word ‘Principle’ by Atmananda should not be considered a mental or philosophical attempt to understand or frame the ‘I’. It is his way of using a word for what ‘I’ is in itself, ‘I’ as such. What ‘I’ as such really is, precisely, is prior to any mental movement or framing.

With expressions like ‘in itself’ and ‘as such’ language stops short. Here language arrives at its limits. Something is referring to itself. Something as such does not change the next moment into something else. It is the constant factor in the ever changing, it is its own true nature. It does not rely on anything else. Atmananda frequently used the Sanskrit word svarupa, true nature, which referred to this constant factor. He used it together with a number of words that he considered its synonym, such as ‘background’, ‘content’, ‘substrate’, ‘pure state’ and ‘natural state’. Atmananda used these various words as indications for one and the same thing.

The trouble with language is that each attempt to refer to the essential nature of something can, as quick as a flash, be misunderstood. For instance a term like ‘the essence’ can suggest the presence of a tiny ‘being’ or ‘core’ within a more coarse form. As if you might discover something’s essence by enlarging it more and more using a microscope, continuously looking to what is inside the core. Something of this suggestion repeatedly arises in popular commentaries on the famous ‘You Are That’ passages in the Chandogya Upanishad in which Uddalaka teaches his son, for instance by splitting a fruit further and further.

Atmananda was a master in emphasizing the mistake that possibly lies in this short-sightedness. For this kind of enquiry will always remain trapped in what he called the ‘objective’. Atmananda used the terms objective and subjective in a way that is uncommon in the West. To him objective was not an indication for the impartial, but for everything that can be observed, everything that is an object to the senses and thoughts. The same goes with subjective: here he did not mean a view or opinion coloured by a person, but that which is merely Subject – that which can not be observed by definition, and which by Itself constantly illumines whatever is the object.[5]

This means that the enquiry into something ‘inside’ as a findable ‘essence’ or ‘core’ will never offer any insight in the Ultimate. Hence, one cannot say that the modern research of physics and true self-enquiry are one and the same thing, as is suggested nowadays in some advaitic circles. Physics will always remain the field of the ‘objective’.[*]

This is likewise the case with a concept like ‘all-encompassing’, in notions such as ‘Cosmos’, ‘Space’ or ‘the Infinite’. Atmananda once provided a useful indication or insight:

“Space (Akasha), though not perceptible to the senses, is certainly conceivable by the mind. So it is really objective in nature. If we take out of Space this last taint of objectivity, it ceases to be dead and inert, becomes self-luminous, and it immediately shines as its background – the Reality.”[6]

The ‘I’-Principle Is The Only Ultimate Reality

Everything in Atmananda’s teaching is about the Subject. It refers exclusively to That which knows. That which knows is not a Knower (not a He or She), but Knowing as such (Jnana). He named this ‘Knowing as such’ also ‘Experience’ (Anubhava), meaning Experiencing as such, and also Feeling as such (Rasa). All three are synonyms of the Wonder which in fact ‘I’ am. Take for instance the following:

“The ‘I’-Principle is the only Experience that one can have. Even though he be an ignorant man, he can only experience Himself. … If the experience has many objects, it is no Experience. You are superimposing objects upon your Experience. Your Experience is one and the same, always”; and “I have already proved to you that no one can know or experience anything other than one’s own Self, the ‘I’-Principle. … The only experience is ‘I’, and ‘I’ is the only word which denotes experience”; and “The ‘I’-Principle is the only thing that exists; ‘I’ requires no proof either. The objective cannot exist independent of this ‘I’, and therefore the ‘I’-Principle is the only ultimate Reality.”[7]

This radical way of speaking, in which virtually everything can be reduced to That which knows, implies that objects need not be ignored or removed, but can be considered pointers to Reality. In order to recognize the Self, most texts in the Advaita tradition consider it a must for a student to learn not to pay attention to sensory objects. However, Atmananda made it clear that as a matter of fact, nothing is an obstacle. One is never really swallowed by an object, or hindered by an obstacle. Nothing needs to be removed. “Nothing hides consciousness.”[8]

The so-called ego too, is not an enemy; on the contrary, Atmananda said it is a help:

“Even the much despised ego is a great help to the realization of the Truth. The presence of the ego in man, though in a distorted form, is infinitely better than the absence of it, as for example in a tree”; and “It is the whole ego that seeks liberation and strives for it. When it is directed towards the ultimate Reality, the material part automatically drops away and the Consciousness part alone remains over as the real ‘I’-Principle. This is liberation.”[*]

Think of Your Guru Only In The Dualistic Sphere

Atmananda’s emphasis on radical non-duality does not mean that he assumed that in the day to day contact between people, the ego has already totally dissolved, and that this was also the case in the contact his students had with him as their teacher. In other words, he did not have the illusion that that which he outlined to be ultimately true, was already true for his students or readers in their activities. Thus, he did not think it to be helpful at all to honour the ‘differencelessness’ or nonduality in his actual activities as teacher and police officer. He considered it a pitfall to shout all too soon that ‘everything is Consciousness’ in a worldly or relational environment, and he continued pointing out ‘difference’ as long as this was the true state of affairs to the student. Thus he considered advaita, non-duality, not applicable to the relationship between teacher and student.

“Think of your Guru only in the dualistic sphere. Apply your heart wholly to it and get lost in the Guru. Then the Ultimate dances like a child before you.”[9] And moreover: “Advaita is only a pointer to the Guru. You do not reach Advaita completely until you reach the egoless state. Never even think that you are one with the Guru. It will never take you to the Ultimate. On the contrary, that thought will only drown you. Advaita points only to the Ultimate.”[10]

Atmananda considered a devotional attitude to be a great help. But in an instruction he made it clear that such an attitude is only appropriate towards your own Guru.

“That particular person through whom one had the proud privilege of being enlightened, that is the ONLY FORM which one may adore and do Puja to, to one’s heart’s content, as the person of one’s Guru. It is true that all is the Sat-Guru, but only when the name and form disappear and not otherwise. Therefore, the true aspirant should beware of being deluded into any similar devotional advances towards any other form, be it of God or of man.”[11]

Another statement reveals how strict and dualistic he was in respect to the student and guru relationship:

“A disciple should never bow allegiance to two gurus at the same time”; to which he added that “accepting more than one guru at a time is even more dangerous than having none at all.”[12]

The following story illustrates how in his daily life Atmananda showed that each of the levels (the Absolute and the relative) requires its own approach, and that consequently, one does not apply the non-dualistic approach to the relative level of being. At the beginning of his career as a station inspector of the Police Department, Atmananda once interrogated a man he suspected of having stolen something. The man had constantly denied it. Then Atmananda told him:

“If you have really committed the theft, as I believe you have, it will be better that you confess it and admit your mistake. If, on the other hand, you want to hide the truth from me, you may be able to do so for the time being, but that Principle in you which is watching all your actions will make you suffer throughout the rest of your life for having lied once. You will never be able to hide the Truth from that Principle in you.”[13]

This shows the sensitivity required to live the truth, and not peremptorily claim that untruth is simply Consciousness as well. If we realize that this statement is made by a truly radical non-dualistic teacher, it stimulates us to consider the apparent paradox within all this.

All Activities Are Acts of Worship To Me

In spite of this accurate handling of ‘difference’ on the level where differences simply have to be handled, Atmananda was a truly radical non-dualist. His radicality made him use a style of writing in which he does not speak about an ‘I’ or an ‘I’- Principle, but from the perspective of that. In Atma Darshan he wrote some passages in which Consciousness itself is speaking, in which ‘I’ is speaking, not a person called ‘Atmananda’. It invites the reader to look at things from this perspective of ‘I’, as the one and only Reality:

“I am that Consciousness that remains over after the removal of everything objective from Me. … Realizing that every object wherever placed is asserting Me, I enjoy Myself everywhere and in everything”; and: “It is in Me that thoughts and feelings rise and set. I am their changeless Witness. I am the Light of Consciousness in all thoughts and perceptions and the Light of Love in all feelings.”[14]

A couple of years later he continued this style of writing in Atma Nirvriti:

“The world shines because of My light: without Me, nothing is. I am the light in the perception of the world”; and: “How can thoughts which rise and set in Me, be other than Myself? When there is thought, I am seeing Myself; when there is no thought, I am remaining in My own glory.”[15]

These are beautiful texts, which through their originality can bring about a shock of recognition, even more so than traditional texts about ‘the’ Self. The Self, after all, remains an indication for something in the third person. Whilst speaking about the Self, the suggestion can linger that that is something else than ‘me’, who is after all, simply I, first person. No, I am already That. I am That. ‘The I’ is not That. It is about the recognition of the fact that I am now already That, Consciousness Itself, and that, therefore, I am allowed to speak as such about Myself. The author is giving us, the readers, the example of how to recognize Yourself, and then to speak from that perspective as a consequence. The reader is likewise invited in the following passage to experience this recognition:

“I am pure happiness. All the activities of the sense-organs and the mind aim at happiness. Thus all their activities are puja [acts of worship] done to Me. I am ever in repose, disinterestedly perceiving this puja. Again and again they touch Me unawares and lapse into passivity. Coming out of it, they continue their puja again. Once they understand that by their activities they are doing puja to Me, and in passivity they lie touching Me, all their suffering ceases. Thereafter, action done will be no action, and passivity will be no passivity, because ignorance has been rooted out.”[16]

You Are Always In Your Real Nature

Atmananda conveys in these texts the understanding that in our thinking and speaking about ourselves a reversal can occur. We are already looking from that which we are looking for; we really need not go anywhere. Many authors describe thinking and feeling as enemies but really these faculties express the celebration of ‘I’. All my thinking is ‘heading’ in My direction, in order to arrive at a dissolution in the peace that I am, and this heading in My direction is not an assault. The wrong supposition that thoughts or feelings still have to be removed first, results in fact from the identification with someone who suffers – a someone who is disturbed by these thoughts and feelings. Atmananda justly calls this a puja (and translates puja as meaning ‘acts of worship’), because That towards which this worship is directed is so totally No-thing that thoughts and feelings can only be devoured Therein. It is, therefore, appropriate to say that I, being No-thing, or No-body or Nomind, am the only true direction for all thoughts and feelings – they form a plea to be dissolved, to be ultimately allowed to rest in Me.

“The real nature of thought is Consciousness, and the true nature of feeling is Happiness. Whenever a thought or feeling arises, you are in your Real Nature as Consciousness and Happiness”; and: “When you are in deep sleep, you are in your Real Nature. When you are in deep sorrow, you are in your Real Nature. When you are in extreme dispassion, or when you are terror-stricken, you are in your Real Nature. When you are in heated logical argument, you are in your Real Nature. When you come to the end of all activity (what is called death), you are in your Real Nature. In all these experiences you stand divested of even the idea of a body or mind, and when you transcend the mind, you are always in your Real Nature.”[17]

This passage really covers all states we can experience, there is no more to be said. I am never deprived of my Real Nature, I can never escape It. ‘I’ is what everybody says – exactly the same word, always ‘I’, always pointing to Itself, which everybody experiences as ‘Myself’, my Real Nature. Each state or feeling of separateness has been devoured in Me. ‘I’ is no door anymore, but the Devourer Itself.

[*] Atmananda once phrased his specific kind of logic as follows: “They [the Grecian philosophers] go by logic and I go also by logic. But there is much difference between the logic employed by them and the logic employed by me. The logic employed by me is something subjective. The logic employed by them is something objective. That is the difference.” Tattwa, p. 119.

[*] I presume the most subtle which is aimed at by modern physics, is rather an equivalent of Prakriti (Primordial Matter), a term which is in the dualistic Samkhya teaching the principle of ‘the objective’. In Samkhya this is the opposite of its other core principle, that of Consciousness (Purusha), or ‘Subject’.

[*] Discourses, nr. 512 and 802; Vol. 2 p. 18 and 126 (1st ed. p. 191 and 272273). That which Atmananda called here ‘the material part’, is similar to what Ramana Maharshi indicated by the term ‘this’ (idam), as distinguished from ‘I’ (aham); for which see chapter 1. Atmananda sometimes used these terms as well: “Without the ‘I’ (aham) being there, there can never be the ‘this’ (idam).” Discourses, nr. 1324; Vol. 3 p. 94 (1st ed. p. 443).

THREE

Nisargadatta Maharaj

In my opinion Shri Nisargadatta Maharaj was one of the greatest teachers of the twentieth century. What in particular makes him so great is his remarkable ability to show that everything that was asked him is made up of concepts, and to annihilate these concepts by exposing their uselessness. Whatever question or remark the visitor or disciple came up with, Nisargadatta pointed out that it boiled down to clinging to patterns of thought or concepts and he referred to their origin, their seed. Everything, everything really was undermined as being a concept and consequently not true, and that included also something he himself had just said. As he emphasized, the only reality is that which is conceptless.

Whilst reading transcripts of his talks with visitors, it becomes evident that he himself, the great underminer of concepts, was continually offering concepts. He jumped from level to level, used numerous Sanskrit terms for a certain level, used the same or closely related terms for another level, and
then had the whole matter dissolved in what he called ‘the deep dark blue state of non-experience’, or some other description of the Absolute.

Unfortunately this resulted in many seekers who have caught a glimpse already of who they really are, to continue their search, because of the message ‘you are only the Absolute’. Often people assiduously claim that they ‘know consciousness already’ but they also express frustration that they have failed to take ‘the next step’.

I do not think there is a next step. It is all about going to the limit of what can be experienced, and to remain still there. One should not be led astray by any comment on the Absolute and be lured to go in search of it.

But, as can be argued, Nisargadatta is making comments exactly on the Absolute all the time, and shows again and again that everything else is unreal! This surely is the confrontation: to hear that we are That, and not be able to experience it, let alone search for it. That is the paradox Maharaj is presenting us with all the time. How are we supposed to deal with this paradox?

‘I Am’ Is The Greatest Foe and The Greatest Friend

Maharaj himself answered this question – and that by offering a concept. One specific concept, which he indicated by using the term ‘the knowledge I am’, or ‘I am-ness’. He used the term ‘I am’ to point to the basic and plain knowledge or feeling to be, to be consciously present. Earlier in this chapter Nisargadatta Maharaj was called ‘great’ especially because he totally undermined each and every concept. But really he can be called so just as well because in turn he presented this one concept. He considered this concept ‘I am’ as something to be digested, swallowed, dissolved. And so he described it as ‘the ultimate medicine’. It’s true he called it ‘the disease itself’ at least as often, or ‘the greatest misery’, but in the same respect he indicated in many places the very same concept is exactly the medicine, and is the indicator to freedom. So again we are facing here with a paradox: something being a disease yet in its essential nature it is the medicine itself.

There is a quote that holds the key to the entrance to this paradox. In my opinion it is the most beautiful quote there is, because the whole mystery of existence is described in a few sentences, including the handle to enter the mystery. Everything is in it, and all further texts of Maharaj can be interpreted from this perspective.

“This touch of ‘I am-ness’ is in each being; this beingness has that touch of love for the Absolute, and it is a representation of the Absolute. … Only the Absolute prevails. The truth is total Brahman [Para Brahman] only, nothing else but Brahman. In a total Brahman state the touch of beingness, ‘I am’ started, and with that, separation started, otherness has come. But this ‘I am-ness’ is not just a small principle; that itself is the Mula-Maya, the primary illusion. … The great Maya principle is making you do all her tricks, and you are also abiding in what she says, and finally, that light of yours, that beingness, gets extinguished. … That Maya is so powerful that it gets you completely wrapped up in it. Maya means ‘I am’, ‘I love to be’. It has no identity except love. That knowledge of ‘I am’ is the greatest foe and the greatest friend. Although it might be your greatest enemy, if you propitiate it properly, it will turn around and lead you to the highest state.”[1]

The Touch of ‘I Am’ Is The First Vibration

The sense of ‘I am’ is a universal principle, present in exactly the same way in each being, prior to the interpretation ‘I am John’ or ‘I am Ann’, in other words, ‘I am this person’. Nisargadatta (that is, his translators) used to indicate this sense of ‘I am’ with the term ‘consciousness’ (chetana). It makes sense to linger over the meaning Nisargadatta ascribed to this term, just because he often called this consciousness illusory while at the same time the term ‘consciousness’ has been used by other teachers to indicate exactly the Ultimate (even though this was often the translation of the term chit instead of chetana, the English term is the same). He supplied numerous synonyms for it like ‘knowingness’, ‘Krishna state’, ‘child consciousness’, ‘Atman’, ‘seed’, ‘witness’, ‘God’, ‘being’, ‘beingness’, ‘sattva’, ‘the chemical’, ‘Saguna Brahman’, ‘the manifest’, ‘the supreme principle’:[*] they all come down to the same.

It is about a touch. Without any reason, something arises spontaneously, within something that is no experience, no knowledge, no form, not ‘a thing’ whatsoever. Only when you notice it, you can say ‘something arises’, not before. So manifestation and the noticing of it are one and the same. This is a most subtle kind of touch. It is this very first vibration, this most subtle kind of touch which Nisargadatta called ‘consciousness’, the principle ‘I am’.

The crucial element of the quote is to be found in the last paragraph: “That knowledge of ‘I am’ is the greatest foe and the greatest friend.” It includes everything – and consequently you can be left here with an overwhelming feeling of disorientation. Very often this disorientation is only reinforced in other passages, by the emphasis on the illusory element (‘the greatest enemy’), because that which indeed is real, the Absolute, is described as ‘something that can not be experienced’. However here Nisargadatta most strongly says that indeed, although it might be your greatest enemy, you would do well to fully worship it. So whether illusion or not, at this moment it does not matter at all, because ultimately it is only God, the ever creating principle that brings about everything. It is true this means that you can be seduced to cling to a form, but also by the same token you can be liberated from this clinging by the same principle.

Worship This Touch of ‘I Am’

In one of the Puranas, the ‘old books’ of Hinduism, we find a passage that bears resemblance to the quote. “She, when pleased, becomes propitious and the cause of the freedom of man.”[2] It is all about worshipping this principle as totally as possible, to pay attention to it, to please it. The sense of ‘I am’ is so common, so ordinary, that you overlook it easily and hence Nisargadatta strongly emphasizes not to do so, but on the contrary to fully honour precisely this: to worship it as the highest God. He keeps hammering at it to keep quiet here and to devote yourself fully to this consciousness, to this touch.

“‘You are’, that itself is the atman.[*] Atman is not to know anything; that very knowledge is the atman. Worship atman as the God; there is nothing else. You worship that principle only; nothing else needs to be done. This very knowledge ‘you are’ will lead to the highest, to the Ultimate. This ‘you are’ is there so long as the vital breath is present. And when you worship that ‘you are’ as the manifest Brahman [Saguna Brahman] only, you reach immortality. … You must continually remember, ‘chew the cud’. … You must continually think about it.”[3]

We may wonder what exactly is ‘worship’, because the rise of a verbal prayer is often associated with this word. Worship could be described as continually paying attention to something with your whole heart. In daily life the best example of this is being in love. If you are in love, your attention is totally going towards your beloved, whether you ‘want’ to do so or not. You are full of it and everything that is going in the direction of the beloved occurs effortlessly. This you may call worship. So now we are invited to practise this worship, this being in love in regard to our ordinary consciousness itself, to formless experience as such, ‘the touch of beingness’, ‘the feeling of beingness’. How are we supposed to put this worship into practice?

It means that you totally merge with this beingness, with this primal vibration. Take all of your passion to this unlocalizable ‘place’, applaud this vibration and do not be worried about the fact that this is still a form of duality, a form of energy or ‘corporality’. Worship Her, cheer Her, do not hold back anything, give yourself totally to Her, so that you may melt with Her. Then She shows you, within the merging, that ‘two’ has ceased to exist. She being an enemy can only be the case if you let yourself be carried along by Her temptation.

“The very source of all happiness is your beingness. Establish yourself there, be there. If you get involved with the flow of Maya there will be misery. Do you understand what the flow is? All that Maya, the activities. You try to derive pleasure from the activities; this is the product of beingness. Be still in your beingness. What I have told you, remember it, chew it, recollect it. It will lead you to the stillness. Establish in that knowledge.”[4]

Knowingness and Surrender

It is here Nisargadatta points out how in the ‘supreme principle’, the ‘I am’ principle, the liberating element can be distinguished from the seducing, binding element.[*] Sometimes I compare this with a fountain in a pond. The ‘I am’ principle is the mouth of the fountain. At that point the water is powerfully spouting up high, causing thousands of drops being shaped to form together what is called a ‘fountain’. The fountain’s mouth has hardly taken form yet; there is only the experience of the propelling-force to be, the drive towards form. Then the advice is: stay at the fountain’s mouth, abide there, and surrender to its formless vibration. Do not try in any way to manipulate the force itself.

“What natural processes can you stop? Everything is spontaneous. Presently you are in the consciousness, which is stirring, vibrant. Don’t think you are something separate from this stirring, vibrant consciousness.”[5]

By staying at the fountain’s mouth, worshipping That which is giving all this unfoldment, you are set free.

“The devotee with his firm determination and God by his fascination for devotion are attracted towards each other, and the moment they come face to face they merge, the one into the other. The devotee loses his phenomenal consciousness automatically, and when it returns, he finds that he has lost his identity – lost into that of God which cannot be separated again;”[6] and:

“I am the God, I am the devotee, and I am the worshipping; all the same, one common principle.”[7]

God’s binding aspect of Maya, Seducer, fades away as soon as you understand that you need not let yourself be carried away by Her to Her forms of creation. You just have to notice What is seeing Her.

“Meditate on that which knows you are sitting here. Your feeling that your body is here is identification with the body, but that which knows that this body is sitting here is the expression of the Absolute.”[8]

The liberating character of the ‘I am’ principle is present as much in the knowing aspect as in the aspect of surrender. At this point the approaches of jñana (knowingness, understanding) and bhakti (devotion) are blending totally into one another. Sometimes this means that surrender shows discrimination is no longer necessary, and sometimes this means that understanding prevents you from making the mistake that your surrender is submission to the transient forms themselves. Surrender is right only when it is surrender to That which is permanent.

“First, I have seduced Maya, and once the Maya surrendered to me, I had no other use for Maya so I threw her out.”[9]

The Dynamic Aspect of Consciousness

Noticing the body sitting here, for instance, could be called ‘knowingness’. This knowingness is in fact Knowing as such, and this is the liberating element, because knowingness is literally the expression of the Absolute, as said in the quote above. Absolute Consciousness or Knowing[*] expresses itself as

‘knowing something’. So ‘consciousness’ and ‘the Absolute’ are not two different things, as is often imagined on the basis of many of Nisargadatta’s statements. There is only one Consciousness (or Awareness; it depends on the language-framework of the speaker or translator which term is considered ‘correct’). It has an Absolute aspect and a dynamic, living, experiencing aspect, the ‘touch’. The only thing needed to see is that a vibration is always the knowing of that vibration, and that the knowing itself is Absolute Knowing; that there is not any separation in there. Within the Absolute there is just nothing to know, hence Nisargadatta calls this the ‘state of no-knowingness’ or ‘nomind’, the state in which attention is dissolved in itself.

“There is only one state, not two. When the ‘I am-ness’ is there [which means ‘consciousness’], in that consciousness you will have many experiences, but the ‘I am’ and the Absolute are not two. In the Absolute the ‘I am-ness’ comes, and then the experience takes place.”[10]

When Nisargadatta referred to ‘I am’, he often used the term chetana, which has been translated by the word ‘consciousness’. This word remains tricky, because most Advaita teachers use the term ‘consciousness’ to precisely refer to the Ultimate. Because of this difference, when we use the word consciousness in translating Nisargadatta’s texts, we should always clearly understand that we are referring to ‘consciousness as-meant-by-Nisargadatta’. Nisargadatta sometimes defined this consciousness as “that which gives sentience to the person”.[11] On another occasion, he used a synonym “the primordial experience”[12] (as being different from ‘an experience’ – by which he meant: “an event becomes an experience only when I am emotionally involved”[13]). He described the proportion between the different levels as follows:

“There can be no experience of the Absolute, as it is beyond all experience. On the other hand, the Self is the experiencing factor in every experience and thus, in a way, validates the multiplicity of experiences.”[14]

In other words: the Absolute is uninterruptedly the case. Although it cannot be experienced, it constantly bestows reality to everything that is being experienced. This bestowing quality is in a way being ‘transmitted’ by the Self, the ‘primordial Experience’, which in its turn bestows temporary reality to the manifold experiences.

The Marriage of Two Qualities (Sattva And Rajas)

Being strongly influenced in his linguistic usage by the Samkhya tradition, an ancient Indian school of Dualism, Nisargadatta sometimes explained the process of becoming bound by using the terms sattva, rajas and tamas, borrowed from Samkhya. These are the three gunas, the qualities determining and colouring all our actions (rajas is the exciting, the restless, that which incites to activity; tamas the inert, the solidifying, obscuring; and sattva the quality keeping the balance, the quality of beingness, knowingness, stillness and lucidity).

Nisargadatta described the transition proceeding from sattva as follows:

“During the waking state, to know that you are [sattva] is itself a misery; but since you are preoccupied with so many other things, you are able to sustain that waking state. This quality of beingness [sattva], the knowledge ‘I am’, cannot tolerate itself. It cannot stand itself, alone, just knowing itself. Therefore, that rajas-guna is there. It takes the beingness for a ride in various activities, so that it does not dwell only in itself; it is very difficult to sustain that [sattva] state. And tamas-guna is the basest quality. What it is doing is that it provides one with the facility to claim authorship for all the activities – the feeling ‘I am the doer’. Rajas-guna takes one into all the activities, and tamas-guna claims authorship or doership for those activities.”[15]

One could say that in fact the power of rajas originally is a rather free power, which in itself does not necessarily need to hook on to something. It is only the effect of tamas that makes things glue together. This quality causes us to be fixated, that we are attached to something, that we isolate ourselves, that we worry, etcetera. Because of tamas we come to stick a personal story or history onto a spontaneous activity.

One could interpret Nisargadatta’s advice as follows: you cannot but allow rajas to arise, because it is inherent to the spontaneous creative power – just welcome her and keep on recognizing the starting point, the very first ‘touch’ (which Nisargadatta also called the ‘pinprick’). The advice is ‘recognize the experiencing of the touch’. The touch or pinprick is what I called ‘the mouth of the fountain’: at that place you are as it were witnessing the marriage of sattva and rajas.[*] It is a marriage between stillness and vibrating power. Remain in stillness (sattva) in the vibrating and splashing power (rajas).

‘I’ Is Term For all Levels

By dedicating yourself to this, by honouring this pinprick, this ‘consciousness’, your search ceases to exist. Here you can let go of the ‘doing’, the attempt to let yourself pass beyond this consciousness, because really that won’t help.

“You can never isolate yourself from the consciousness unless consciousness is pleased with you and gets rid of you. Consciousness opens the gate for you to transcend consciousness. There are two aspects: one is conceptual, dynamic consciousness which is full of concepts, and the other is transcendent consciousness. Even the concept ‘I am’ is not there. Conceptual, qualitative Brahman (Saguna Brahman), the one that is full of concepts and is qualitative, is the outcome of the [reflection of Awareness (Nirguna Brahman or Para Brahman) in the] functioning body.”[*]

So although it initially is important and correct to distinguish between consciousness (chetana) and Consciousness (or Awareness; Chit), it makes sense at a certain moment just to embrace consciousness in its being ‘the touch’, so that all resistance melts away, and with it all duality. Awareness is always already in harmony or peace with Its present object. The touch is the Helper which anoints you in your and Her surrender; it shows you that you have always been unaffected and unimpaired, free and unseparated, without the need to strive for it. So on the one hand Maharaj emphasizes:

“I, the Absolute, am not this ‘I am-ness’,”[16] but on the other hand:

“Understand that this ‘I’ is not different at different levels. As the Absolute, it is the ‘I’ which in manifesting needs a form. The same Absolute ‘I’ becomes the manifested ‘I’, and in the manifested ‘I’ it is the consciousness which is the source of everything. In the manifested state it is the Absolute-with-consciousness.”[17]

It is striking that here, as in many other places, Maharaj keeps on using the word ‘I’ as a word for the Ultimate. Apart from calling himself very often “I, the Absolute”, he for instance says: “Nothing exists except me. Only I exist”,[18] and “When the state of beingness is totally swallowed, whatever remains is that eternal ‘I’.”[19]

So ‘I’ appears to be the term for us on all three levels: the person thinks and feels ‘I’, the touch of beingness is the experience of ‘I’ without thinking (without ‘mine’), and the Ultimate is ‘I’, without experiencing it. This means that the Real which we are, is always so already, and now already. Also, in the midst of identification with a certain form, there is the invitation to recognize the most nearby, namely ‘I’, in its essential nature.

Is ‘I’ a door? The Teacher answers:

“There are no doors to Para Brahman, dear son.”[20]

[*] The term ‘supreme principle’ is in translations of Nisargadatta-texts always designation for the ‘I am’ principle, not for the Absolute.

[*] See footnote on page 59 for clarification on Nisargadatta’s use of the term atman.

[*] In the next chapter this will be elucidated. An illustration of a pill will be used, for demonstrating the two aspects that need to be distinguished. See page 54. Many of the terms used by Nisargadatta for both aspects are depicted, to show where in his opinion difference is relevant, and where not.

[*] In the English language it is very hard to find a word for this Knowing-as-such, this Knowing in which ‘no thing’ is known. The term ‘knowledge’ seems always to remain associated with a content, so a better term for this Knowing-as-such in fact could be ‘No-knowledge’. The paradox is, this No-knowledge state or No-beingness state does ‘know’. In the language of (one of the translators of) Nisargadatta: “The no-beingness state, the no-consciousness state alone knows that there is a consciousness.” (Seeds, p. 27). See also the discussion on terminology in The Experience of Nothingness, p. 18-21. Nisargadatta argues there that the point is: the word ‘knowledge’ does bring in the qualities (gunas).

[*] ‘Marriage’ is also the term Nisargadatta used for the relationship between Shiva and Shakti. See for this: Medicine, p. 122 and Prior, p. 26.

[*] Consciousness, p. 97. The addition between brackets is made in order to accentuate the connection between consciousness and Awareness (or Consciousness). This is made on the basis of numerous comments in the old Advaita tradition, and on the basis of I am That, p. 65: “consciousness (chetana) appears by reflection of Awareness in matter”. See also I am That, p. 274; and Seeds, p. 170.

FOUR

The Medicine (‘I am’ is a door)

After having considered the view on ‘I’ by the Big Three of twentieth-century Advaita, it would be useful to conclude this with a kind of summary. I would like to do this on the basis of the concept ‘I am’, which was described in the last chapter. As far as I know, Nisargadatta Maharaj never pronounced “‘I’ is a door.” Yet he did, in fact, say a few times: “‘I am’ is a door.”[1] As described in the last chapter, Nisargadatta considered ‘I am’ as something very specific, some ‘level’ between the levels of the Absolute and the individual. From the perspective of the Advaita tradition, this might be called revolutionary: it is true this concept had already been given to him by his teacher, Siddharameshwar Maharaj, however, neither Ramana Maharshi nor Atmananda for example, interpreted the expression ‘I am’ this way. Ramana for instance said:

“You say … ‘I am speaking’, ‘I am working’, etcetera. Hyphenate

‘I am’ in all of them. Thus I-AM. That is the abiding and fundamental Reality. … If [the mind] is turned within, it becomes still in course of time, and that ‘I-AM’ alone prevails. ‘I-AM’ is the whole Truth.”[2]

In the case of Ramana’s ‘I am’ there is no question whatsoever of a temporal phenomenon, a level that can still be transcended.

I have the impression that Nisargadatta’s use of the expression ‘I am’ as a kind of in-between level still causes much confusion with readers. Hence, I want to go more deeply again into this in-between level and into a possible connection with both other teachers on this subject – if necessary by the use of different terms.

As a starting point I want to use the quote that was also highlighted in the last chapter. That quote ends as follows:

“That knowledge of ‘I am’ is the greatest foe and the greatest friend. Although it might be your greatest foe, if you propitiate it properly, it will turn around and lead you to the highest state.”[3]

This statement puts into words the great mystery of duality, the mystery of something that simultaneously is true ánd untrue, that simultaneously is your biggest friend and your worst enemy. Nisargadatta repeatedly calls the knowledge ‘I am’ the beginning of all duality, the root of it.[4]

It is important to see that this statement refers to a beginning that can be observed; something that can be observed like an object. At least, that is partly the case. The point is that it is an object as well as not being an object. It is right here that everything comes together.[5] If you recognize this, you can also understand why Nisargadatta talks so utterly paradoxically about it. The feeling ‘I am’ is subject as well as object: at this point the true moment of separation occurs. It is mercurial, super-fast. At one moment it seems to be object, the next moment it seems to be subject. It is the subject because it is the experiencing element in all experiences, and the object because it can be observed as experience itself, an object that is always the same. Nisargadatta’s words about this come down to ‘you are this – no, on the contrary, you are not this’ (sometimes even in the same sentence, for example, “this knowledge which you are, which is an outcome of the food body, is not you”[6]).

What is so important about the remark that the ‘I am’- feeling is (also) an object is that it is easy for everybody to make contact with this objective aspect. Everybody is used to dealing with objects. Nisargadatta is saying that you are permitted to start with the easiest, the directly tangible, experiential aspect. Although this object ‘I am’ can be your enemy, you can at least notice it, feel it, experience it as such, by paying full attention to it. In fact, it is unmasked in this way.

“Once you catch hold of that principle which moves about in various disguises, there is an end to illusion.”[7]

The Root of The Mistake Is The Medicine

The mistake, the belief in duality as being reality, already starts prior to the person. The mistake already starts at a level you may call universal. This is the level all Holy Books and mythologies are speaking about, like ‘the fall’.[8] The multiplicity of individuals directly stems from this point, and yet, within all these individuals, this point, the ‘I am’-ness, is identical.[9] By reducing it to a simple object, it can be useful because it isolates the misconception of multiplicity. This way it can serve as an instrument, not unlike a microscope or telescope.[10] It sharpens our eye as to what exactly is this birth.

If we truly realize that this universal feeling ‘I am’ is the root of all separation and dilemma, then the implication is that one can no longer believe that this root is to be discovered in your personal past, with its karmic content. The root is universal, and the power of what you may call your personal past or karma only provides it with a specific content, like a colour. The root precedes this[*] – it is on the hinge between freedom and bondage.

As the root is still on the borderline, it can be used as a medicine.[11] It is a medicine that cures you from falling under the spell of the belief in a separate person. In all teachings the liberating, ‘healing’ element is the most important aspect. Hence, I want to specifically treat the ‘I am’-ness as a medicine, and to take it literally for the moment, as a pill (see the picture on page 54), for the simple reason that the feeling ‘I am’ is also an object that can be observed.

This medicine is experience in itself. This is in accordance with the linguistic usage of Atmananda, who used the English term ‘experience’ literally, though he probably would not have interpreted it as a term for a kind of in-between level. In Atma Darshan he says:

“In one’s Experience – strictly so called – there is neither thought nor external object present. It is the state in which all alone one abides in one’s Self. Objects of perception being believed to be the cause of Experience, tempt the ignorant. … But no such cause appears in one’s Experience. It follows that Experience has no cause.”[12]

Atmananda sometimes used a capital E to emphasize what he meant with Experience, as is illustrated by the following quotation.

“If the experience has many objects, it is no Experience. You are superimposing objects upon your Experience. Your Experience is one and the same, always.”[13]

Elsewhere he has clearly said that Experience is something where in fact diversity does not exist:

“Two are not seen. Experience is one thing. You experience only one thing. … Your Experience is one thing – your Experience is only in relation to the One. You experience only One thing, One thing.”[14]

A large part of Atmananda’s teaching consists of the invitation to find out for yourself what an apparently commonplace element such as ‘experience’ really is:

“Always contemplating the nature of Experience itself, will bring about this merger [of thoughts].”[15]

The Pure, Unmixed Beingness Quality (Shuddha Sattva)

It is about this nature, the true nature, also here in this chapter. The pill depicted here, is divided into two halves by a groove, in order to indicate the primordial split, the place of the possible ‘fall’ or temptation. Also it is the place where ‘the enemy’ can convert into ‘the friend’. Above the groove has been indicated that which is the true nature of the entire pill – that which, in fact, is the essence of all aspects of the pill.[*] The terms underneath the groove indicate the general characteristics of the pill, and show something of its veiling element of temptation and identification. Actually, of course, the elements depicted here as two halves are completely interwoven. The pill illustrates ‘the singleness of the twofold’: the staggering multiple has been reduced to a simple ‘two’.

There are some terms which can be used for the entire pill, for above as well as beneath the groove: ‘I am’, ‘Being’, ‘Beingness’, ‘Experience’, ‘Presence’, ‘Jnana’ – and especially the multi-interpretable term ‘the Self’ (Atman).[*] The term Shuddha Sattva perhaps indicates best the difference between the top and the bottom. It means ‘pure, unmixed Beingness quality’. As described in chapter 3, sattva is the beingness quality. It is one of the three qualities (gunas) that is, sattva, rajas (restlessness) and tamas (sloth) which, merged with each other, bear all manifestation. Likewise, the pill’s entirety consists of the merger of all these three qualities. Shuddha means ‘pure, unmixed’. Nisargadatta explains:

“Pure sattva is perfect freedom from sloth [tamas] and restlessness [rajas]. Sattva is pure and strong always. It is like the sun. It may seem obscured by clouds and dust, but only from the point of view of the perceiver.”[16]

This Shuddha Sattva is the healing element in the pill, the actual medicine that gives freedom. It may be called healing because it is prepared to sacrifice itself, in the same way as soap powder gets totally dissolved when used to cleanse textiles. It is true it is still one of the gunas, and is, therefore, called Sa-guna (filled with qualities); however, in its pureness it no longer holds on to something, and in this way it ultimately turns out to be Nirguna - ‘That’ which is without quality, and precedes experience. In the famous Advaita scripture Viveka Chudamani is stated:

“Tamas is overcome by rajas and sattva. Rajas is overcome by sattva. Sattva dissolves of its own accord when pure (shuddha).”[17]

Ramana Maharshi, who once translated this text, repeatedly has spoken about Shuddha Sattva and about the purification (shuddhi) of the mind.[18] For instance he said:

“Of these three [gunas] the rajas and tamas aspects cling to and identify with the body. The remaining one, which is pure sattva, is alone the natural characteristic of the mind, and this stands clinging to the reality. However, in the pure sattvic state, the ‘I’- thought is no longer really a thought, it is the Heart itself … The state in which the pure sattva mind shines clinging to the Self is called aham sphurana [that is, I-I].”[19]

All passages in which Ramana was speaking about the aspect of cleansing (shuddha and shuddhi) could be considered as pointing to a kind of in-between level. Once, talking about the transition from sleep to the waking state, he emphasized the importance of a transition stage for realisation as well:

“The Self is pure consciousness in sleep; it evolves as aham (‘I’) without the idam (‘this’) in the transition stage; and manifests as aham (‘I’) and idam (‘this’) in the waking state. The individual’s experience is by means of aham (‘I’) only. So he must aim at realisation in the way indicated (i.e., by means of the transitional ‘I’). Otherwise the sleep-experience does not matter to him. If the transitional ‘I’ be realized, the substratum is found, and that leads to the goal.” [20]

It is interesting to mention a passage in which Atmananda too uses a terminology of three stages. He does so in reply to a question about sphurana:

“The natural state of the ‘I’-Principle in man is unmanifested. This becomes manifest, in the case of human activities, in three distinct stages: 1. The unmanifested state of luminosity itself. 2. Becoming manifest as ‘I know I am’ or as Self-luminosity. 3. Becoming manifested as objects. The second of the above three stages is not recognized at all by the ordinary man. But the Jnani alone recognizes it and perceives it clearly sometimes, before a perception. From the first stage to the second is only a subjective change to ‘I am’, without losing its identity. This is called sphurana. It has no object, but it has become self-luminous. That is all. When the ‘I’-Principle comes to the third stage of perception, it becomes manifested as a jiva. … The ‘I’-Principle is pure and attributeless, and is added on to the attribute every time. In other words the unmanifested ‘I’-Principle first prepares itself to manifest by adopting the subjective change as ‘I know I am’, then takes on the attribute and becomes clearly manifested.”[21]

The Knowing Quality Is What Liberates

Unmixed sattva, pure Beingness quality, is a reflection of Absolute Reality or Absolute Awareness. It is like a totally clear mirror: the beingness quality which, as a mirror of Absolute Awareness, is itself the ‘knowing quality’. As Nisargadatta’s linguistic usage sometimes tends to emphasize that consciousness only exists thanks to the body (he often plainly indicated consciousness as being a product of the body), the confusion may sometimes arise that consciousness is actually only something chemical or biological. Of course that is not true. In the next quotation something entirely different is stressed, and as far as I am concerned touches the core:

“The moon dancing on the water is seen in the water, but it is caused by the moon in the sky and not by the water.”[22]

In other words: the Light dancing in the body is experienced in the body (as consciousness), however, this is caused by the Light and not by the body. Should this not be the case, freedom would not be inherently given but superimposed and dependent on conditional factors such as prarabdha (karma to be worked out in this lifetime).

Therefore, consciousness exists thanks to the Light, Absolute Awareness. Consciousness is Its reflection – even if indeed the fact remains that such a reflection of the Absolute Light can only exist when a physical body makes such a mirror possible. It is Light itself, but in the experiential sense of the word. If you look within consciousness to see what enables consciousness to be, you will notice that it is the Light which facilitates it, the bestowing, knowing source of everything. It is not ‘a’ light, an observable source from which a radiance can be noticed,[*] but incomprehensible, untraceable Light. It is ‘That’ which makes everything else possible, and imparts reality to our present consciousness.

It is true this ‘consciousness’ in the way Nisargadatta uses it, is just as unreal in the ultimate sense as mind. However, by abiding and resting in this in-between level, you can gradually recognize what always already is real within this consciousness: the knowing element, the shuddha sattva element. In this way you can also recognize that this is the liberating element, because the knowing element is not attached to anything. Like the contemporary Dzogchen-teacher Tsoknyi Rinpoche says, “The knowing quality itself remains undistracted.”[23] In other words, attention can be distracted, but the knowing quality enabling attention can not.

The ‘Causal Body’

‘Distraction of attention’ means that you are being withdrawn from Experience Itself to fascinating experiences, which for their part divert and drag you into the next riveting subject or matter. This is what the bottom part of the pill in the picture illustrates. This bottom part is a pointer to the cause of multiplicity (the multiple bubbles underneath the pill), hence the name ‘causal body’ for it. As already mentioned in a quote by Maharaj in chapter 3, simplicity or singularity is very hard to endure. Experience Itself, without something to be experienced, is hard to sustain. The thirst for experiencing something is inbuilt from birth. And when you experience something, you soon want more of it (or, if it is negative, less of it). It seems there is always something more pleasant or beautiful to be experienced than what is actually occurring. This incessant thirst retains an element of seduction, something which tempts us.

Seduction may sound moralistic, however it is a term that covers this phenomenon very well. In the words of Nisargadatta:

“If you get involved with the flow of Maya there will be misery. Do you understand what the flow is? All that Maya, the activities. You try to derive pleasure from the activities; this is the product of beingness. Be still in your beingness.”[24]

In fact seduction amounts to the suggestion that you should have to go somewhere; that you should be different, better, further, more free. The bottom part of the pill indicates ‘going to’ instead of ‘abiding’.

One could say that ‘letting you be carried away by that which seduces’ comes down to giving credence to the power of your past, to the power of the latent tendencies, the vasanas, instead of enduring that you remain still within the present touch, the present form. The binding aspect of the ‘I am’ principle consists in the creation of a personal history, the creation of an ‘I’-figure, a form that has to persist. The binding force itself has often been called ‘causal body’, which means a kind of storehouse of the latent tendencies, and the primordial beginning of individuality, of a jiva.[*]

‘Fascination’ also is a good description for this binding aspect. This word means enchantment, dazzle etcetera; in fascination you are in fact captivated, tied up.[†] Because objectless abiding is hard to sustain, we would rather see ourselves being hooked on an object, which gives us something to hold onto. We are fascinated by our own creative power: our mind is a master in creating and we are fascinated by its products, all of its stories. In fascination lies the seduction. Being fascinated means non-understanding – we are being continually lured away from Understanding (Jnana), the Understanding that we are, and always have been, free – the freedom of Light itself.

In the Advaita tradition this non-understanding or ignorance (a-jnana) is also referred to as the ‘causal body’ we just mentioned. It is the ‘causing’ element in the Self. It is the very beginning of a series; it is something that comprises a sequel. It is that within us which causes now the creation of a form, and which seduces us to maintain and consolidate this form. It seduces us into not recognizing this form as ‘mere present form of Consciousness’, which means something which dies immediately afterwards and is replaced again by another form. So this creating forms and not recognizing them as Consciousness is what is meant by the term ‘causal’. The causal body brings about your losing sight of the fact that you are always new, also now, also now. ‘I am’ is an ever fresh beginning. The bringing about of not recognizing this occurs through the latent tendencies, which make you cling to the manifestations as soon as they are there, so that the form can continue to exist.

The term causal shows that it is the cause of something else: it does not abide in what it is itself. Just as the upper part of the pill can be briefly called ‘shuddha sattva’, the bottom part can condensedly best be referred to as the ‘causal body’. On this ‘body’ Nisargadatta says,

“There is something that may be called the memory body, or causal body, a record of all that was thought, wanted and done. It is like a cloud of images held together.”[25]

This holding together of images by means of the tendencies (samskaras or vasanas) which it contains, triggers the suggestion that you are a person, an individual or ‘soul’. This suggestion leads us to identify ourselves with this one individual, who seems to be separated from other individuals (as indicated by the bubbles underneath the pill). In the Advaita tradition the ‘germ of jiva-ness’, the primordial suggestion that you are an individual or soul (jiva), is regarded more or less synonymous with the causal body of the Self. Ramana Maharshi too, showed that the germ of the jiva in fact is similar to the most refined of the three bodies, that catalyst which has the power to suggest or create:

“Man has three bodies, the gross one made of the five elements; the sukshma or subtle one made of manas and prana; and the jiva.”[26]

Jiva is a term which is often used ambiguously. This also occurs in the traditional Advaita scriptures: it is applied both for an ‘eternal (i.e. real) soul’, which by mistake does not see its own true nature, as well as for the mistake itself, that is, the assumption of being someone separate, one individual (jiva) divided from others. We would do well, as far as I am concerned, to limit ourselves in our linguistic usage to the latter. Ramana frankly said:

“People think that they are jivas. … In fact there are no jivas.”[*]

Consequently ‘jiva’ or ‘individual’ is just a temporary way of speaking in order to indicate the restricted form of a body and mind in which you exist, and which is comparable to a house. You are not that.

Experience Is The Last Object

The aid rendered by the in-between level of ‘I am’ as a door or medicine, lies in discovering here the root of the mistake, instead of searching for this root within the karmic past of the jiva. Ramana said,

“The more you rectify your karma, the more it accumulates. Find the root of karma and cut it off.”[27]

The root of karma is here, within the present Experience, within the pill. We can continue our past, that is to say our karma, or we now can recognize and acknowledge freedom. This is the point where we can go in either direction – the responsibility is up to us to see what we really want. Abiding here, in Experience Itself, in ‘consciousness’, we can recognize that we won’t have to be underneath the central groove of the pill in the illustration at all, meaning that we are not fated to continue our past. It is vital to notice that this root, this cause or seed actually does not exist. Due to attention to this point, to the recognizing of it, you may discover there is no beginning. What you come across in this recognizing is only emptiness, openness, light – not a ‘something’. Here you can see what is meant in the various traditions by the term ‘illusion’ (maya). Something appears, but the moment you really are looking, there is only seeing. This is what in the beginning of this chapter was called ‘it is mercurial, super-fast’. It begins, now.

Searching for the beginning already is within the sense of fascination – fascination and identification have then begun already. Nisargadatta said about this:

“People think I am the cause, but I am not the cause, I am the support. … The world is there spontaneously without any seed; creation is seedless, but the world is full of seeds and procreation is going on daily.”[28]

Is it possible to say something truthful about what multiplicity is? The next statement is from one of the Upanishads, which I consider a beautiful answer to this quandary:

“Taking birth, You have Your faces everywhere.”[29]

Nisargadatta also commented on the same theme:

“The one witness reflects itself in the countless bodies as ‘I am’ [as ‘Experience’]. As long as the bodies, however subtle, last, the ‘I am’ appears as many. Beyond the body there is only the One.”[30]

‘I am’ is one. It is one Object. We may also express it differently, namely, that it is the last object. This last object is the same in everybody. There is no difference whatsoever in ‘I am’ in the variety of individuals. Abiding here, you are already free from fascination. To this one Object point the well-known words:

“The Guru, God, your own knowledge [‘I am’] – these three are one.”[31]

All three are terms for the last Object, within and outside: ‘This’. Y ou would do well in confining yourself to This, whatever ‘This’ may be.[*] In other words, stay with present Object – present ‘consciousness’ or Experience.

As long as an object appears, there is a Witness of it – You are That. You yourself are not an object. You are constantly looking from Yourself already now, that is, from Light, your own Luminosity. The ‘Witness’ is not something that exists as such – it does exist only when an object appears. The One turns Itself into a second one. That is ‘I am’, Experience. But as soon as the Witness is recognized in Experience, knowledge (jnana) becomes Understanding (Jnana, or Vijnana). Here the medicine dissolves, as it has been digested. There is no second. No second person or object. ‘This’ turns out to be the same as ‘That’, the undivided Reality. The so-called pill is just a temporary mirror. It only reflects the Light.

‘I’ cannot be seen. Thanks to the mirror you see a reflection of ‘I’. That is the aid, so that you can recognize.

‘I’ is already and always Light Itself. The Constant Source of all seeing. Via the mirror of ‘I am’ I can see that I am not this reflection – the reflected image of ‘I am’. I am always the luminous seeing as such, Light Itself.

[*] See Seeds, p. 42: “This ‘I am-ness’ is there first, isn’t it? – primary. That ‘I’ must be there first before you receive this sickness of samskara.”

[*] The many terms depicted on the picture of the pill are indications for a possible way of discrimination between the many terms Nisargadatta used. Many different words are synonyms - and suddenly the same word may mean exactly two opposing things.

[*] By using the term Atman for the pill it is possible to emphasize that this is the watershed (which can be ambiguous), that is, the transition from Parama-atman to jiva-atman. So the three levels are: 1. Parama-atman; 2. Atman; 3. jiva-atman. See also Consciousness, p. 102. Atman is the general term with which you can go both directions. It is real and unreal at the same time. Actually this classification is according to Nisargadatta; Ramana did use the word ‘Self’ or ‘Atman’ generally to denote the Reality, the Ultimate.

[*] “The sunlight is insentient (jada)”, Ramana says, in Talks, nr. 420.

[*] The term ‘causal body’ that has been used in texts of the Advaita tradition (and also by Ramana Maharshi, for instance in Vichara Sangraham and Maharshi’s Gospel), points to the source of all forms, even in its most latent form. In the words of Ramana: “The source is a point without dimensions. It expands as the cosmos on the one hand and as Infinite Bliss on the other. That point is the pivot. From it a single vasana starts, multiplies as the experiencer ‘I’, the experience, and the world.” Talks, nr. 616.

[†] The word ‘fascination’ is derived from the Latin fascinare, which means binding together. Related to this is the fasces, a bundle of rods, with an axe bound in along with them; this was the symbol of the fascist party in Italy before and during the Second World War.

[*] Talks, nr. 313. An example of the confusing element in the use of the term jiva is in another saying of Ramana: “Therefore the jiva has eternal being” (Talks, nr. 133). If something is described as ‘eternal being’, it is conceived as being a reality. The expression ‘eternal jiva’ does appear also in the Bhagavad Gita, for instance in Part XV, verse 7. That which is real and timeless in a jiva, is not the jiva itself. The term ‘jiva’ is pointing to the temporary shape.

[*] Here the word ‘This’ is used specifically, as indication for manifestation as such, in the present experience. A synonym for ‘present form’. See also the footnote on page 22.

SHORT BIOGRAPHIES

1. RAMANA MAHARSHI

Bhagavan Shri Ramana Maharshi was born in the early hours of December 30, 1879 in Tiruchuli, in the southern part of the Madras Presidency (nowadays Tamil Nadu). In the summer of 1896 something happened to him that bestowed a profound realisation of his true nature. Within a sudden mortal fear, which he courageously allowed to be, he discovered a decisiveness about his true identity and with that, the true meaning of the word ‘I’. Later on he described this as:

“With the death of this body, am ‘I’ dead? Is the body ‘I’? This body is silent and inert. But I feel the full force of my personality and even the sound ‘I’ within myself – apart from the body. … ‘I’ was something very real, the only real thing in that state, and all the conscious activity that was connected with my body was centred on that. The ‘I’ or my ‘Self’ was holding the focus of attention by a powerful fascination, from that time onwards.”[1]

One and a half months later he travelled to Arunachala mountain, to which he felt attracted for some time already. He remained there for the rest of his life – to him, the mountain was Shiva himself. He considered it the only place on earth for him to abide. The first years he spent in solitude, often neglecting his bodily needs. He just sat, with his eyes closed.

As the years passed by people came to him for advice. Some of them brought books, and asked him questions about their content. By reading these books, like Viveka Chudamani, he discovered that what he had realized corresponded to what was written in these texts, and so he recognized his own realisation as ‘Advaita’.

In 1922 an ashram sprouted at the foot of the mountain, in Tiruvannamalai: Ramanasramam, still flourishing today. Ramana Maharshi lived there until his death on the 14th of April 1950.

Many testimonials of meetings with the Maharshi exist. In virtually all stories the emphasis is on a deep silence that was experienced – not always a silence of speech, but a silence and a light that was like irradiating the visitors (for example: “His presence was as a continuous bath of light that pierced into the deepest corners of my mind”[2]). As a matter of fact, in the testimonials it is stated time and again that Ramana did not teach by instruction but merely by his illuminating presence. Indeed Ramana remained silent very often, sometimes even when someone had asked a question. Nevertheless, wordless silence was not the only thing he offered. He did speak, and sometimes even extensively and in detail. He could, for instance, enthusiastically tell stories about his own past, in which it is striking how many details he could remember.

Repeatedly he advised against book learning, but at the same time he was a lover of good texts. Near his couch was a revolving bookcase and also against the wall there were bookcases. He liked to read out aloud fragments from devotional scriptures (like from Tevaram, a collection of Tamil verses, and from the songs of eighteenth-century poet Tayumanavar). Often this could move him to tears, sometimes to the point that he could not speak any further. He was often busy making notes with a pencil in a book, and regularly he translated texts. His own language was Tamil; he had a good command of English. He could judge very well whether something was translated correctly, also in other South-Indian languages, like Telugu and Malayalam.

One striking particular in the life of Ramana Maharshi was the absence of any sexual interest. At least, I have not found any testimonial in which something has been told about a sexually oriented desire or a personal love relationship.

Ramana did not consider himself a teacher. Only the Self was real to him – ‘teacher’ and ‘disciple’ he considered concepts that are put on top of Reality. In the early years, when the ashram did not exist yet, he attempted several times to escape from the attention of the seekers around him. Ultimately this appeared to be all in vain; people always managed to find him again and in the end he acquiesced. In later years, devotees repeatedly suggested the possibility of travelling through India with a train, organized specifically for that purpose. In this manner all people that were not able to travel to Tiruvannamalai could meet him anyway. But because he only saw the Self, his reply was:

“What is the use of my going anywhere? I am not able to see anything.”[3]

Although the Englishman F.H. Humphreys had visited Ramana as early as 1911 and had written an article about him, it was thanks to the English journalist Paul Brunton who visited him in 1931, that Ramana Maharshi became known in the West. Three years later Brunton published the book A Search in Secret India, in which he described his meetings with the Maharshi in a very impressive way.[4] As a result other Western seekers came to visit the ashram, of whom some even stayed for good.

The ashram in Tiruvannamalai has become a main center of Advaita, which functions as a kind of beacon for seekers from over the world. Quite a few Western devotees are nowadays living around the ashram. Since 1964 the ashram is publishing a magazine, Mountain Path, which offers an influential voice within the contemporary scene of the various non-dualistic teachings of Self-realisation.

2. ATMANANDA (KRISHNA MENON)

Shri P. Krishna Menon was born on December 8, 1883 in Peringara, near Tiruvalla in Travancore (in today’s Kerala). After completing a study of law he became a Government Advocate and Inspector and District Superintendent of Police. He once said that in his early life he prayed at length to encounter a Sat-Guru, a Teacher in the true sense of the word. One day in 1919 he met such a teacher, one Swami Yogananda, who lived in Calcutta.[5] They met during the course of one night only. Krishna Menon was particularly touched by the utmost humility of this teacher. He later stated: “This paralyzed my ego.”

Because of this encounter he started a sadhana, which comprised both bhakti and raja yoga as well as pure jnana.

Later on having become a teacher himself, he would transmit to others only the jnana aspect, and even criticize both the bhakti and raja yoga aspects.[6]

In 1923 he came to realize his true nature. He adopted the name Atmananda, given to him by his guru, and began teaching. He continued to work in the Police Department up to 1939. Later on, he once said that a profession within the police or the military offers an ideal foundation for a spiritual sadhana, because such a profession offers in particular the maximum obstacles and temptations.[7]

In 1959, May 14, Atmananda died at Trivandrum, the capital of Kerala.

In the testimonials that exist about meetings with Atmananda, also called Gurunathan, it is striking how lovingly his disciples speak and write about him. Of the teachers discussed in this book, he was the only one that had some sort of commitment with his disciples. True enough he said once:

“A Guru has no disciples. However, the disciples, so long as they remain disciples, have a Guru.”[8]

In spite of this, from many reports it appears that he had a true and intense teacher-disciple relationship with a lot of people.

Concerning the intimate relationship of man and woman Atmananda also emphasized a mutual commitment. In contrast to Ramana Maharshi, Atmananda was married and a father of three children. Reports about his marriage all state how harmonious it was – it is stated a true example for the students. In the husband-wife relationship Atmananda emphasized that both should be grounded in the non-dual permanent Principle, that precedes man or woman.[9] After the decease of his wife Swarupananda in 1953, Atmananda expressed his grief fully. This was interrupted at an instance when an old friend came to visit him. Together they talked and laughed for some time. But directly after the friend had left, Atmananda began to weep and shed tears in profusion as before.[10]

Atmananda was used to chew tobacco; a few years he smoked cigarettes. He loved chess; he played with a few of his students. In the report about playing chess it is stated that he even used the game of chess to speed up the spiritual progress of his students.[11]

Atmananda’s appearance on pictures can be a bit strict and formal. A testimonial from a sceptical Westerner looks like a confirmation of this impression: “During the several hours that I spent with him, I didn’t see him smile for a moment.”[12] But I have the impression that this is a very superficial point of view. All reports from disciples point to his total love and dedication. As a reader of these reports it always strikes me how he stayed totally present in all feelings, without guard or denial, being an example of how we can experience our feelings as an expression of Ultimate Reality.

Atmananda became known to the West thanks to Lewis Thompson, an English poet who visited him in 1936 for the first time.[13] Over the years Atmananda’s style of teaching appeared to be very appealing to Western intellectuals and writers such as Joseph Campbell, Julian Huxley, Paul Brunton and Arthur Koestler.[14]

Of the three teachers discussed here, Atmananda was the only one who paid a visit to the West; among others he visited London and Paris in 1950. Of the three teachers he was also the only one who did occasionally use the English language in his teaching.

One of the ways by which Atmananda’s approach became known in the West was through the book The Nature of Man According to the Vedanta by John Levy. He was an English pupil of Atmananda who had stayed regularly with him. Levy rephrased Atmananda’s specific approach in a somewhat more Western style, yet he did retain Atmananda’s particular and unique way of dealing with logic.[15]

I got to know of Atmananda in the Eighties while being a pupil of the late Alexander Smit, a Dutchman who had been a pupil of Atmananda’s pupil Wolter Keers. Alexander gave me a copy of two small books by Atmananda, Atma Darshan and Atma Nirvriti. These books are Atmananda’s brief summary of his teachings; they have been written in his mother tongue Malayalam and translated into English by himself. For two years Alexander Smit thoroughly dealt with these books in weekly meetings. I am grateful having had the privilege to attend to these meetings; owing to this opportunity I became familiar with Atmananda’s specific approach.

3. NISARGADATTA MAHARAJ

Shri Nisargadatta Maharaj was born on the 17th of April 1897 in Bombay.[16] This day was celebrated as the birthday of Hanuman, the utterly devoted monkey from the Ramayana who is revered like a deity. For this reason Nisargadatta’s parents gave him the name Maruti, which is one of the names of Hanuman. He grew up in Kandalgaon, a village in the Ratnagiri district, in the South of today’s Maharashtra. In those days he was mainly engaged with tending cattle and running errands. When he reached the age of about eighteen he returned to Bombay. At first he travelled regularly back and forth between the city and the countryside, but from 1920 onwards he stayed in Bombay and started to keep a shop in which he sold bidis, Indian hand made cigarettes.

In 1933 he met his teacher, Shri Siddharameshwar Maharaj, who belonged to the Nav Nath tradition.[17] The form of this tradition as being transmitted originally to Siddharameshwar by his guru Bhausaheb Maharaj, was merely nama japa – repeating the Names of God. After Bhausaheb’s death in 1914 however, Siddharameshwar had replaced this form of endless mantra-meditation by a much faster way: he had discovered what he called ‘the bird’s way’ (in contrast to ‘the ant’s way’ of his guru). He had discovered the direct way. A bird can fly from tree to tree in no time. So Siddharameshwar pointed his disciples, including Maruti, directly to the heart of the matter.

“My guru told me that I am Para Brahman and nothing else. I have accepted that with great conviction.”[18]

The connection between them only lasted two and a half years, because of Siddharameshwar’s death, in 1936.

A year after his teacher died, Maruti wandered about India, but gradually it appeared to him that this couldn’t be of any use and he returned to his family in the city. Over the years, in which he meditated a lot and read texts from ancient teachers of Maharashtra like Jnaneshwar and Ramdas, the recognition of his true nature ripened into full Self-realisation.

He was married, and a father of three children. He once told that his wife used to give him a very hard time. In the Forties his wife died, and later he commented on the proposed opportunity to marry again: “The day she died I married freedom.”[19] In 1951 he started to initiate disciples, although many people already had come to visit him to receive teachings in the years before. He now was called Nisargadatta Maharaj [Nisargadatta means ‘Gift of the Natural (Nisarga) State’, and Maharaj is an honorific meaning literally ‘Great king’]. He gave up working in his little bidi shop in 1966.

In later years he always showed an ambiguous attitude towards tradition. On the one hand he emphasized that all tradition is worthless, because only the present experience counts (the ‘I am’ doesn’t have any history), but on the other hand he regularly paid homage to the places of memorial of the teachers from his own tradition, in the border region of South Maharashtra and North Karnataka. As far as I know these were the only journeys he made.

His teaching could not in every respect be called ‘Advaita Vedanta’. It was more a merger of several influences, especially a few regional ones in the Marathi language, such as Jnaneshwar and Ramdas; he also loved Tukaram.

Shri Nisargadatta Maharaj died in Bombay on the 8th of September 1981.

Several testimonials exist about meetings with Maharaj. There also exist a few film recordings, available on video and the internet, by which one can feel the power of his presence, even now. Everything points to him being hot-tempered, and he made no attempts to conceal it. In terms of the well-known three qualities (gunas) by which Ramana Maharshi could be called a classical example of sattva (clarity and quietude), one could call Maharaj’s appearance a manifestation of rajas (energy and excitement). Yet in essence there was no difference between the teachings of Maharaj and the Maharshi. Occasionally Maharaj did mention a difference, but that only pertained to the appearance:

“The jnanis will have different ways of expressing. Ramana Maharshi used to wear only a loin cloth, just washed, not ironed – but here, I would like to see that there are no wrinkles, very neat. … I quarrel with my people if they don’t keep these utensils in proper and clean order. Suppose this towel is left unwashed – then I will play hell with whoever is responsible. All the dirt which is not the towel should be removed.”[20]

According to Marathi speaking witnesses, Maharaj often spoke in a manner that sounded a bit vulgar to civilized people. A lot of his statements contained obscene expressions and occasionally he told dirty jokes – which the Indian translators found too embarrassing to translate into English.[21]

Some of the visitors experienced the treatment they got as completely puzzling; sometimes one hears about people who were denied entrance without any explanation. His way of looking was once described as: “His eyes looked like headlights – he looked right through you, because he himself had nothing to hide or defend.”[22] Many elements of his approach to visitors and devotees showed similarities of what in the West until then was only heard or read about Zen masters. Unpredictably and forcefully, but at the same time very lovingly, did Maharaj drag people out of their defence and virtual safety.

Nisargadatta became known in the West by the book I am That, that was translated and edited by the Pole Maurice Frydman. Maurice had visited Ramana Maharshi in 1935, and after that Swami Ramdas, who initiated him as a sannyasi. Subsequently, he associated with J. Krishnamurti and Mahatma Gandhi. Maurice had made a compilation of some of Ramana’s answers to questions, which was published in 1939 as Maharshi’s Gospel. His compilation I am That appeared in 1973.

I became familiar with the approach of Nisargadatta Maharaj thanks to my teacher Alexander Smit, a disciple of Maharaj. Like Wolter Keers, his first teacher, he did visit Maharaj several times. Alexander, whose meetings I attended for three years, did put the same emphasis on undermining all concepts. In my opinion, he transmitted the same essence as pointed to by Nisargadatta, so that in a way one could speak of a ‘Dutch lineage’ of Nisargadatta Maharaj. I feel myself being embedded in this lineage.

NOTES[*]

Introduction

1.  Tsoknyi Rinpoche, Carefree Dignity. Discourses on Training in the Nature of Mind. Kathmandu: Rangjung Yeshe, 1998; p. 31. Tsoknyi is a son of the great Dzogchen teacher Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche (1920–1996).

2.  These are two statements from the Kunjed Gyalpo, a very ancient tantra scripture that has been very influential in Dzogchen. They have been quoted by the great fourteenth-century teacher Longchenpa, and commented on in several of his own texts. The first quote is from his You Are the Eyes of the World, translated by Kennard Lipman and Merrill Peterson (Novato, CA: Lotsawa, 1987), p. 23. The second quote is from Longchenpa’s A Treasure Trove of Scriptural Transmission, translated by Richard Barron (Junction City, CA: Padma, 2001), p. 198. Two other examples of ancient tantra scriptures in Dzogchen in which the term ‘I’ has been emphatically used, are Rigpa Rangshar and Kuntu Zangpo Longtrub.

3.  Exodus / Shemoth 3:14.

4.  Talks, nr. 106.

5.  Talks, nr. 354.

6.  “The relationship to the Thou [You] is direct”, Martin Buber writes in I and Thou (originally in German: Ich und Du, 1923). In this book Buber stresses the profound difference between a relationship to ‘you’ and to ‘it’.

7.  Gospel, p. 55.

8.  Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad I.4.1. Translated by S. Radhakrishnan, The Principal Upanisads. London: G. Allen & Unwin, 1953; p. 163.

9.  Respectively in Talks, nr. 518; and Day by Day with Bhagavan, p. 54. Also see Gospel, p. 81. He added: “ ‘I’ is the Name of God. It is the first and greatest of all mantras. Even OM is second to it”; in Day by Day with Bhagavan, p. 287. Confronted with the emphasis on Aha(m) I inadvertently have to think of the expression ‘Aha-Erlebnis’, by Karl Bühler (1879-1963, a contemporary of Ramana Maharshi). In the writing system in which Sanskrit is being written, the final-m (the last letter in Aham) is shown by a dot, placed above the letter which precedes the m. This final-m has been called anusvara, ‘that which follows the vowels’. See about A, Ha and-m also Mark Dyczkowski, The Doctrine of Vibration (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1987; p. 186–189). There Aham is shown as symbolizing the union of Shiva (A) and Shakti (Ha), with the final-m being the vibration and pure awareness of ‘I’, emanating from their union.

10. Although these passages have not become as famous as the ones dedicated to Tat tvam asi (‘You are That’), they have been most influential just as well. Shankara did comment on the statement ‘I am the Absolute’ for instance in his Upadesha Sahasri (The Thousand Teachings); see there 6.6; 7.1; 8.2; 10.10; 11.6, 7, 8; 12.11; 13.18, 21; 14.12; 18.225, 226, 227. For translation see Anthony J. Alston, The Thousand Teachings (Upadesa Sahasri) of Sri Samkaracarya. London: Shanti Sadan, 1990.

11. Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad I.4.10. In The Principal Upanisads (for details see note 8), p. 168.

12. Talks, nr. 392; Guru Ramana, p. 58.

13. Discourses, nr. 661; Vol. 2 p. 76 (1st ed. p. 235), and nr. 470; Vol. 1 p. 233 (1st ed. p. 177).

1. Ramana Maharshi

1.  “He was the Sun, and we are its rays.” See in Dattatreya; Glory of the Divine in Man, the final page of chapter ‘The Descent of the Divine’ [no page numbers]. Vidyanagar 1981.

2.  Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, nr. 197. As from here indicated as Talks.

3.  Talks, nr. 615.

4.  Talks, nr. 328.

5.  Talks, nr. 286; also see the slightly deviating translation in Gospel, p. 26-27.

6.  Ulladu Narpadu (Forty Verses), Verse 24. Translated by Sri Sadhu Om, in his The Path of Sri Ramana; Part One. Tiruvannamalai: Sri Ramana Kshetra, 1971; p. 60. Capitals are added conform to the usage in the quote of note 8.

7.  Talks, nr. 612.

8.  Gospel, p. 82.

9.  See also the excellent article “‘I’ and ‘I-I’: a Reader’s Query” by David Godman in The Mountain Path; Vol. 28, nr. 1&2, June 1991; p. 79-88 (see p. 80 and 85 in particular). This is one of the best articles on the teaching of Ramana Maharshi I know.

See for this article http://davidgodman.org/rteach/iandii1. shtml

10. Talks, nr. 28.

11. Talks, nr. 139.

12. Talks, nr. 192.

13. Talks, nr. 199; see also nr. 310.

14. Talks, nr. 626.

2. Atmananda

1.  Notes on Spiritual Discourses of Shri Atmananda, nr. 21; Vol. 1 p. 11 (1st ed. p. 9). As from here indicated as Discourses.

2.  Discourses, nr. 1323; Vol. 3 p. 94 (1st ed. p. 442).

3.  Discourses, nr. 17; Vol. 1 p. 9 (1st ed. p. 7).

4.  Discourses, nr. 22 and 21; Vol. 1 p. 12 and 11 (1st ed. p. 9 and 8).

5.  See the footnote on page 29, in which Atmananda connected the notion ‘subjective’ to his way of dealing with logic.

6.  Discourses, nr. 42; Vol. 1 p. 22 (1st ed. p. 18).

7.  Tattwa, p. 154 and 157; Discourses, nr. 600; Vol. 2 p. 54-55 (1st ed. p. 218); and nr. 496; Vol. 2 p. 9-10 (1st ed. p. 184).

8.  Atma Nirvriti, Chapter 20; p. 25.

9.  Discourses, nr. 790; Vol. 2 p. 122 (1st ed. p. 270). Also see Discourses, nr. 713; Vol. 2 p. 98 (1st ed. p. 251). Ramana Maharshi has also emphasized this repeatedly. See Ulladu Narpadu Anubandham, nr. 39 (Collected Works, p. 128), and Talks, nr. 458.

10. Discourses, nr. 466; Vol. 1 p. 230-231 (1st ed. p. 176).

11. Discourses, Vol. 1 p. xx (1st ed. p. 16). The expression ‘name and form’ (nama-rupa) is a classic expression in Advaita Vedanta for all manifestation, but also for the ‘seed of the world’ not yet manifested.

12. Discourses, Vol. 3 p. 216 and 215 (1st ed. p. 545 and 544).

13. Rays, p. 53-54; and Tattwa, p. 45-50.

14. Atma Darshan, Chapter 16 (p. 23) and 17 (p. 24).

15. Atma Nirvriti, Chapter 1 (p. 1) and 11 (p. 12).

16. Atma Nirvriti, Chapter 19 (p. 22-23). See also Discourses, nr. 476; Vol. 2 p. 2 (1st ed. p. 179).

17. Rays, p. 125 and 126.

3. Nisargadatta Maharaj

1.  Prior, p. 12-13.

2.  Chandi (=Devi-mahatmya; this is part of the Markandeya Purana), I.57; also IV.9. Quoted by Vivekananda in The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol. VII. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1986 (10th ed.); p. 216.

3.  Experience, p. 51-52.

4.  Prior, p. 21; and Medicine, p. 10, combined (same original text).

5.  Consciousness, p. 78.

6.  Self-knowledge and Self-realisation (Adaptation of the book Atmajnana Ani Paramatma Yoga). Translated by V.M. Kulkarni. Bombay: Ram Narayan Chavhan, 1963; p. 35. To be downloaded as pdf: http://www.wearesentience.com/ uploads/7/2/9/3/7293936/_____self_knowledge.pdf

7.  Prior, p. 54.

8.  Prior, p. 103.

9.  Experience, p. 86.

10. Prior, p. 42.

11. Prior, p. 25. Translator S.K. Mullarpattan adds to this, in a personal letter, the definition “the very spirit of being Sentience”.

12. Nectar, p. 91. See also the very clarifying description by Michael Comans on ‘Experience Itself’ in texts of early Advaita: The Method of Early Advaita Vedanta. Delhi: M. Banarsidass, 2000; p. 141, 300-311, 351.

13. I am That, p. 317.

14. I am That, p. 334. Italics mine, PhR.

15. Medicine, p. 22.

16. Prior, p. 27, and many other places.

17. Prior, p. 114.

18. Medicine, p. 29.

19. Nectar, p. 43.

20. Nectar, p. 57.

4. The Medicine

1.  I am That, p. 323-324 and 442. Incidentally he called it the door, not a door.

2.  Talks, nr. 503. The hyphen Ramana is emphasizing here is maybe a remnant of his combination ‘I-am-I’, which was a sort of elucidation on his ‘I-I’. See the aforementioned article by David Godman in The Mountain Path, June 1991, p. 82.

3.  Prior, p. 13.

4.  For instance: Seeds, p. 83 and 98; Prior, p. 76; Consciousness, p. 9.

5.  “The point at which everything rises; the source and the end is the same point.” Prior, p. 27.

6.  Prior, p. 62.

7.  Seeds, p. 135.

8.  In this context Ramana says: “All scriptures are only for the purpose of investigating if there are two consciousnesses.” Talks, nr. 199.

9.  See for instance Prior, p. 19 and 47.

10. On the example of the telescope, see Seeds, p. 193; and Nectar, p. 10-11.

11. On the term ‘medicine’, see Experience, p. 35; and Medicine, p. 31.

12. Atma Darshan, Chapter 12 (p. 20-21). Initial capitals inserted on the basis of the quote of note 13. See also Atma Darshan, Chapter 19, on the two aspects of Consciousness.

13. Tattwa, p. 157.

14. Tattwa, p. 15 and 17. These are sentences which form the close of a beautiful passage on the cause of diversity. Initial capitals are inserted on the basis of the quote of note 13.

15. Atma Darshan, Chapter 12 (p. 20).

16. I am That, p. 14.

17. Viveka Chudamani, verse 279; see also verses 176 and 362. The Crest Jewel of Wisdom (Viveka-Cudamani). Translated by Anthony J. Alston; London: Shanti Sadan, 1997, p. 167. Italics mine, PhR.

18. See Ramana’s translation in The Collected Works of Sri Ramana Maharshi, p. 238; see also Talks, nr. 73.

19. ‘Sri Bhagavan’s Letter to Ganapati Muni’, The Mountain Path, 1982, p. 95-101; quoted by David Godman in the article mentioned before, The Mountain Path, June 1991, p. 82. By “the Heart itself” Ramana did not mean sattva is already the Ultimate; for instance in Talks, nr. 497 he says “Even the sattva light is only reflected light.”

20. Talks, nr. 314.

21. Discourses, nr. 410.

22. I am That, p. 199.

23. Tsoknyi Rinpoche, Carefree Dignity. Discourses on Training in the Nature of Mind. Kathmandu: Rangjung Yeshe, 1998, p. 65.

24. Prior, p. 21; and Medicine, p. 10. Italics mine, PhR.

25. I am That, p. 12.

26. Day by Day with Bhagavan, p. 6.

27. Talks, nr. 488.

28. Prior, p. 42 and 45.

29. Shvetashvatara Upanishad IV.3. Translated by Swami Gambhirananda, Svetasvatara Upanisad. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1986, p. 143.

30. I am That, p. 157.

31. Seeds, p. 42. “Ishvaro gurur-atma iti”; translated by Ramana in Talks, nr. 496 as “Isvara, Guru and the Self are synonymous.”

Short Biographies

1.  B.V. Narasimha Swami, Self-Realisation. Tiruvannamalai: Ramanasramam, 1931. 4th edition (1944), p. 19.

2.  Wolter Keers, Jnana yoga – advait vedanta. De weg naar de herkenning. Hilversum and Amsterdam, 1972; p. 9. Republished in 2006 in Amsterdam.

3.  Day by Day, p. 286; see about this true seeing also p. 222 and 358.

4.  Paul Brunton [ps. for H. Raphael Hurst, and probably Hermann Hirsch at birth], A Search in Secret India. London: Rider, no year [1934].

5.  This is not the yogi Yogananda who became well-known in the West (from his Autobiography of a Yogi), nor the Swami Yogananda who was one of the direct disciples of Shri Ramakrishna.

6.  See for instance nr. 369 of Discourses (Vol. 1 p. 181; first Indian edition p. 139-140). Here Atmananda uses the word ‘obstacle’ for the yoga approach.

7.  Discourses, Vol. 3 p. 214 (1st ed. p. 544).

8.  Rays, p. 55.

9.  Discourses, Vol. 3 p. 212-213 (1st ed. p. 542-543).

10. Discourses, Vol. 3 p. 226 (1st ed. p. 554).

11. Discourses, Vol. 3 p. 230 (1st ed. p. 557).

12. Arthur Koestler, The Lotus and the Robot. London: Hutchinson, 1960.

13. This year is according to a little text about Thompson himself. Some indirect sources mention 1937. See about Thompson: Mirror to the Light. Reflections on Consciousness and Experience (London: Coventure, 1984; edited by Richard Lannoy); for instance p. 24-34.

14. See Joseph Campbell’s Baksheesh and Brahman, p. 241-254 (New York: Harper Collins, 1995), about his short meeting with Atmananda. In The Lotus and the Robot Arthur Koestler did, after meeting Atmananda, write very critically about him and his teaching. The book included rather extensive passages from Atma Darshan and Atma Nirvriti, but in Koestler’s commentary he was really outraged about Atmananda’s specific ‘subjective’ use of logic.

15. See about this logic also the footnote on page 29. John Levy, The Nature of Man According to the Vedanta. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1956. See for John Levy also the article by Hans Heimer in The Mountain Path, Deepam 2004; p. 29-42.

16. Until recently this date was rather vague, most often the month of March being mentioned. Wikipedia (the Free Encyclopedia) shows the birthday of Hanuman in 1897 as having been at the 17th of April.

17. ‘Nav Nath’ is a designation for any of the many traditions and societies which refer to some legendary Nine Masters (Naths) ‘from primeval ages’. The names of these nine tantric teachers are different in almost all statements, especially in different regions. In Northern India this tradition is considered to be connected with Shiva, and in Maharashtra particularly with Dattatreya, the deity who completely unites in Himself the well known triad Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. For the Naths see David G. White, The Alchemical Body. Siddha Traditions in Medieval India. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996. And also: Shankar Mokashi-Punekar, ‘An Introduction to Shri Purohit Swami and the Avadhoota Gita’. In Avadhoota Gita. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1979; p. 1-73. In this extensive introduction Mokashi-Punekar in a clear way enters at length into the many vaguenesses and misunderstandings about the Naths.

18. Experience, p. 111.

19. In interview with David Godman, at his website www.davidgodman.org/interviews/nis1.shtml

20. Prior, p. 68 and 73.

21. In interview with David Godman, at his website www.davidgodman.org/interviews/nis3.shtml

22. Wolter Keers, in the Introduction to his Dutch translation of the second part of I am That (called Zijn, p. 7).

[*] Shortened titles: Talks: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi; Gospel: Maharshi’s Gospel; Discourses: Notes on Spiritual Discourses of Shri Atmananda; Tattwa: Atmananda Tattwa Samhita; Rays: Rays of the Ultimate; Seeds: Seeds of Consciousness; Prior: Prior to Consciousness; Consciousness: Consciousness and the Absolute; Nectar: The Nectar of the Lord’s Feet; Medicine: The Ultimate Medicine; Experience: The Experience of Nothingness.

In general: italics in quotes are mine; PhR

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Ramana Maharshi

Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi. Three volumes in one. Compiled by Munagala Venkataramiah. Tiruvannamalai: Sri Ramanasramam, 1955.

The Collected Works of Sri Ramana Maharshi. Tiruvannamalai: Sri Ramanasramam, 1959. The original edition of 1959 was edited by Arthur Osborne [Pagination is from 7th edition, 2001].

Maharshi’s Gospel. Compiled by Maurice Frydman. Tiruvannamalai: Sri Ramanasramam, 1939 [Pagination is from 6th edition, 1957].

Day by Day with Bhagavan, by A. Devaraja Mudaliar. Combined volume. Tiruvannamalai: Sri Ramanasramam, 1968.

Guru Ramana. Memories and Notes, by S.S. Cohen. Tiruvannamalai: Sri Ramanasramam, 1952 [Pagination is from 4th edition, 1974].

Be As You Are. The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi. Edited by David Godman. London: Arkana, 1985.

2. Atmananda (Krishna Menon)

Atma Darshan. At the Ultimate. Austin, TX: Advaita Publishers, 1989 [first Indian edition of English translation 1946].

Atma Nirvriti. Freedom and Felicity in the Self. Austin, TX: Advaita Publishers, 1989 [first Indian edition of English translation 1952].

Notes on Spiritual Discourses of Shri Atmananda. Taken by Nitya Tripta. Salisbury (UK): Non-Duality Press & Stillness Speaks, 2009. In three volumes [Discourses 1950-1959; first Indian edition 1963].

Atmananda Tattwa Samhita. Austin, TX: Advaita Publishers, 1991 [first Indian edition 1973].

Rays of the Ultimate, by M. P. Bhasi Nair. Santa Cruz, CA: SAT, 1990.

3. Nisargadatta Maharaj

I am That. Translated by Maurice Frydman. Bombay: Chetana, 1973 [Pagination is from edition of 1985].

Seeds of Consciousness. Edited by Jean Dunn. New York: Grove Press, 1982.

Prior to Consciousness. Edited by Jean Dunn. Durham, NC: Acorn Press, 1985.

Consciousness and the Absolute. Edited by Jean Dunn. Durham, NC: Acorn Press, 1994.

The Nectar of the Lord’s Feet. Edited by Robert Powell. Longmead, Shaftesbury (UK): Element Books, 1987. Present title: The Nectar of Immortality (Blue Dove Press). The Ultimate Medicine. Edited by Robert Powell. San Diego, CA: Blue Dove Press, 1994.

The Experience of Nothingness. Edited by Robert Powell. San Diego, CA: Blue Dove Press, 1996.

Gleanings from Nisargadatta. Edited by Mark West. Beyond Description Publishing, 2006.

Beyond Freedom. Edited by Maria Jory. Mumbai: Yogi Impressions Books, 2007.

I am Unborn. Edited by Pradeep Apte [the eternal state.org].

The Nisargadatta Gita. Condensed quotes on ‘I am’. Compiled and published by Pradeep Apte. 2008.

Nothing is Everything. The Quintessential Teachings of Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj. Translated and edited by Mohan Gaitonde. Mumbai: Zen Publications, 2014.

Meditations with Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj. Edited by Suresh Mehta. Mumbai: Yogi Impressions Books, 2014.

Table of Contents

Title Page

Copyright

Contents

Introduction

1. Ramana Maharshi

‘Enquiry’ is looking if something really exists

‘I’ is uninterruptedly the case

The ‘I’ doesn’t need to be replaced by some other ‘I’

Attention to Subject first

2. Atmananda (Krishna Menon)

‘I’ as such

The ‘I’-Principle is the only ultimate Reality

Think of your Guru only in the dualistic sphere

All activities are acts of worship to Me

You are always in your Real Nature

3. Nisargadatta Maharaj

‘I am’ is the greatest foe and the greatest friend

The touch of ‘I am’ is the first vibration

Worship this touch of ‘I am’

Knowingness and surrender

The dynamic aspect of Consciousness

The marriage of two qualities (sattva and rajas)

‘I’ is term for all levels

4. The Medicine (‘I am’ is a door)

The root of the mistake is the medicine

The pure, unmixed Beingness quality (Shuddha Sattva)

The knowing quality is what liberates

The ‘causal body’

Experience is the last Object

Short Biographies

1. Ramana Maharshi

2. Atmananda (Krishna Menon)

3. Nisargadatta Maharaj

Notes

Bibliography