Ramana Maharshi: Interpretations of his Enlightenment 9780994775122

Citation preview

Ramana Maharshi Interpretations of his Enlightenment    

J. Glenn Friesen

Copyright © 2015 J. Glenn Friesen All rights reserved. ISBN: 978-0-9947751-2-2   Published by Aevum Books, Calgary   Available from Amazon.com and other bookstores   Note: For this ebook edition, for ease of reading across digital platforms, all diacriticals have been removed for Sanskrit terms in Roman transliteration.      

 

DEDICATION     To those who encouraged me

to make my “journeys to the east”

and to those who helped me

understand that the real journey is within ourselves

and that the Wisdom we seek

is within our own traditions

  Notes on the Text Abbreviations are used for these fequently cited works: Collected Works: The Collected Works of Sri Ramana Maharshi, 7th ed. with revised translations (Tiruvannamalai: Sri Ramanasramam, 2001). Conscious Immortality: Conscious Immortality (Tiruvannamalai: Sri Ramanasramam, 1996, first published 1984). Crumbs: Swarnagiri, Ramanananda (1995): Crumbs from his Table (Tiruvannamalai: Sri Ramanasramam, 1995). Day by Day: Mudaliar, A. Devaraja (1995): Day by Day with Bhagavan (Tiruvannamalai: Sri Ramanasramam) Erase the Ego: Erase the Ego, ed. Swami Rajeshwarananda (Mumbai: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan). Glimpses: Humphreys, Frank H. (1999): Glimpses of the Life and Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi (Tiruvannamalai) Guru Ramana: S.S. Cohen: Guru Ramana: Memories and Notes, and Reflections on Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi Letters: Suri Nagamma: Letters from Sri Ramanasramam Tiruvannamalai, 1995, first published 1962). Maharshi’s Gospel: Maharshi’s Gospel (Tiruvannamalai: Sri Ramanasramam, 1939). More Talks: Rajan, N.N. (1996): More Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, ed. A.R. Natarajan (Bangalore: Ramana Maharshi Centre for Learning, 1996, first published 1993). Path of Self-Knowledge: Arthur Osborne: Ramana Maharshi and the Path of SelfKnowledge (Samuel Weiser, 1997, first published 1970). Ramana Gītā: Muni, Ganapati (Sastri, Ganapati) (1994): Ramana Gita: Dialogues with Sri Ramana Maharshi, tr. A.R. Natarajan (Bangalore: Ramana Maharshi Centre for Learning). Reflections: Cohen, S.S. (1990): Reflections on Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi (Tiruvannamalai: Sri Ramanasramam, 1990, first published 1959). Talks: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi (Tiruvannamalai: Sri Ramanasramam, 1994, first published 1955), Teachings: The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi, ed. Arthur Osborne (Samuel Weiser, 1978, first published 1962),

Sanskrit words are given in roman transliteration, without diacriticals for this ebook. Abhishiktananda’s published works are not consistent in using diacriticals. Different authors use different conventions or simplified transcriptions. Sometimes the same word is spelled with and without diacriticals even within the same work.

 

Table of Contents Introduction Chapter 1: The Traditional Account Chapter 2: Questioning the Traditional Account 1. Was Ramana’s Enlightenment Immediate? 2. The Nature of Ramana’s Enlightenment Chapter 3: Early biographies of Ramana Maharshi 1. Frank H. Humphreys (__ -1950?) 2. B.V. Narasimha Iyer (1874-1956) Chapter 4: Paul Brunton (1898-1981) 1. Brunton’s importance for studies of Ramana 2. Brunton’s own life and thought 3. A Search in Secret India (1934) 4. A Search in Secret Egypt (1935) 5. A Message from Arunachala (1936) 6. A Hermit in the Himalayas (1937) 7. The Quest of the Overself (1937) 8. Discover Yourself [The Inner Reality] (1939) 9. Indian Philosophy and Modern Culture (1939) 10. The Hidden Teaching Beyond Yoga (1941) 11. The Wisdom of the Overself (1943) 12. The Spiritual Crisis of Man (1952) 13. Essays on the Quest Chapter 5: Interpretations of Ramana after Brunton 1. Major A.W. Chadwick (1890-1962) 2. W.Y. Evans-Wentz (1878-1965) 3. K. Lakshmana Sarma (1879-1965) 4. Jean Herbert (1897-1980) 5. Olivier Lacombe (1904-2001) 6. Lanza del Vasto (1901-1981) 7. S.S. Cohen 8. Arthur Osborne (1906-1970). 9. Abhishiktananda (1910-1973) 10. Jules Monchanin (1895-1957) 11. C.G. Jung (1875-1961)

    Chapter 6: Conflicts and tensions 1. Traditional Hinduism versus neo-Hinduism 2. Traditional Hinduism versus tantra and yoga 3. Ramana and Christianity Chapter 7: Influence of Ganapati Muni 1. Ganapati Muni (1878-1936) 2. T.V. Kapali Sastri (1886-1953) Conclusion Bibliography Glossary

 

Introduction Like many others, I have been fascinated by the life and teachings of Ramana Maharshi (1879-1950). More than sixty years have passed since his death (or mahasamadhi). But his ashram continues to attract devotees from all over the world. The ashram is in Tiruvannamalai,[1] one of the great temple towns in southern India. The grounds of the ashram are filled with flowers, and there seem to be monkeys and peacocks everywhere. There is a strong sense of spirituality. Priests chant the Vedas, and they make ceremonial offerings to Ramana’s image (sila). Devotees of Ramana meditate silently in the marble hall surrounding Ramana’s samadhi or tomb, or walk clockwise around it. Because he was a Hindu saint, Ramana was not cremated, but buried. It is believed that there is great power associated with his tomb. Many devotees believe that they still feel Ramana’s presence today. Pilgrims walk around the holy mountain of Arunachala (see cover photo[2]). They visit the caves where Ramana meditated for so many years. The ashram publishes many works by and about Ramana. It also maintains a website[3] offering extensive information about Ramana, photos of the ashram, and numerous works by various devotees. V. Ganesan has also compiled a book relating the stories of 75 devotees of Ramana; the book has many interesting early photographs of the ashram.[4] The center of Ramana’s teaching is his method of Self-Enquiry. He urged all those who questioned him to ask “Who am I? Who is the one who is asking the question?” According to Ramana, when the true Self is found, all questions are resolved. Cease all talk of ‘I’ and search with inward diving mind whence the thought of ‘I’ springs up. This is the way of wisdom. To think, instead, “I am not this, but That I am,” is helpful in the search, but it is not the search itself.[5] If you keep to the thought of the Self, and intently watch for It, then even that one thought which is used as a focus in concentration will disappear and you will simply BE, i.e., the true Self with no ‘I’ or ego. Meditation on the Self is our natural state (Conscious Immortality, 67).

But there are many interpretations of Ramana’s teaching, and of the nature of Ramana’s enlightenment experience. In this book, I will examine some of these interpretations. I will look at how Ramana explains his own

experience, and how he has been interpreted by both Hindus and by nonHindus. In his 1931 biography of Ramana, B.V. Narasimha Swami, says that even at that time there were many different interpretations of Ramana: His works are cryptic and are capable of diverse interpretations. Saktas go to him and think he is a Sakta, Saivas take him for a Saiva, Srivaishnavas find nothing in him inconsistent with their Visishtadvaitic ideal. Moslems and Christians have found in him elements of their “true faith” (Narasimha, 1978).

Another devotee of Ramana, Major Chadwick, said that Ramana was like a mirror that seemed to reflect back your own feelings. If you were reticent and over-awed, he appeared stand-offish; if you responded naturally to the all-embracing love of his presence, he treated you as one of his own (Chadwick 1994, 15, 18). We will look at these biographies of Ramana in more detail. For now, it is sufficient to note that Narasimha does not discuss the ideas on which other interpretations are based, and the implications that these ideas might have for understanding Ramana. Nor does he discuss any development of Ramana’s own understanding of his experience, and how his understanding may conflict with other traditions within Hinduism. Most books about Ramana have taken a traditional hagiographical approach–they tell Ramana’s story in a devotional way that emphasizes his saintly qualities. According to this traditional story, Ramana’s enlightenment was immediate, without the aid of a guru and without any influence from other sources. The traditional account of Ramana also emphasizes that Ramana’s teachings were entirely his own, although these teachings were “in accordance” with other Hindu teachings, and with Vedanta Advaita in particular. This traditional approach does not look for any differences between Ramana’s ideas and other Hindu thought. Contradictions or inconsistencies in Ramana’s teachings are explained as being due to the fact that his listeners were at different stages of spiritual development, and that Ramana’s ideas can be interpreted on different levels. This traditional approach also assumes that there was no development or change in Ramana’s teachings.

I have attempted to go behind the traditional narrative of Ramana’s story in order to examine the different sources and traditions that have influenced both Ramana and his interpreters. There is of course something very Western in this emphasis on different traditions in Hinduism, sources and influences, and in comparing various types of advaitic experiences. Some devotees of Ramana will object to my analysis as just another attempt to impose Western ideas. How can the advaitic experience, which Ramana says is beyond any conceptualization, be discussed at all? But Ramana himself discussed and wrote about his advaitic experience. There are extensive records of his discussions with his devotees and others who came to see him, both Hindu and non-Hindu. And even if Ramana’s experience was itself beyond conceptualization, this does not necessarily imply that his seeking of the experience was without any conceptual influences. Nor does it mean that we cannot look at the sources that Ramana himself used to describe his experience. To understand Ramana’s life and teachings, we need to examine how he himself understood it. And we need to look at how others interpreted him, especially those interpreters within his own lifetime, who experienced his living presence. We can test these descriptions and interpretations as to whether they are internally consistent, and consistent with other Hindu traditions. Chapter 1 of this book begins with a summary of the traditional story of Ramana’s life and teachings. Chapter 2 examines this traditional story more closely in order to point out certain problems with the account. Chapter 3 examines the two earliest biographies of Ramana. One is by Frank H. Humphreys and the other by B.V. Narasimha Iyer. Chapter 4 examines the writings of Paul Brunton. Brunton is the author who is most responsible for introducing Ramana to the Western world. Brunton admitted in his later books that he had used Ramana as a “peg” for his previous ideas. Brunton also expressed his disillusionment with some of Ramana’s teachings. Chapter 5 examines interpretations of Ramana following Brunton, and up to the time of Ramana’s death. Chapter 6 discusses various influences on Ramana and the tensions among these influences: Traditional Advaita Vedanta, neo-Hinduism,

Tantra, Christianity, and other western influences, such as western science, and occult theosophical ideas. Chapter 7 is devoted to exploring Ganapati Muni’s influence on Ramana. Ganapati Muni was one of Ramana’s earliest disciples. The Conclusion summarizes these findings. Ramana’s experience is not as simple as his disciples usually assume. Ramana believed that he had achieved enlightenment, but he also left us with many questions about the nature of that enlightenment. After analyzing the influences on Ramana, as well as the different ways that his experience has been interpreted, we are left with a much more human portrait of Ramana. In some ways we need to maintain a critical attitude of the stories told about him. And yet his life and teachings, and the record of his experience, will continue to inspire us.









Chapter 1: The Traditional Account This summary of the traditional account of Ramana’s life is based on Narasimha’s 1931 biography of him. Ramana was born in 1879 in Tiruchuzhi, Tamil Nadu (South India). This is a small village about thirty miles from Madurai. He was named Venkataraman Ayyar; this name was later abbreviated to Ramana. When he was 12 years old, his father died and Ramana moved to his uncle’s house in Madurai. He attended the American Mission High School in Madurai; this fact is important because he later made parallels between his experience and Christian ideas. Ramana was a poor student, more interested in sports than in his studies. As a boy, Ramana was such a heavy sleeper that no amount of shouting– and not even a beating–could wake him up (Narasimha, 20). This unusual fact should be taken into account in assessing Ramana’s later trances. Did he have a genetic disposition to falling in a trance, whether or not he was seeking spiritual experience? Were his disciples correct in attributing a state of enlightenment to these experiences, or was it a medical condition? In 1896, when Ramana was 16 years old, he was seized by “a sudden and unmistakable fear of death.” He then enacted the state of death. He lay down on his bed and he imitated the rigidity of a corpse. He held his breath, and kept his lips tightly closed so that no sound could escape. He then realized that, even if his body died, his self would survive. He realized that his ‘I’ was something very real, and in fact it was the only real thing in that state. He felt that he became absorbed in this self or ‘I.’ His devotees believe that Ramana was fully enlightened in this experience at the age of 16, without instruction from any guru or teacher, and that from then on, the Self was the focus of his attention. After this experience, Ramana lost all interest in friends, family or studies. He stopped being interested in sports, and he preferred to be left by himself. His schoolwork got even worse. A few months after this experience of enacting death, Ramana’s teacher gave him an extra assignment as a punishment for his poor studies. He sat in his room, but finally put his books away and began to meditate. His older brother made the exasperated comment, “Why should one, who behaves thus, retain all this?” This comment has been interpreted to mean that if Ramana really

preferred meditation, why did he continue to stay in society and continue with his studies? In other words, why did he not renounce the world and become a sannyasi?[6] In fact, an uncle of Ramana’s had been a sannyasi. Ramana therefore had some knowledge of how a sannyasi would act. Ramana interpreted his brother’s question as the call of God, his “Father in Heaven.” This is a very Christian way of referring to God. It must be remembered that Ramana was attending a Christian school. We will later look at these Christian influences in more detail. Ramana told his brother that he would walk to school. His brother asked him to pay certain school fees for him, and gave Ramana five rupees for this purpose. Ramana left home without telling anyone. He left only the following note: I have, in search of my Father and in obedience to his command, started from here. THIS is only embarking on a virtuous enterprise. Therefore none need grieve over THIS affair. To trace THIS out, no money need be spent. Your college fee has not yet been paid. Rupees two are enclosed herewith. Thus, ____.

Like a sannyasi, Ramana did not even sign his name to his note. Using three of the rupees, he traveled by rail and by foot to the temple town of Tiruvannamalai, because a relative had previously told him that the sacred mountain Arunachala was located there. Ramana ate almost nothing on the way, and he seemed to be sunk into a trance. Narasimha refers to this trance as “the samadhi state.” In a temple along the way, Ramana had what is described as a “visual photism”–a vision of dazzling light suddenly streaming forth and pervading the place. Narasimha refers to William James’s Varieties of Religious Experience in support of such a phenomenon. Narasimha therefore uses western psychology to try to interpret Ramana’s experience! At another temple along the way, Ramana asked for food. He was led to a nearby house for some water, and he fell asleep on the way. He continued walking in his sleep, but lost consciousness and fell down. For the last twenty miles, he took off his earrings and pawned them to raise the additional train fare. Once he reached Arunachala, Ramana had his hair shaved off. He threw away all his clothes, except one piece that he used as a loincloth. He also

threw away the sacred thread that marked him as a Brahmin. These are all traditional indications of becoming a sannyasi. Ramana lived in the temple in this trance state for about six months. During this time, other holy men or sadhus looked after him. Ramana was known as the young Brahmana Swami. He was fed the temple offerings, such as the milk from the Goddess Uma’s shrine. He remained in almost complete silence. Other boys teased him and threw stones at him, so he moved to a dark pit in the temple known as the Patala Lingam, where he hoped to be left alone. Scorpions, mosquitoes and ants bit him, and his body became full of open sores. But Ramana seemed unaware of any physical discomfort. It is said that this was due to the “intensity of his trance.” Narasimha stresses the importance of this trance: The fact that he was completely unconscious of this only goes to prove the depth of his absorption in the Infinite (Narasimha, 47).

Ramana would sometimes sit for eight or ten hours without eating a meal. Sometimes he had to be forced to eat. For about a month at the end of 1896, Ramana was totally naked. Ramana’s neglect of his body, and his lack of cleanliness only increased his popular esteem (Narasimha, 52). After living in the Patala Lingam, Ramana moved to the temple grounds, and then to other nearby shrines. He continued to ignore his physical needs. He had to be looked after by others. His first permanent attendant or disciple was Uddandi Nayinar. He saw Ramana at the foot of a tree. Ramana seemed to be in ecstasy and oblivious of his body. It is reported that Nayinar said, “Here indeed are realization and peace, and here must I seek them.” Thus, Ramana’s first disciple was drawn to him because of his state of trance. In addition to looking after Ramana, Nayinar recited works to him, such as the Yoga Vasistha and Kaivalya Navanitaam. As we shall see, many of Ramana’s teachings derive from the Yoga Vasistha. In February 1897, a later attendant, Annamalai Tambiran, convinced Ramana to move to a shrine known as Gurumurtam, in a suburb outside of Tiruvannamalai. Ramana stayed there for a year and a half. During that time he remained in “rapt samadhi, disturbed only by the noise of visitors and the dinner cup” (Narasimha, 58). Tambiran used to sing hymns to him from the Tevaram (sacred songs of the three Tamil poet-saints, Appar, Sundaramurti and Sambandar).

Another person who looked after Ramana was Palanisvami, who stayed with him for 21 years. In May 1898, he moved Ramana to an adjoining mango grove; no one was allowed to enter without permission. They spent six months in this orchard. During this time, Palanisvami had access to the library in town, and he brought Ramana some Tamil books like the Yoga Vasistha. Ramana took each book from him, and “absorbed and memorized its contents.” He then told Palanisvami what the book was about. It is therefore clear that Ramana was not at that time maintaining complete silence. It is also clear that Ramana was learning many concepts from yogic and tantric traditions. In 1898, Ramana’s family learned where he was. A relative tried to convince him to return home, but he refused. Ramana moved from the orchard to a nearby small temple, seeking to be absolutely alone. Ramana’s mother Alagammal and his older brother visited him, and begged him to return home. Again Ramana refused, despite his mother’s prayers and weeping. Ramana did not even speak to her, but wrote: The Ordainer controls the fate of souls in accordance with their past deeds– their prarabdhakarma. Whatever is destined not to happen will not happen,– try how hard you may. Whatever is destined to happen will happen, do what you may to stop it. This is certain. The best course therefore, is for one to be silent (Narasimha, 66)

In other words, Ramana told his mother that he was fated to act as he did. As we shall see, the idea of prarabdhakarma is used to explain living liberation or enlightenment. His mother returned home. Ramana’s older brother died in 1900. In 1899, after his mother’s visit, Ramana moved to a cave on Arunachala. Narasimha says that Ramana’s personal history ended at this point; after that it was the history of those who came under his influence (Narasimha, 70). That is an example of a statement that describes Ramana in saintly terms. But in fact, Ramana still acted in history, and he continued to be influenced by other people and by books that he read. As we shall see, he was even cross-examined in a lawsuit related to the ashram. And, like other humans, Ramana also suffered pain. Ramana lived in various caves on Arunachala for 23 years. He spent most of his time in meditation (Narasimha, 70). However, Palanisvami continued

to bring him books. During this time, Ramana also met Ganapati Muni, who was the first person to call him ‘Bhagavan’ [‘Lord’]. In Chapter 7, we will look at the influence of Ganapati Muni on Ramana in more detail. In 1912, while still living in the caves, Ramana had a near-death experience that was genuine (i.e., not merely enacted). This story is recounted in a separate Appendix to Narasimha’s biography of Ramana.[7] It is entitled, “A Strange and remarkable incident in the life of Sri Maharshi.” While he was walking back to his cave, Ramana suddenly felt weak. The landscape in front of him was gradually shut out, as if a curtain were being drawn across the line of his vision. It was “just like drawing a slide across one’s view in the stereoscope.” He fainted and blacked out three times. A bright white curtain completely shut off his vision, his head was swimming and his breathing stopped. His skin turned “a livid blue.” His companion Vasudeva Sastri thought that he was dead. He held Ramana in his arms and began to weep and to lament his death. Ramana says he could feel his companion’s clasp and hear his words. He also saw the discoloration of his own skin and felt the stoppage of his circulation and breathing, and the increased chilliness of his body’s extremities. But his usual ability of thought (dhyana) continued as usual. This condition lasted for ten to fifteen minutes. Then a shock passed through his body with enormous force. His circulation and breathing revived, and he perspired from every pore. He opened his eyes and got up and said, “Let’s go.” Ramana said that he did not bring on this fit on purpose, but that it was one of the fits he got occasionally, only this one was more serious. Again, we must ask whether this fit was caused by some genetic condition of Ramana and whether it was at all related to spiritual experience. His own words seem dismissive of its importance. Ramana’s mother visited him occasionally. In 1914 she got ill with typhoid. It is said that Ramana composed verses in her honour. Verse 3 says, Arunachala! Thou blazing fire of Wisdom! Deign to wrap my mother in Thy light and make her one with Thee. What need then for cremation? (Narasimha, 125)

In 1915, when she was old and helpless, and in poverty, Ramana’s mother came to Tiruvannamalai to live near Ramana. Many people were opposed to her coming, since they feared that Ramana would then move away.

Their criticism was based on the view that a sannyasi should have no family. When his mother arrived, Ramana moved from Virupaksha Cave to Skandasram at the foot of the mountain. This is where the first ashram developed. Ramana’s younger brother Nagasundaram also came. Ramana’s mother cooked food for herself, her sons and visitors. Some people commented that Ramana’s life was really more like a householder than a sannyasi (Narasimha, 127). We see here the conflict between the traditional view that a sannyasi should remove himself from life, and the tantric view of jivanmukti–that one can be liberated in this life. We will look at this conflict in more detail. During this time, Ramana wrote Appaìa-p-pattu, a song for his mother as she sat rolling flat puris made of black gram dal. Take the black-gram, ego-self, Growing in the five-fold body-field

And grind it in the quern,

The wisdom-quest of ‘Who am I?’

Reducing it to finest flour.[8]

To show that he was not attached to his mother, Ramana would sometimes refuse to talk to her, although he would speak to others. He said that all women were mothers to him. It is said that Ramana was in this way assisting her religious education, and that in the six years she was with him before her death, she picked up all the important truths. She started wearing the kashaya robe of a sannyasi. In her last years, she was ill, and Ramana looked after her. In 1922, she became seriously ill. As she died, he placed his right hand on her breast, and his left hand on her head. Disciples chanted the name of Rama, and parts of the Vedas were recited. When his mother died, Ramana rose and said to others to join him in eating a meal, and that there was no pollution. He seemed in fact “jolly.” Narasimha seems apologetic for Ramana’s apparent “rejoicing” at his mother’s death. One disciple records that this seemed to be due to the lifting of the burden of care for his mother. Ramana quoted the Gita, and said that death is only a change of form and not of substance. There was an issue whether Ramana’s mother’s body should be cremated or buried. The bodies of saints are buried, not cremated. Was his mother a saint? Ganapati Muni reminded Ramana of his answer to a question in

1917 about the burial of a woman-saint. It is not clear why no one remembered the poem he had composed in 1914 when his mother was ill with typhoid, when he came to a similar conclusion. They decided to bury her body (Narasimha, 132).[9] A monument was put over the mother’s tomb with a lingam on top. The mother has since been identified with Siva under the name of Matrubhuteswara, and has been worshipped daily (Narasimha, 132). Plans were made in 1938 to consecrate a temple over her grave; the temple was completed in 1949, the year before Ramana’s own death. In December 1922, Ramana moved from his cave to live at the foot of the mountain near her tomb. Another reason for the move was that litigation had developed over ownership of the ashram property that had been erected at Skandasram (Narasimha, 150). This litigation is very interesting, since a sannyasi is not supposed to own any property. How then could the ashram claim title to it? Ramana was himself cross-examined in these proceedings (see discussion below). A new ashram started to form near the mother’s tomb, although there was then only one thatched shed. In 1930, Ramana’s younger brother was appointed manager (sarvadhikari) of the ashram; he changed his name to Niranjananda Swami. Niranjananda Swami died in 1953. His son and successor was T.N. Venkataraman. He was brought up by Ramana’s sister, Athai. He arrived at the ashram in 1938. In November 1948, a tumour was noticed on Ramana’s arm. Doctors, homeopaths and practitioners of the siddha system were called in (Narasimha, 258). Some devotees say that Ramana never uttered a sigh nor made a grimace of suffering (Guru Ramana, 150). But Chadwick records that Ramana did suffer: He certainly appeared to suffer terribly; at night when he was unaware that anyone could hear him, he lay on his couch, groaning and calling out. At that time it was indeed difficult to realize that he, as a Jnani, did not feel pain in the same way as we do, but that he saw it as something apart from him, as a dream which could be regarded objectively. When Milarepa was dying he was asked if he did not feel pain, his agony was obviously great. “No,” he replied, “but there is pain” (Chadwick, 21).

Ramana’s last evening was April 14, 1950. The famous French photographer Cartier-Bresson was there. So was a photographer from Life

Magazine. Ramana died at 8:47. It is said that there was a huge meteor, or shooting star in the sky (Cohen, 162). Ramana was buried in what used to be the dining hall. The present samadhi (memorial over his tomb) was completed in 1967.





Chapter 2: Questioning the Traditional Account Some of Ramana’s own words bring into question the traditional account of his enlightenment. We will examine the nature of his enlightenment, and whether it was as immediate as has been claimed. We will also examine Ramana’s subsequent interpretation of his experience.

1. Was Ramana’s Enlightenment Immediate? According to Narasimha, Ramana’s enlightenment was not based on Scripture or on the study of other works. He says that at the time of his enlightenment at his home in Madurai, Ramana had not even heard of ‘Brahman’ or ‘samsara.’ The only books he had read were the Bible, the Periapuranam (stories of 63 Tamil saints) and bits of the Tayumanavar (hymns of the saint Tayumanavar, 1706-1744), and the Tevaram (sacred songs of the three Tamil poet-saints, Appar, Sundaramurti and Sambandara). After his enlightenment, he read other books, and found that they “were analysing and naming what I had felt intuitively without analysis or name.”[10] It is said that Ramana’s enlightenment was therefore not due to these books, but that it was an immediate experience. It is also said that he had not practiced yoga or other spiritual disciplines prior to his enactment of death. But Ramana was at least influenced to seek the experience of enlightenment by the books that he had read before his experience. When as a teenager he first read the Periapuranam he was inspired to emulate the experience of these saints: That book [Periapurånam] gives a moving account of the sudden accession of faith, deep love of God, utter self-sacrifice, and sublime communion with Him which marked the lives of the sixty-three Tamil saints. As he read on, surprise, admiration, awe, reverence, sympathy and emulation swept over his soul in succession, thus paying a momentary homage to the great ideals and ideas that had charmed the hearts and engaged the minds of his countrymen for centuries (Narasimha, 17).

Ramana also remembered these stories after his enactment of death, since he then went to the temple in Madurai and prayed that he might become like one of these sixty-three saints. Narasimha says that Ramana made frequent visits to the Meenakshi temple in Madurai, “where he would weep, and pray that his experience might become perpetual.”

I would stand before Ishvara, the Controller of the universe and the destinies of all, the Omniscient and Omnipresent, and occasionally pray for the descent of his grace upon me so that my devotion might increase and become perpetual like that of the sixty-three saints (Narasimha, 23).

If Ramana’s enactment of death resulted in immediate enlightenment, why would he pray to become like one of the saints? It seems that Ramana himself was not certain that he had achieved that state. Ramana may also have been inspired to seek a religious experience by his readings of the Bible at the mission school. In later life, Ramana made many references to the Bible and compared certain passages in it to the advaitic experience. For example, he referred to the Bible’s admonition to “Be still and know that I am God” (Psalm 46:10). We will later look in more detail at Ramana’s understanding of the Periapuranam, the Tayumanavar, the Bible, and other texts. Apart from what he read in these books, Ramana also had some role models to emulate. We have already seen that one of his uncles was a sannyasi. It was from this uncle that he first heard about the holy mountain Arunachala. Ramana says that he did not know that Arunachala was a real place. When he did learn that it existed, he left home. Prior to this, Ramana was aware that Arunachala was “Something supremely holy” (Maha Yoga, 3). In seeking enlightenment, Ramana may also have been emulating his father. His father died when Ramana was 12 years old. During his lifetime, his father had practiced meditation. Chadwick says that Ramana told him his father used a meditation belt but had not used it in public. The meditation belt was cotton cloth; it was brought round his father’s back and across his raised knees (Chadwick, 14).

2. The Nature of Ramana’s Enlightenment a) Thought experiment The traditional account says that Ramana obtained enlightenment when he enacted being in the state of death. His enlightenment was therefore a kind of thought experiment. What degree of rational analysis was required for Ramana’s self-enquiry? How does it differ from the method of the western philosopher René Descartes (1596-1650), in its systematic doubt and selfexamination? How rational a process is Ramana’s method of Self-Enquiry?

Lanzo del Vasto, who visited Ramana in 1937, describes Ramana’s method in this way: The disciples look at Him who Is and think of what they are. Or, rather, they think of what they are not. They are not this arm or this leg, this head or this heart, they are not this body, they are not this anxiety or this joy, this hope or this remorse, this anger or this love nor any of these changing emotions. They are not their thought, since their thought ceases when they sleep, whereas they do not cease to be. They are not the I that names itself (Del Vasto, 1971, 96-7).

By a similar process of reflection, Descartes concluded that we are therefore our thoughts and mind. This is his famous “I think, therefore I am!” But Ramana’s method of Self-Enquiry continues further. He says that we are not the mind, either. We are not our thoughts. Our real center is in our heart, the center of all our functions. The fact that Ramana does not identify Self with mind may distinguish his method from that of Descartes. Another difference is that Descartes believed that both soul and body existed as separate substances. Descartes then had the problem of explaining how these two substances could interact with each other. But Ramana’s emphasis is on The Self as existing alone, as One-without-asecond. The body has a lesser reality, or no reality at all, as maya. We will discuss his view of maya in more detail later. Although Del Lanzo’s description is a correct representation of Ramana’s later view of Self-Enquiry, did Ramana have that understanding at the time of his thought-experiment as a 16-year-old boy? There is no record of any mention of the heart center at the time of this thought-experiment. In Narasimha’s words, Ramana concluded that after the material body died, there was a “spirit transcending it that cannot be touched by death. I am therefore the deathless spirit.” Narasimha emphasizes that Ramana’s enlightenment was “not a mere intellectual process” but rather a “living truth” that Ramana perceived immediately. He says that the experience was “almost” without any argument (Narasimha, 21). However, Ramana had made a similar analysis at the age of 12, when his father had died. Paul Brunton even says that that is when Ramana became enlightened. Brunton says that “by analysis” Ramana realized that his father’s ‘I’ had left his body, and that he obtained

jnana or became enlightened (Conscious Immortality, 170). This version of Ramana’s enlightenment gives more weight to a rational analysis of events. The earliest biography of Ramana (in 1913, by F.H. Humphreys), also emphasizes rational argument. Humphreys describes self-enquiry as a kind of argument: You argue your mind out of existence as a separate entity, and the result is that mind and body physically (so to speak) disappear and the only thing that remains is Being, which is at once existence and non-existence, and not explainable in words or ideas (Glimpses, 21).

Nandakumar refers to  Ramana’s experience as a “flash of illumination which contained within it a superb ratiocinative exercise” (Nandakumar, 4). There is therefore some doubt as to the nature of Ramana’s experience, the extent of rational argument involved, whether he experienced it at age 12 or 16, and whether he had a sense of his selfhood as something beyond mind or spirit or whether he identified the selfhood with mind and spirit. b) Is Trance Necessary? The traditional account emphasizes Ramana’s state of trance, both at the age of 16, as well as when he left home for the temple in Tiruvannamalai. Biographers emphasize that even as a boy, Ramana had very deep sleep. Narasimha says that Ramana hardly knew the difference between sleep and the samadhi state into which he had sunk on his way to Tiruvannamalai at the age of 16 (Narasimha, 36). And his state of trance in the temple–the fact that he was unaware of even being bitten by insects– was regarded as only proving “the depth of his absorption in the Infinite” (Narasimha, 47). Thus, Ramana’s trance state was used to establish his reputation as a Swami. Some of his attendants were attracted to him because of his trance state. This emphasis on trance is puzzling in view of Ramana’s later teaching that trance is not necessary for enlightenment. Ramana says that those who are the most competent seekers take the path of Self-enquiry. The less competent seekers meditate on identity. Those who are at an even lower level practice breath control. Ramana himself did not teach meditation or breath control.[11] He said that there is no need to meditate (Talks, 174, para. 205; 257, para 294). He says that trance is a state like drugs:

If you are so anxious for trance any narcotic will bring it about. Drug-habit will be the result and not liberation. There are vasanas in the latent state even in trance. The vasanas must be destroyed.[12]

Vasanas are innate tendencies; they include the memory of past experiences. In the same passage, Ramana says that trance is only an absence of thoughts. Such a state prevails in sleep. But trance has only temporary effects. There is happiness so long as it lasts. After rising from it the old vasanas return. Unless the vasanas are destroyed in sahaja samadhi (natural samadhi), it does no good. Thus, if you want a trance, go to sleep! Ramana also says that meditation strengthens the ego instead of liberating from it. “Meditation is possible only if the ego be kept up” (Talks, 145, para. 174). Instead of seeking a trance state, or nirvikalpa samadhi, Ramana advises us to seek sahaja samadhi. Sahaja means ‘natural.’ And sahaja samadhi is the consciousness of the liberated person who returns to the world. That person does not live out of ego anymore, but lives through Self. Sahaja is also pure consciousness (Crumbs, 41). Swarnagiri reports that Ramana said that the practitioner of self-enquiry must be on the alert, and must enquire within as to who it is that is having this experience: Failing this enquiry he will go into a long trance or deep sleep (Yoga nidra). Due to the absence of a proper guide at this stage of spiritual practice, many have been deluded and fallen a prey to a false sense of salvation. One must not allow oneself to be overtaken by such spells of stillness of thought: the moment one experiences this, one must revive consciousness and enquire within as to who it is who experiences this stillness (Crumbs, 27; italics in original)

This is the point of divergence between the road to salvation and yoga nidra, which is merely prolonged deep sleep. Ramana also says that trance and unconsciousness are only for the mind; they do not affect the Self (Crumbs, 40). He even rejects talk of “killing the mind,” since mind is also part of reality: Seeing ice without seeing that it is water is illusion, Maya. Therefore saying things like killing the mind or anything like that also has no meaning, for after all mind also is part and parcel of the Self. Resting in the Self or inhering in

the Self is mukti, getting rid of Maya. Maya is not a separate entity (Crumbs, 41).

Ramana also opposes any view of meditation as a void. He says, “Absence of thought does not mean a void. There must be one to know the void” (Conscious Immortality, 77). His emphasis is on the Self, and not on the Buddhist emphasis of “no-self’ (anātman) or the Buddhist goal of seeking shunyata [emptiness] in meditation. When we later discuss the tantric influences on Ramana, we will see the source of some of the confusion between an emphasis on the importance of trance and the ability of the liberated one to live in the world. c) Immediate Realization? We have already seen that after his experience at the age of 16, Ramana was not without doubts. He prayed at that time that his experience might be continuous. This implies that he feared that the state he had achieved was not permanent. Whether or not his experience was permanent, it did not come about totally spontaneously. Even as a teenager, Ramana was familiar with the mediation practices of his father and uncle, and he had read some Hindu devotional works. We will examine these influences in the next chapter. Finally, whatever the experience that Ramana had as a teenager, he continued to interpret this experience in terms of later texts that he read and further conversations with others. The experience itself should not be identified with these later interpretations.

Chapter 3: Early biographies of Ramana Maharshi 1. Frank H. Humphreys (__ -1950?) The first reports in English about Ramana were by Frank H. Humphreys, a policeman stationed in India in 1911. Humphreys published Glimpses of the Life and Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi. The book is based on articles he first published in The International Psychic Gazette in 1913. [13]

Humphreys was interested in occult powers and in Madame Blavatsky’s kind of theosophy. Glimpses reports some of Humphreys’ own psychic abilities. He had a vision in Bombay of his future Telegu teacher, S. Narasimhayya, before he met him in Vellore. Humphreys also identified this teacher's guru, Ganapati Muni, from a series of photos, although he had never met him. And he had a vision of Ramana in his cave before he met Ramana (Glimpses, 8-11). When he first arrived in Vellore, Humphreys asked his Telegu language teacher whether he knew any astrology. He then asked whether the teacher knew of any mahatmas (spiritual masters) in the area. This idea of mahatmas is emphasized by Madame Blavatsky’s kind of theosophy.[14] As a result of asking this question, Humphreys met Ganapati Muni (also known as Ganapati Sastri). Humphreys met him in Vellore, where Ganapati Muni was on his way to attend a theosophical society conference in Tiruvannamalai. Tiruvannamalai is also where Ramana’s ashram is located. In Chapter 7, we will look in detail at the influence of Ganapati Muni on Ramana. Humphreys says that Ganapati Muni was the first Master that he met in India (his second Master would be Ramana). Humphreys says that a Master does not use occult powers, but Humphreys nevertheless reports extensively on Ganapati Muni’s powers of clairvoyance and psychic gifts (Glimpses, 30-31). He says that Ganapati Muni learned the Tamil language “by meditation” in 15 days, without using any book or grammar. Humphreys compares this to the speaking in tongues by Christ’s Apostles (Glimpses, 14). Humphreys and Ganapati Muni visited Ramana in November 1911. Ganapati Muni was the first of Ramana’s disciples to refer to Ramana as ‘Bhagavan’ or ‘Lord.’

Humphreys’ reports were the basis of all future biographies of Ramana. They would be used by Ramana's disciple Narasimha as the basis for his biography of Ramana. Narasimha includes two chapters about Humphreys. He reports that Humphreys said that he had been a member of a mystic society in a former birth (Narasimha, 108-9). Some interesting points in Humphreys’ biography of Ramana are: a) Humphreys was the first to report Ramana's pivotal enlightenment experience of the Self at the age of 16. All future biographers of Ramana use this account. But we must be careful in using this story, for Humphreys says that the story of Ramana’s enlightenment was not told to him by Ramana himself, but by a disciple or chela (Glimpses, 27). Ramana’s chief disciple at that time was Ganapati Muni, so Ganapati Muni might be the source of this information. b) Humphreys had some ethical concerns about how sitting in a cave could help the world. The first question that he asked Ramana was whether he could help the world. Ramana replied: “Help yourself and you will help the world. […] You are not different from the world, nor is the world different from you.” Humphreys refers to Vivekananda’s neo-Hinduism for help on this point. He says, “You do not help the world at all by wishing or trying to do so, but only by helping yourself” (Glimpses, 21). But it is interesting that Ramana told Humphreys that he could attend both to his duty as a police officer and to his meditation (Narasimha, 114). c) Both Humphreys and Ganapati Muni were interested in Madame Blavatsky’s theosophy. Ganapati Muni was on his way to a theosophical conference when Humphreys met him. How did Ganapati Muni’s interest in theosophy affect his own writings about Ramana, and the translations that he made for Ramana? d) Humphreys reports that Ganapati Muni considered himself the “instrument” of Ramana. He said, “It is not I but Maharshi who does these things” (Glimpses, 29). This seems to indicate that Ganapati Muni did the actual writing. Humphreys says that Ganapati Muni was the intellectual part of the master/disciple relationship; Ramana was the devotional part. If Ganapati Muni may have considered himself an instrument, we must ask to what extent he thereby influenced how Ramana expressed his ideas.

e) Humphreys makes many comparisons between Ramana and Christianity. This was something that Narasimha continued to do in his biography of Ramana. Humphreys says that Ramana was “well acquainted with Christian History and Bible Times” (Glimpses, 28). f) Humphreys describes looking into Ramana’s eyes, and seeing him as “the instrument of God, merely a sitting motionless corpse from which God was radiating terrifically.” Thus, Ganapati Muni was the instrument of Ramana, but Ramana was considered to be the instrument of God. Ramana told him, A master is one who has meditated solely on God, has flung his whole personality into the sea of God, and drowned and forgotten it there till he becomes simply the instrument of God, and when his mouth opens it speaks God’s words without effort or forethought, and when he raises a hand God flows again through that to work a miracle (Glimpses, 18).

g) Humphreys was interested in occult powers. He reports that when he sat at the feet of Ramana, he “felt lifted out of myself” (Glimpses, 15). This idea of a mahatma’s ability to radiate powers and to teach in silence is an idea found in Blavatsky’s theosophy. Other powers that Humphreys ascribes to Ramana include clairvoyance and the ability to read one’s past history (Glimpses, 16). But Ramana told Humphreys not to think too much of psychical phenomena: Clairvoyance, clairaudience, and such things are not worth having, when so much far greater illumination and peace are possible without them than with them. The Master takes on these powers as a form of Self-Sacrifice! (Glimpses, 19; see also Narasimha, 115).

Yet Ramana also told him that if he meditated fifteen minutes a day, then in four or five months, all kinds of unconscious powers would show themselves, including clairvoyance, peace of mind and power to deal with troubles. Ramana told him, “I have given you this teaching in the same words as the Masters give it to their intimate chelas [disciples]” (Glimpses, 20). g) Humphreys shows that Ramana did not just teach in silence. When a certain disciple asked him a question, Ramana picked up a book, pointed to it and said, “There is your answer” (Glimpses, 17). And Humphreys emphasizes that Ramana taught by giving the appropriate words:

A Master when instructing is far from any thought of instructing; but to feel a doubt or a difficulty in his presence is to call forth, at once, before you can express the doubt, the wonderful words which will clear away that doubt (Glimpses, 26).

h) Ramana tells Humphreys that one and only one illimitable force is responsible for both the phenomena that we see and for the act of seeing them (Glimpses, 18). This seems to be a tantric kind of nondualism that does not deny the reality of the world, but instead regards the world as created by the power or Shakti of God. But Ramana also tells him not to fix his attention on phenomena or even on the act of seeing them but only on that which sees all these things. i) Humphreys also gives an account of the method of self-enquiry: You argue your mind out of existence as a separate entity, and the result is that mind and body physically (so to speak) disappear and the only thing that remains is Being, which is at once existence and non-existence, and not explainable in words or ideas. A Master is perpetually in this state, but he can use his mind and body and intellect too, without falling back into the delusion of having a separate consciousness (Glimpses, 21).

Humphreys compares self-realization to white light shining through a prism to make up the many colours of a man’s character: How are colours formed? By breaking up white light with a many-sided prism. So is it with a man’s character. It is seen when the Light of Life (God) is shining through it, i.e., in a man’s actions (Glimpses, 23).

After his retirement, Humphreys returned to England where he entered a Catholic monastery.[15] Chadwick reports an interesting anecdote about Humphreys. Someone in the hall of the ashram said that he had recently seen Humphreys, and that Humphreys had denied receiving any benefit from Ramana’s instruction. Ramana responded with the strong words, “It’s a lie!” (Chadwick, 21).

2. B.V. Narasimha Iyer (1874-1956) B.V. Narasimha Iyer, later known as Sri Narasimha Swami, was a highly educated man. I will refer to him as ‘Narasimha.’ He obtained bachelor degrees in arts and law from the University of Madras, and he practiced law in Tamil Nadu from 1895 to 1921 in Tamil Nadu, India. He was involved in

politics, and was elected to the Madras Legislative Council. He was also involved in the Home Rule League that had been started by Annie Besant (1847-1933).[16] His association with Annie Besant is of interest since Besant was a member of Madame Blavatzky’s Theosophical Society. In 1907, Besant became President of the Theosophical Society, whose international headquarters were in Madras. So the second biographer of Ramana also had connections to Madame Blavatzky’s theosophy! Narasimha left the practice of law in 1921 after the death of two of his children. He left home in 1925 in search of a guru. In 1931, Narasimha published (in English) the first major biography of Ramana: Self Realization: The Life and Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi. Narasimha used Humphreys’ earlier biography of Ramana. He devotes two chapters to Humphreys. Narasimha acknowledges that Ramana’s exact words have not been recorded. He also acknowledges that he has changed whatever record there was of Ramana’s actual words, since Ramana normally spoke impersonally, and not in the first person: His actual words may be found too colourless and hazy to suit or appeal to many readers, especially of the Western type. Hence the use here of the customary phraseology with its distinct personal reference (Narasimha, 20 fn.)

This is an important admission, and it raises the critical issue to what extent Narasimha put a western slant on Ramana’s story and teachings. It is also surprising how many explicit comparisons Narasimha makes between Ramana and Jesus Christ. Almost every chapter is headed by a quotation from the New Testament, including the following: (1) But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? Behold they which are gorgeously apparelled and live delicately, are in King’s courts. But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and much more than a prophet. (2) Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, the other left [in reference to Ramana choosing the path of liberation and not his two other brothers]. (3) Ye must be born again [in reference to Ramana's enlightenment at the age of 16].

(4) How is it that ye sought me? Wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business? [Luke 2:49, in reference to Ramana’s departure for Arunachala]. Note the reference to his “Father.” (5) He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me. (6) He that findeth his life shall lose it, and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. (7) His Father knows his need of these things [what he should eat and wherewithal he shall be clothed] (8) He who clothes the lilies of the field was clothing him. (9) Love of wealth is the root of all evil [in reference to throwing away his money and possessions]. (10) Then one said unto him, “Behold, thy mother and brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.” “But,” he answered and said, “who is my mother and who are my brethren?” [St. Matthew, used by Narasimha in reference to Ramana not returning home with his mother]. (11) Ye are the light of the world. A City that is set on a hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel but on a candle-stick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house [Matthew 5:14-15, in reference to living in the caves]. (12) Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. (13) Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do [in reference to robbery at the ashram]. (14) Easier to go through a needle’s eye than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God. (15) Lay up treasures in Heaven.

Narasimha also refers to Christian Gospel hymns by Ira David Sankey, applying the words of his hymns to Ramana instead of to Jesus. The hymn “Rock of Ages” is applied to the holy mountain of Arunachala. He says that when the baseness of the ego is lost, the survivor is the “Son of God’ (Narasimha, 30). The ego is referred to as “the old Adam” (Narasimha, 65). Narasimha also quotes other Western writers, such as Alexander Pope (p. 158), Alfred Lord Tennyson, William Shakespeare (Hamlet, p. 13), Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, and modern writers such as William James. These Western and Christian references are highly surprising, especially in view

of the fact that this biography was published three years before Paul Brunton’s book (see Chapter 4 below). It is also of interest that after writing his biography of Ramana, Narasimha left Ramana’s ashram to seek other gurus. In 1936, he visited the samadhi (burial site) of Sri Sai Baba of Shirdi. Through Narasimha’s efforts, many people became devotees of Sri Sai Baba.

Chapter 4: Paul Brunton (1898-1981) 1. Brunton’s importance for studies of Ramana Paul Brunton (1898-1981) was an English writer on yoga and esoteric subjects. He is the one who made the western world aware of Ramana by his 1934 book A Search in Secret India. This book was much more influential than the previous biographies by Humphreys and Narasimha. Brunton tried to keep secret many details about his early life. We know that his original name was Raphael Hurst. He was a bookseller and journalist. Brunton wrote under various pseudonyms, including Raphael Meriden and Raphael Delmonte. When he first visited Ramana in India in January 1931, he referred to himself by his real name, Raphael Hurst. Later, he chose the pen name Brunton Paul, but for some reason, perhaps a printer's error, the names were reversed to Paul Brunton, a name that he kept. Brunton’s book, A Search in Secret India, was immensely popular. Many people came to visit Ramana as a result of reading it. Even Indian writers refer to Brunton’s works. For example, Swami Yogananda visited Ramana in 1935 after reading Brunton’s books. He met Brunton at Ramana’s ashram, and praised his writing. Ramana himself makes several references to Brunton’s book; Ramana says that the book is useful for Indians (Talks, 121, par. 136). And as we shall see, Ramana was himself influenced by Brunton’s ideas. But we need to explore the ideas that Brunton had prior to meeting Ramana–ideas that determined the way that he wrote his book. This does not mean that I accept a constructivist view of reality, where all of our experiences are formed and determined by our thoughts. Constructivism actually overemphasizes the rational and the conceptual, missing both the unconscious as well as the superconscious or transpersonal part of our Selfhood from which all of our temporal functions arise, including the rational. But in this case, we know that Brunton constructed his experience. He tells us so. He confesses that he used his book about Ramana as a “peg” on which to hang his own ideas: It will therefore be clear to perspicacious readers that I used his [Ramana’s] name and attainments as a convenient peg upon which to hang an account

of what meditation meant to me. The principal reason for this procedure was that it constituted a convenient literary device to secure the attention and hold the interest of western readers, who would naturally give more serious consideration to such a report of the “conversion” of a seemingly hard headed critically-minded Western journalist to yoga (Brunton 1969, Hidden Teaching, 25).

In view of this startling admission, we need to look at the following issues: a) How did Brunton's own western background influence what he wrote about Ramana? b) Did Brunton's own ideas influence the way that Ramana and his teachings have been perceived, both by Ramana himself as well as by his disciples? This is important in view of the fact that Ramana himself praised Brunton's book and incorporated what Brunton said in some of his own teachings. To my knowledge, neither of these two questions has been previously investigated.

2. Brunton’s own life and thought a) Previous studies of Brunton The most comprehensive study to date regarding Brunton is Annie Cahn Fung's doctoral thesis: Paul Brunton: un pont entre l'Inde et l'occident (Sorbonne, 1992). The English translation of this thesis, Paul Brunton: A Bridge Between India and the West is available online. Although she provides a great deal of useful information, Cahn Fung does not mention Brunton’s confession that he used Ramana as a peg for his own thoughts. Nor does she explore how this may have influenced Brunton’s reporting of Ramana, or how this might in turn have affected Ramana’s selfunderstanding. Cahn Fung does question whether Brunton's teachings are really advaitic. She points to Brunton's individualistic and anti-institutional view of enlightenment. This was based on Ralph Waldo Emerson, one of Brunton's favourite authors: He was fond of Emerson’s remark, “Souls are not saved in bundles,” and maintained that only alone can we find Truth, in the depths of our own innermost being, alone with the Alone (Cahn Fung, I, 10).

Brunton's son Kenneth Thurston Hurst also reports Brunton’s interest in Emerson. Emerson used the term 'Oversoul' for the ray of divinity within us. Brunton uses this idea of a ray of divinity. And there seems to be a relation of the term ‘Oversoul’ to Brunton's term 'Overself.'Cahn Fung has questioned whether Brunton's use of the term ‘Overself’ was derived from the Vedantic view of the Self (atman), whether it is this idea of atman in western disguise, or whether it is a new concept. She asks how Brunton can maintain the idea of the Overself as a “higher individuality” and still maintain the idea of nonduality. She says that Brunton's idea of the Overself is “an intermediary between the finite and the human,” and that this idea is more accessible to contemporary thinkers who are attached to the idea of individuality. But she says that Brunton was also nondual because his mentalistic philosophy reduced “subject and object, in a purely rational way, to the one stuff of which both are made: Mind” (Cahn Fung, I, 11; II, 4-5). I have difficulty with Cahn Fung’s attempted reconciliation of Brunton’s idea of the Overself with nondualism. A reduction of subject and object to Mind is not nondualism unless advaita is understood as monism. I have

elsewhere argued that advaita is neither dualistic nor monistic. “Not-two” does not mean “only one” (Friesen 2015b). Furthermore, prior to his use of the term ‘Overself,’ Brunton’s philosophy was not nondual, but dualistic. He made a sharp distinction between mind and matter. But I do believe that Cahn Fung is correct that Brunton's solution to these issues of relating the Overself to nondualism is related to what he learned from the guru that he chose after his meeting with Ramana, V. Subrahmanya Iyer. Iyer was very much within the neo-Hindu tradition. NeoHinduism is the interpretation of Hinduism that has been influenced by Western philosophy. Brunton first used the term ‘Overself’ in his book The Secret Path (1935). That was after his meeting in 1931 with Ramana. But Cahn Fung is incorrect that the term ‘Overself’ was a new term coined by Brunton (Cahn Fung II, 5). The term ‘Overself’ appears in a 1932 book by Gottfried de Purucker (1874-1942). That book is a collection of lectures that he gave between 1924 and 1927 at the Theosophical Society regarding Madame Blavatsky's book The Secret Doctrine (1888). Purucker there uses both the terms ‘Oversoul’ and ‘Overself’: Thyself–what is it? It is consciousness; it is also the heart of the universe. Thyself, that self which is the same in thee and in me, in you and in all others, which is not different in any one of us, as compared with any other one of us. It is the ultimate self, the spiritual oversoul; and therefore it is the one self, the heart of the universe. It is the consciousness in you which says simply “I am,” and that same consciousness is in me and in all others: in the Teacher, in the chelas of the Teachers, in the Teachers of the Teachers, in the Silent Watcher of our supernal sphere–that overself is the same in all entities comprised in any hierarchy. But while that Overself is the same in you, and in me, and in all that is, not different anywhere from what it is anywhere else; yet this does not comprise all there is of us psychologically speaking. There is something else within us, not different from the oversoul but a ray of that oversoul, so to say, and this something else in each one of us is the individual ego: that part in each of us which says not merely “I am,” but “I am I,” and not you (De Purucker, c. 48).

Gottfried de Purucker was a leader of the Theosophical Society from 1929 until his death in 1942. The book referred to is considered the classic

commentary on Blavatsky's The Secret Doctrine. Purucker’s book was published in 1932, two years before Brunton published The Secret Path. The term ‘Overself’ is therefore a term associated with Blavatsky's theosophy.[17] Purucker's idea that the ego is a “ray” of this Overself is something that is also found in Brunton, although Brunton could also have obtained it from Emerson’s writings directly. b) Brunton's Boyhood and Youth Brunton's real name was Raphael Hurst. Cahn Fung says that he was born in London on November 27, 1898, the son of Jewish parents. But there is some confusion as to his exact birthday. His own son says that Brunton's real birthday was October 21, 1898, and that Brunton did not want astrological charts made for that date (Hurst, 219). Brunton's mother died when he was young, and he was brought up by a stepmother whom he called ‘Auntie.’ Brunton was a sensitive young boy. He writes, “Boyhood years had been shadowed by a terrible and tremendous yearning to penetrate the mystery of life's inner meaning” (Brunton, Hidden Teaching, 23). As a boy, Brunton was already practicing meditation: Before I reached the threshold of manhood and after six months of unwavering daily practice of meditation and eighteen months of burning aspiration for the Spiritual Self, I underwent a series of mystical ecstasies. During them I attained a kind of elementary consciousness of it. If anyone could imagine a consciousness which does not objectify anything but remains in its own native purity, a happiness beyond which it is impossible to go, and a self which is unvaryingly one and the same, he would have the correct idea of the Overself....(Hurst, 42-43).

Brunton says much the same thing in Hidden Teaching, where he “confesses” that he was not a novice in yoga before he met Ramana: Before I crossed the threshold of manhood the power of inward contemplation had been laid up as treasure in heaven, the ineffable ecstasies of mystical trance had become a daily occurrence in the calendar of life, the abnormal mental phenomena which attend the earlier experience of yoga were commonplace and familiar, whilst the dry labours of meditation had disappeared into effortless ease […] In the deepest stage of trance I

seemed to become extended in space, an incorporeal being (Brunton, Hidden Teaching, 23).  

c) Allan Bennet (Bhikku Ananda Metteya) Allan Bennet (1872 -1923), also known as the Bhikku Ananda Metteya, introduced Brunton to Buddhist thought and Buddhist methods of meditation. Brunton kept a photo of Bennet on his living room wall. Bennet was a British occultist; he was a teacher of Aleister Crowley when they both were members of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. Bennet was the author of several books on Buddhism. Bennet also wrote articles for the Theosophical Review. Bennet had been influenced by Edwin Arnold’s poem, “The Light of Asia.” As a result, he journeyed to Sri Lanka and Burma to study Buddhism and, in 1901, was ordained in Burma as Venerable Ananda Metteya, the first Westerner to become a Buddhist monk. In 1903, Bennet founded the International Buddhist Society (Buddhasasana Samagama) in Rangoon. An English monk from that Society, Frederic Fletcher (known as Prajnananda), accompanied Brunton on his visit to Ramana. d) The Theosophical Society Brunton joined the Theosophical Society (which had been founded in 1875 by Madame H.P. Blavatsky and Colonel Olcott). He later left the Theosophical Society, but as we shall see, he continued with his interest in occult subjects, and he joined a similar society. e) Michael Juste At the Theosophical Society, Brunton met Michael Juste (also known as Michael Houghton). Juste wrote the book, The White Brother: an Occult Autobiography. The book refers to their theosophical studies, and specifically mentions Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine. A student in Juste's book named David was modeled on Brunton. This character appears in the book as a pale and slender youth: Here I met David, who was to become my partner and companion in many spiritual and material ventures, and a fellow-pilgrim in the quest of realization. […] David was of short and somewhat slight stature, pale and intensely sensitive (he originally disliked me because I was too crude, and argued with him), serious, and, I used to think, much too casual about the incidents of the world, and much too deeply, engrossed in the world within.

He always appeared to move in a perpetual haze. He had had some most interesting experiences of an occult nature when young, which helped me to prove the existence of unknown states of consciousness, and when I first met him his air of other-worldliness puzzled me greatly. I remember particularly one day, when I was waiting for him in the shadow of a staircase, he touched me to see if I was real or a ghost. Life to him was then very insubstantial, although since that period he has had experiences which have taught him the wisdom of planting his feet firmly on earth (Juste, 15).

Juste writes that all of these students were unbalanced and neurotic, although they called their behaviour merely unconventional and bohemian. But Juste says that the mystic is “the mystical fool of God who has to learn Balance, Discrimination and Understanding” (Juste, 15). Juste says that Brunton (or “David”) sometimes studied astrology, generally wandering about as though caught in the “misty maze of a dream” (Juste, 19). They opened a bookshop together in Bloomsbury, which failed and closed after only six months. They then sought a cheaper place for their bookshop (Juste, 27, 32). It appears that Juste later opened the famous Atlantis Bookshop in Bloomsbury, which specializes in occult books. It is unclear to me whether Brunton had an ownership in that bookshop.   f) Thurston (‘M’) Hurst says that in 1922, Brunton met an “American painter” living in London named Thurston, whom he said was a kind of clairvoyant. The meeting occurred in the bookshop in Bloomsbury (Hurst, 59). Juste was also present. Thurston predicted that Brunton would discover and publish ancient mysteries. Brunton regarded Thurston as his first teacher. In fact, Brunton named his son after Thurston, who claimed to have contacted his son while still in the womb. Brunton's son Kenneth Thurston Hurst, was born the next year, 1923. Although Thurston was of great importance to Brunton, very little is known about him. We don't know his first name or date of birth. Cahn Fung says that he died in the mid-1920's. I have wondered whether he is perhaps Frederic W. Thurstan, who contributed articles to The Occult Review and The Theosophist. F.W. Thurstan wrote about the Mahatmas of India, Hindu rishis, angelic powers as well as of the mysteries of ancient Egypt. If Thurston was indeed Thurstan, then there is a remarkable convergence in

that Humphreys, the first person to write about Ramana in English, was encouraged to send his reports because of interest generated by Thurstan's previous articles in the International Psychic Gazette (Glimpses, 13). Whether or not Thurston is the same as Thurstan, we do know about Thurston's ideas through his books. He wrote The Dayspring of Youth. The author of the book is identified as ‘M’. According to the preface, M. also wrote The Lord God of Truth Within. Both books were published posthumously. Hurst says that Juste assisted in editing Dayspring (Hurst, 59). Thurston also translated and annotated the occult book Le Comte de Gabalis, written in 1652 by l’Abbé N. de Montfaucon de Villars (1635-1673). Juste confirms the meeting with Thurston, whom he refers to as 'M.' Both he and Brunton met Thurston. Thurston made many visits to their bookshop. On his first visit, he brought a book. It was Le Comte de Gabalis (Juste 24-5). Juste found the definition of a Master in that book: A master is an evolved being who has perfected a mental body in which he can function consciously while out of his physical vehicle (Juste, 25).

Juste also quotes the following passage from Le Comte de Gabalis regarding concentration in meditation: By concentration in meditation upon a given subject, and by the effort of regular breathing, the inhalation and exhalation occupying the same space of time, the mind may be held so that it is not subject to other thought than that pertaining to the object or symbol of expression about which man desires knowledge. And if man will persist in this practice, he can enter into an harmonious relationship to the Divinity within, and from that source can gain knowledge which is the result of the soul’s own experience while passing through the higher and lower states of matter. At the same time, if man will concentrate upon the highest, he can evoke from within self, that Solar Force and Power which if directed upwards will awaken and revitalize those ganglia or organs of perception hitherto withheld from his use. If it be true from God we came, to God we return, life is but the attainment of that consciousness which is of God. And man is therefore shut out from the knowledge of his true being and estate until he seeks atonement with his own Divine Lifeprinciple, and its evolution and manifestation in him (Juste, 51).

Juste never mentions that Thurston was either an American or an artist. There are a few references to art. Juste says a “sylph” of wonderful beauty

once visited Thurston. Sylphs are among the beings referred to in Le Comte de Gabalis. A sylph had a magnificent head of hair, and Thurston said it “would take a painter a month to draw” it (Juste, p 31). And Thurston said that the American artist Whistler taught the world to see (Juste, 56). Thurston's book Dayspring is worth looking at in order to understand Brunton. The book refers to a cosmic hierarchal energy, which appears at the beginning of a new age in man’s development. Through yoga, a student attempts to tune himself into this directing consciousness, and this is done through the agency of “the Brothers”: A Fraternity known as The Brothers has existed before man descended into matter, and have worked and still work out in the world upon the Path of activity. They appear only as an active Brotherhood when the cosmic energy of a Dayspring of Youth brings them into manifestation to bring its vibration into the minds of those who seek their Innermost (Dayspring, 12).

Thurston refers to “the Higher Self,” which he says is created from the best of man’s aspirations during his descent and evolution through matter. It is the intermediary between man and his Innermost, and pleads for the remission of our past evil after we have reviewed this through Yoga practice (Dayspring, 14). Juste also refers to Thurston's use of the term ‘Higher Self’ (Juste, 27). And Thurston uses the term ‘Innermost’ to refer to that part of Reality (God) within man to which the yogi seeks to attune himself before attaining cosmic consciousness (Dayspring, 15). In Thurston's idea of an intermediary, we have an early parallel to Brunton's idea of the Overself as intermediary. We can also see parallels to Brunton's later idea of “mentalism”: Occultism teaches us that the visible universe is but the lower counterpart of the higher one which, if perceived, would give us youth and happiness. All that we see about us is illusory and but a fragment of something greater; for our minds are imprisoned and held subject to our own illusion world. When we can pierce this we shall perceive in the depths of Nature a mind that directs and guides all things (Dayspring, 21).

And like Brunton was later to do, Thurston opposes mere mysticism to the “science” of yoga: We are not blind like the mystic who, though radiating great love, has little to demonstrate; for the mystic and Yogi of this science are far apart. The mystic with fasting and praying weakens his body, seeking to make it subservient to

its Higher Self, of whom he is ignorant, and only Its fragrance and peace remains in his heart; but the Yogi will develop and learn from his atomic intelligence his own great truth (Dayspring, 31).

Thurston was certainly interested in occult powers. Thurston says that as we pass through each division of Nature we are taught the laws and customs of each sphere. From these we learn what is known as Nature’s magic. The elementals working with us can manipulate mind-stuff and produce illusions that to the beholders would seem miracles (Dayspring, 72). He speaks of the importance of gaining “knower consciousness,” to know a thing without thought. It is an instantaneous method. He gives the example of a yogi, who can say immediately where you would be at ten o’clock the following morning (Dayspring, 86). The advanced Yogi increases and diminishes his own wavelength; he seeks to attune his mind to move in harmony with each sheath (Dayspring, 107). Thurston refers to White Magicians, who seek to serve humanity impersonally and obey the directions of their Innermosts according to the degree of their occult development. A mantra is used to harmonize body and its centres with the finer forces in Nature and in man. Thurston refers to Michael Juste’s book, The White Brother. This reference is a bit odd, since as we have seen, this book by Juste book contains a good deal of information about Thurston or ‘M.’ There is therefore a kind of self-reference by Thurston in referring to Juste’s book. Thurston refers to a passage in The White Brother regarding levitation, and the power to pass from a dense state of mind-matter into a finer state (Dayspring, 72). He appears to be referring to Juste's report of his experience with M. in mentally traveling to visit a friend who was in Africa. A letter from the friend later confirmed the details of their mental vision. Thurston also refers to Le Comte de Gabalis (Dayspring, 85). It can be seen from this brief review of Dayspring that Thurston was very much concerned with developing special powers. Thurston’s writings were an important and continuing influence on Brunton, especially in regard to the seeking of such powers. g) Brunton’s continued interest in occult powers Brunton left the Theosophical Society after only two years. But he says that by then he had obtained certain psychic powers:

I developed in little time powers of mediumship, in particular clairvoyance and clairaudience, and thus obtained the best kind of proof in the existence of a psychic world, in other words by personal experience, without having recourse to professional mediums. After I had completely established the truth of the afterlife for myself, I turned toward the study of Theosophy and I belonged to the Theosophical Society. I am aware of what I learned there in the course of this second phase; but at the end of two years I left the Society. I felt that the adepts who had presided over its foundation were now retired, abandoning the society to its own devices. But it was Theosophy which gave me my first introduction to Oriental thought...[18]

Brunton’s use of the word ‘adept’ here is important, since he will later refer to Hindu and Egyptian masters as adepts. And Brunton continued to maintain an interest in special powers or siddhis. For a time, Brunton joined the Spiritualist Society. Brunton also wrote numerous articles for The Occult Review. That journal was published by William Rider and Sons, the same company that had published Le Comte de Gabalis, and that would later publish Brunton's books about Ramana. Some of these articles were written under his real name, Raphael Hurst. But others were written under the pseudonyms ‘Raphael Meriden’ and ‘Raphael Delmonte.’ Cahn Fung says that Brunton later unequivocally condemned occultism. But even if Brunton repudiated occultism in later life, I am interested in looking at his views at the time that he met Ramana in 1931, and at the time he wrote A Search in Secret India. Brunton told his son Kenneth Thurston Hurst that he had occult and clairvoyant powers, including astral travel. He told his son that he had an American Indian as a guardian angel. And he recommended that his son read Madame Blavatsky's Key to Theosophy (Hurst 42, 51, 91). His son was only born in 1923, and would have been 8 years old at the time Brunton met Ramana. If he recommended this kind of reading, it indicates that Brunton’s interest in these matters continued long after he met Ramana. Even later, Brunton related similar powers to a young disciple, Jeffrey Masson. Masson says that Brunton always carried a magic wand or glass rod (Masson 1993). And, as will be discussed below, it seems that one of Brunton's disappointments with Ramana was that Ramana did not impart more special powers to him. Even after he met Ramana in 1931, Brunton continued to publish in The Occult Review. In 1932, under the name ‘Brunton Paul,’ Brunton published

an article in that journal entitled “With a Southern Indian Tantrist” (Brunton 1932b). The article does not even mention his visit the previous year with Ramana. It is about someone he met in Madras named Bramasuganandah. Brunton says that he met him not many miles from where the Theosophical Society has its headquarters. Brunton relates the story Bramasuganandah's life. “At about the age of twelve he had heard of the occult path, the way of yoga…” Thus even in 1932, after meeting Ramana, Brunton regarded Indian yoga in terms of occultism. Bramasuganandah told Brunton that he himself had a guru who was over four hundred years old. He told Brunton about secret herbs that prolong life, and how yoga is also a means of attaining longevity. He gave a tantric diagram (yantra) to Brunton and told him that if he glanced at it, Brunton would be able to connect with him on the astral plane. Now it is true that Brunton expresses skepticism regarding these powers. But the focus of the article is on the siddhis. Later that same year, Brunton published a review of the occultist Aleister Crowley, also in The Occult Review. h) Brunton’s materialism before his spiritual quest It is curious that before Brunton went to India, he participated in a very materialistic venture. He founded a magazine called Success. The magazine contained interviews of leaders of industry like J.W. Woolworth, Lord Leverhulme, and Sir Herbert Austin (Hurst, 63). He started the magazine in 1929, the year of the stock market crash, and the magazine soon folded (Cahn Fung, I, 18). The next year, Brunton left for India. Brunton did not disclose the fact of this business failure. Narasimha says that Brunton rejected a profitable journalistic proposal (Narasimha, 231).    

3. A Search in Secret India (1934) a) Writing the book We now will examine Brunton’s books, particularly those that refer to Ramana. Brunton continued to be preoccupied with occult powers even after he met Ramana, and this influenced the way that he wrote about him. Brunton first visited Ramana for two weeks in January 1931. Brunton then moved on in search of other gurus and miracle workers. He was about to leave India when he thought back on Ramana. A “voice” told him to return.

The next day he received a letter from someone at the ashram, “You have had the good fortune to meet a real Master” (Search, 273). He saw this as a sign and went back to visit Ramana. This second visit also lasted several weeks. During his second visit with Ramana, Brunton became ill (“blackwater fever”) and he then returned to England. The fever lasted on and off for two years (Cahn Fung, I, 38). Brunton wrote A Search in Secret India in a small Quaker village in Buckinghamshire (Hurst, 73). Every Sunday he joined the Quaker meeting in the village (Cahn Fung I, 38). The book was published in 1934, and he sent one of the first copies of this book to Ramana. b) The impact of A Search in Secret India Brunton’s book was enormously influential. Many people visited Ramana as a result of reading this book. As early as January 6, 1935, an English lady, Mrs. M.A. Piggot came to see Ramana because she had read Brunton’s book. Douglas Ainslie, nephew of a former Governor of Madras came to see Ramana with a letter of introduction from Brunton (Talks, 7; Jan. 19, 1935). So did W.Y. Evans-Wentz, the Oxford scholar of Tibetan religion (Talks, 9; Jan. 24, 1935). A Muslim is reported as having tried the method of self-enquiry, as described by Brunton (Talks, 11; para. 123; Jan. 3, 1936). Ramana himself read Brunton’s book, and recommended that others read it. There are several references to Brunton’s book in Talks, and Ramana expressly says that the book is useful even for Indians (Talks, 121, par. 137). As already mentioned, Swami Yogananda visited Ramana in 1935 after reading Brunton’s books. He met Brunton at the ashram, and praised his writing. A visitor mentioned Brunton's reference to the peace that Ramana bestowed on visitors, as mentioned by Brunton. He asked Ramana whether peace is the sole criterion of a Mahatma's Presence. Ramana seemed to concur, saying that subduing egos is “a much more formidable task than slaying a thousand elephants” (Talks, 216, par. 262). Another visitor, evidently a friend of Brunton's, was seeking a spiritual experience. She had a vision of Ramana with a child-like, cherubic face. Ramana said, “Paul Brunton saw me as a giant figure; you saw me like a child. Both are visions” (Talks, 264, par. 304).

Ramana was also asked about the last chapter of Search, where Brunton says it is possible to be conscious without thinking (Talks, 49 para. 43). S.S. Cohen, a disciple of Ramana, asked for an explanation of the “blazing light” referred to by Brunton in the last chapter of Search. Ramana said, Since the experience is through the mind only it appears first as a blaze of light. The mental predispositions are not yet destroyed (Talks, 167; June 14, 1936).

This incident of interpreting Brunton’s reference in Search to the “blazing light” is also reported elsewhere: It is said that during their exercises, yogis experience several lights and colours, before they actually realize the Self (Conscious Immortality, 42).

Ramana says he had “thousands of such experiences” (visions and hearing mystic sounds). Another questioner referred to Brunton's report that the experience of realization was indescribable. It seems that Ramana agreed with that statement. "The answer was there" (Talks, 464, par. 485). Another visitor asked Ramana about Brunton's statement that he had one hour's samadhi. He asked whether samadhi can come and go. Ramana said that Brunton's peace of mind was the result of his own efforts. But the real state is effortless and permanent (Talks, 552-3, para. 597). Brunton’s book Search continued to attract interest. In January, 1946, Ramana was shown a small pamphlet called “Divine Grace Through Total Self-Surrender” by D.C. Desai. It contained extensive quotations from Brunton, and Ramana read them out to those who were listening. I remain perfectly calm and fully aware of who I am and what is occurring. Self still exists, but it is a changed, radiant Self. Something that is far superior to my unimportant personality rises into consciousness and becomes me. I am in the midst of an ocean of blazing light. I sit in the lap of holy bliss.

and Divine grace is a manifestation of the cosmic free-will in operation. It can alter the course of events in a mysterious manner through its own unknown laws, which are superior to all natural laws, and can modify the latter by interaction. It is the most powerful force in the universe.

and

It descends and acts, only when it is invoked by total Self-surrender. It acts from within, because God resides in the heart of all beings. Its whisper can be heard only in a mind purified by self-surrender and prayer.

and Rationalists laugh at it and atheists scorn it, but it exists. It is a descent of God into the soul’s zone of awareness. It is a visitation of force unexpected and unpredictable. It is a voice spoken out of cosmic silence…..It is cosmic will which can perform authentic miracles under its own laws (Day by Day, 77)

The first quotations are not exact, but are clearly derived from Brunton’s book Search (p. 305). The source of the other quotations is unclear. Ramana’s ashram continues to distribute Brunton’s writings about Ramana. They were collected in a smaller book entitled The Maharshi and his Message. After Brunton’s death, his son Kenneth Hurst gave the ashram Brunton’s notes from his visits with Ramana in the 1930’s. From these and other notes by Munagala Venkataramiah, another book was compiled entitled Conscious Immortality. It was first published in 1984, and then revised in 1996 in what was considered to be a more systematic manner, and “amended” in accordance with other sources of the same facts. It is therefore a little difficult to know which are Brunton’s own words. We need to examine what Brunton says in A Search in Secret India. In view of Brunton's later confession that he used Ramana as a “peg” for his own ideas, we will look at his descriptions of both his own experience and the experience of Ramana in terms of Brunton's previous ideas. c) Brunton’s sources for the book Brunton says that he consulted both Ramana and other disciples in order to write his book (Search, 281). Narasimha says that Brunton visited Ramana after Narasimha’s own biography of Ramana had been published (Narasimha, 231). As already mentioned, Narasimha relied on the previous account by Humphreys for his biography. So these two biographies were available to Brunton by the time that he arrived at the ashram in 1931, or at least by the time of his second visit. In subsequent editions of his biography of Ramana, Narasimha added two chapters on Brunton. In these revised chapters, Narasimha mentions that

Brunton was interested in theosophy, spiritualism hypnotism, thoughtreading, and had obtained some first-hand experiences in some of these fields (Narasimha, 231). We will examine in more detail Brunton’s interest in these occult powers. But it is important to note that Brunton’s background, and his interest in these occult powers was also evident to Narasimha. d) Brunton’s account of his encounters with Ramana Brunton claims that he visited Ramana with Yogi Subrahmanya (Search, 132). The implication is that this was a Hindu disciple of Ramana. But there is an independent account of Brunton’s first visit. In this account, Brunton is still known as R. Raphael Hurst. His companion is identified as an English Buddhist monk, Prajnananda. Prajnananda is reported to have founded “the English Ashrama in Rangoon.” Graeme Lyall gives information about a Prajnananda who seems to fit this description: In 1922, a British expedition set out for Tibet in order to study Tibetan Buddhism. They reached the southern Tibetan city of Shigatse but were refused permission to proceed to the capital Lhasa where they had hoped to meet the Thirteenth Dalai Lama. However, one of their number, Frederic Fletcher, ordained in the Gelugpa or Yellow Hat tradition under the name of Lama Dorje Prajnananda. He later also received Theravada ordination in Sri Lanka and therefore had dual loyalties to both the Theravada and Vajrayana traditions.[19]

Prajnananda therefore seems to be the Englishman Frederic Fletcher.[20] Lyall gives no sources for these statements, but there was an English expedition to Tibet in 1922, led by George E. O. Knight.[21] If Fletcher had been to Tibet, then that would be one explanation for Brunton’s later attempt to visit Tibet. Furthermore, there appears to be a connection with Brunton’s Buddhist mentor Allan Bennet. For it was Bennet who founded the International Buddhist Society in Burma. Bennet and Fletcher must have known each other in London. Both of them also appear to have written articles for The Theosophical Review. Why did Brunton not acknowledge that his companion was Frederic Fletcher (Prajnananda)? Why did he change these facts about his visit? Was he afraid that if he acknowledged the Tibetan Buddhist and theosophical connections to his quest that it would be seen that he was not the naive journalist he pretended to be? Brunton’s lack of candour here is

the first indication we have that his account of his visit is not completely trustworthy. e) Ramana’s Silent Healing Vibrations There are two accounts of why Ramana was silent for two hours on Brunton’s first visit. Brunton says that he seated himself before Ramana, but that there was no response. Brunton says that as he waited in silence, his questions slowly started to disappear. But it is not till the second hour of the uncommon scene that I become aware of a silent, restless change which is taking place within my mind. One by one, the questions which I have prepared in the train with such meticulous accuracy drop away (Search, 141).

Brunton also describes the mysterious peace that he felt: I begin to wonder whether, by some radioactivity of the soul, some unknown telepathic process, the stillness which invades the troubled waters of my own soul really comes from him (Search, 142)

Brunton says that not till after two hours did someone ask if he had questions. But Brunton’s reason for the silence is contradicted by the independent report of his visit. That report says that an initial silence was broken by the person who brought them, asking if the visitors had any questions. But “They were, however, not in a mood to do so, and thus and hour and a half passed. “According to this version, the lengthy silence was due to Brunton, and not due to Ramana. Everyone else was waiting for something to happen. Thus, the silence was equally unexpected for Ramana’s disciples. The report says that after that hour and a half, Hurst [Brunton] asked a question: In a voice of intense earnestness he said that he had come to India for spiritual enlightenment. “Not only myself,” he added, “but many others also in the West are longing for the Light from the East.”

The report says that Ramana “sat completely indrawn and paid no attention.” That hardly sounds like someone radiating peace. The report says that someone then asked Ramana and the English monk if they were studying comparative religion. The monk replied, No, we could get that better in Europe. We want to find Truth; we want the Light. Can we know Truth? Is it possible to get Enlightenment?

But Ramana still remained silent and indrawn. It is then said that Brunton and the monk wanted to take a walk. So the conversation ended and everyone dispersed. Now which version is correct? Brunton’s or the independent account? I prefer the independent account, because if Brunton’s first visit was so wonderful, it is hardly likely that he would have left Ramana to seek other gurus. Ramana’s silent rebuff to his earnest question must have seemed an affront. Brunton gives a very different version in Search, where he says that he did not ask any questions at that time. If Ramana was teaching Brunton by his silence, that is not the way that it appeared to the onlookers who reported the visit. They report no evidence of ecstasy in Brunton. The only report is that Brunton and his companion, the Buddhist monk, wanted to go for a walk. We have every reason to distrust what Brunton says, since he later admitted that he had only been using Ramana for his preconceived ideas. Brunton repeats this idea of healing vibrations in his account of his second visit to Ramana later that year. Brunton speaks of “benign radiations” (Search, 279 ). And he says that one enjoys tranquility merely by sitting in his presence. There is a “reciprocal inter-influence” (Search, 280). He says, So I remain silent and wait. For almost half an hour the Maharishee’s eyes continue to stare straight in front of him in a fixed, unmoving gaze. He appears to have forgotten me, but I am perfectly aware that the sublime realization which has suddenly fallen upon me is nothing else than a spreading ripple of telepathic radiation from this mysterious and imperturbable man (Search, 280).

There is an “unseen power of the sage being powerfully impacted on my mentality” (Search, 293), “beneficent radiation which emanates from him” (Search, 300). And Brunton wants to link these telepathic radiations with science: I am learning to see that this is the Maharishee’s way of helping others, this unobtrusive, silent and steady outpouring of healing vibrations into troubled souls, this mysterious telepathic process for which science will one day be required to account (Search, 290).

In these emphases on radiating energy, Brunton seems to follow Humphreys’ report from 1913. Humphreys had also reported a first silent meeting with Ramana:

For half an hour I looked Him in the eyes which never changed their expression of deep contemplation. I began to realize somewhat that the body is the Temple of the Holy Ghost–I could only feel His body was not the man, it was the instrument of God, merely a sitting motionless corpse from which God was radiating terrifically. My own sensations were indescribable (Glimpses, 15).

This idea of a Master radiating energy is something that Humphreys was familiar with from theosophy. Humphreys also says that when he first met Ramana he “felt lifted out of myself” (Glimpses, 15). And Brunton reports the same thing: Suddenly, my body seems to disappear, and we are both out in space! (Search, 163).

Humphreys also reports Ramana as saying that when you attain realization, …mind and body physically (so to speak) disappear and the only thing that remains is Being, which is at once existence and non-existence, and not explainable in words and ideas (Glimpses, 21).

It appears that Brunton was appropriating Humphreys’ reports into the report of his own visits. Brunton was aware of Humphreys’ reports at least by the time of his second visit to Ramana. If he did not read Humphreys’ reports directly, he would have seen Narasimha’s book, which incorporates them. Brunton may even have known about Humphreys’ work before he arrived in India, since the accounts had been published in London in 1913 in the International Psychic Gazette. F.W. Thurstan was also writing in the Gazette, and if he is indeed the same person as Thurston, then Brunton would almost certainly have known about Ramana. It was not only Humphreys’ ideas that were appropriated. Brunton also copied many sayings of Ramana and passed them off as his own. This was one of the reasons why the ashram later disallowed Brunton from taking notes of disciples’ conversations with Ramana, and then finally barred Brunton from visiting the ashram altogether. But we will discuss his disagreements with Ramana and the ashram in more detail below. It seems evident that Brunton altered the facts regarding his first meeting with Ramana. In making this alteration, for which of his preconceived ideas was he using Ramana as a “peg?” Is the idea of the beneficent radiations from Ramana one of Brunton’s preconceived ideas? And if so, did it

correspond to how Ramana viewed himself at the time? These are very important questions. Brunton’s repeated comments about these radiations of healing vibrations from Ramana involve several interrelated although inconsistent ideas: (1) Brunton says that the radiations have a telepathic effect. Telepathy is one of the special powers or siddhis that interested Brunton. But as we shall see, Ramana does not at all emphasize the importance of siddhis. (2) The idea that a realized Master can help others in silence is a theosophical idea. According to the teachings of the Theosophical Society, a Master or Mahatma possessed extraordinary powers that were available to others. Already in 1889, Madame Blavatsky wrote the book The Voice of the Silence. In their commentary on that book, Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater say, The strength of many a man who is doing vigorous work in the world comes largely from others who are engaged in radiating spiritual force in meditation (Besant 1947, c. 5, 429).

 (3) Brunton wanted to link these special powers with science. That was a common concern of both theosophy and neo-Hinduism. (4) Brunton believed that a true sage would help others. He said that the term sage must be reserved for those who have sacrificed every future nirvanic beatitude in order to return to earth until all are saved. They feel for others and must return, since they have found the unity of all human beings. The idea of helping the external world is an idea of neo-Hinduism. Ethics presuppose relationships. Relations between persons cannot exist in monism, where only Brahman exists. A monism of Brahman alone results in an egoism of the universal One (Hacker, 277, 306). An “egoism of the Ultimate” is not the same as compassion towards others as others. The idea of compassion was emphasized in Vivekånanda’s neo-Hinduism. Although Ramana was acquainted with the neo-Hindu ideas of Vivekananda as early as 1901, and although Ramana adopted some of his ideas, he also makes some very traditional advaitic statements that there is no external world to help. For example, Ramana was asked by a disciple, “How can I help others?” Ramana replied: Who is there for you to help? Who is the ‘I’ that is to help others? First clear up that point and then everything will settle itself.

Inasmuch as there is no ego in him, there are not others for him. […] When there is no mind he cannot be aware of others (Talks, 552; Dec. 20, 1938).

The scholar of Tibetan Studies, Evans-Wentz asked Ramana whether it would not be better if a saint mixed with others. Ramana replied, “There are no others to mix with. The Self is the one and only Reality” (Talks, 16). A very interesting account of Ramana’s silence is given by Major A.W. Chadwick, also known as Sadhu Arunachala. Chadwick came to Ramana’s ashram on Nov 1, 1935, having heard of Ramana though Brunton’s book A Search in Secret India (Chadwick, 11). Chadwick asked Ramana about his vow of silence. Ramana said there was never any vow, but he had observed how convenient it was: …while living in temple at one time he found himself seated for a while by a Sadhu who was observing such a vow and saw how convenient it was as the crowds did not worry the Sadhu in the same way as they worried him. So for convenience he pretended to copy him. “There was no vow, I just kept quiet, I spoke when it was necessary,” he explained. I asked him how long this had continued. “For about two years,” he replied (Chadwick, 18).

When did Ramana live in a temple except the time after he left home at the age of 16? Chadwick’s account indicates that Ramana copied being silent in order to avoid being bothered by others. Chadwick says that Ramana’s mouna [silence] was “mythical.” Once he had achieved perfection, he just sought out quiet places where he thought that he would not be disturbed and where he might enjoy Bliss. It was all a dream anyhow, so why do anything about it? Just sit somewhere and enjoy the Self. What did teaching others and helping the world signify? There were no others (Chadwick, 19).

If we look at reports of visits prior to Brunton, most of the emphasis is not on his silence but on how Ramana provided oral or written answers to disciples. Humphreys emphasizes that Ramana called forth appropriate words in response to questions by disciples. He says A Master when instructing is far from any thought of instructing; but to feel a doubt or a difficulty in his presence is to call forth, at once, before you can express the doubt, the wonderful words which will clear away that doubt. The words never fail and the Master with his heart fixed on GOD, realising perfectly that no action is a personal one, making no claims to have either originated the thought or to have been the means of destroying a doubt,

saying never “I” or “Mine”, seeing only GOD in every thought and action, whether they be yours or his, feels no surprise, no especial pleasure to himself in having allayed your doubt (Glimpses, 26).

So for Humphreys, the allaying of doubts is done by words, even if these words appear before one has expressed his doubts. He compares this to Jesus, whom he says was “utterly unconscious when He worked His miracles, and spoke His wonderful words” (Glimpses, 25).   Humphreys does say that Ramana had observed silence for two years. He broke this silence when he spoke to Ganapati Sastri. He says that this meeting with Sastri occurred six years before Humphreys visited Ramana in 1911 (Glimpses, 28). But even during his silence, Ramana was giving instructions by answering questions on written slips of paper that were later collected into Ramana book Self-Enquiry. The emphasis was not on silent teaching, but on giving answers. Sometimes Ramana would just pick up a book and point to a passage in answer to a question (Narasimha, 73). It is interesting that Ramana himself later commented on this practice: Some people say that they are observing mowna [silence] by keeping their mouths shut but at the same time they go on writing something or other on bits of paper or on a slate. Is that not another form of activity of the mind? (Letters, 236, Sept. 3, 1947).

Thus, Ramana himself casts doubt on whether his silence in the caves was real mouna. Narasimha also emphasizes that Ramana taught in words. He repeats Humphreys’ view that Ramana addresses some devotees on the very matter that they were seeking his help, but without their expressing themselves. But when people come in to test Ramana’s learning or skill in dialectics, it is then that Ramana becomes silent (Narasimha, 190-91). For example, if someone questioned Ramana about evolution or biology, he would remain silent. By his silence he would be “pointing out the inappropriateness of those questions” (Narasimha, 191). These references to Ramana’s silence are quite different from Brunton’s claims that Ramana was teaching and radiating energy by his silence. But there are also some writings that pre-date Brunton’s visit that emphasize the radiating power of Ramana’s presence. We have already referred to Humphreys’ account. Humphreys first met Ramana with Ganapati Muni. Both had theosophical interests.

And as we shall see in Chapter 7, Ganapati Muni also had many nontraditional Hindu influences, including tantra. If Ramana believed that his silence radiated power, then Ramana was probably also influenced by Ganapati Muni and these non-traditional sources. Kapali Sastri, a disciple of Ganapati Sastri, writes about the radiating power of Brahman as the universal fire within each individual: His living is a source of joy and power of the living of others, to the general progress of the world, of all beings, and of the human kind in particular that is closer to his level. Whether the others in the outer world know it or not, he radiates the rays of wisdom, throws out waves of life-giving strength, emanates the concrete influence spontaneously exercised for the onward march of the soul’s progress in others. Therefore other souls feel joyous and satisfied when they are drawn to him.[22]

Narasimha refers to accounts by M. Sivaprakasam Pillai of visits with Ramana in 1902 and 1913. From these accounts, Narasimha infers that Ramana …has a powerful, magnetic personality, that by staying with him for some time a person may change his life habits and instincts, and that by this grace one can receive faith in God as tangibly and certainly as one receives a fruit or a book (Narasimha, 76-77).

Another source for the idea of silent instruction is Shankara’s work on Dakshinamurti (a form of Siva used in mediation). Dakshinamurti is said to have taught by his silence. Ramana was asked about the significance of the silence of Dakshinamurti. His answer was Many are the explanations given by scholars and sages. Have it any way you please (Talks, 119; Jan 6, 1936).

Ramana therefore seemed to allow disciples to project whatever views they wanted on his silence. Chadwick reports that Ramana “was like a mirror which seemed to reflect back your own feelings” (Chadwick, 15). But elsewhere, Ramana said that Dakshinamurti gave initiation (diksha) by silence (Talks, 402; Dec. 26, 1937). And a year later, Ramana gave a more extended talk on Dakshinamurti’s silence. Ramana said that those who saw Dakshinamurti as he sat in perfect repose themselves fell into samadhi and their doubts were at an end (Talks 528; Nov. 7, 1938). There was a picture of Dakshinamurti painted on the wall next to Ramana’s dais. There was also a portrait of Sri Ramakrishna (Osborne 1997b, 146). Ramakrishna was

the teacher of Vivekananda, who transformed Ramakrishna’s teachings into neo-Hinduism’s concern for the world. It is therefore unclear to me whether or not Ramana, prior to Brunton’s visit, believed that his silence would teach and help disciples by a kind of telepathic radiation. As we have seen, many of Ramana’s statements present a traditional monistic view of advaita, where the world is unreal, and there would be no one to help in this way. Osborne reports that Ramana held to both opinions: that we are to help others, and that Realization is the best help we can give them. But in fact there are no others to help (Teachings, 186). But it is clear that after Brunton wrote A Search in Secret India, Ramana promoted this view of his powers of silence. Here are some quotations from Ramana after the date of Brunton’s visit: Lectures may entertain individuals for a few hours without improving them. Silence on the other hand is permanent and benefits the whole of humanity (Talks, 18; Jan. 30, 1935). Public speeches, physical activity and material help are all outweighed by the silence of Mahatmas. They accomplish more than others (Talks, 227; Oct. 23, 1936). Preaching is simple communication of knowledge. It may be done in Silence, too. (Talks, 243; Nov. 18, 1936). Silence is the most potent form of work (Talks, 370; April 14, 1937). Guru’s silence is the loudest upadesa [instruction] …If the Guru is silent the seeker’s mind gets purified by itself. (Talks, 501; Sept. 27, 1938). Silence is “eternal eloquence” (Talks, 141; Feb. 24/1936).

And Chadwick reports that Ramana’s “conversation” with the novelist Somerset Maugham was a half hour of silence. Ramana said, “Silence is best. Silence is itself conversation” (Chadwick, 38). And Ramana said “the realized ones send out waves of spiritual influence which draw many people towards them, even though they may be sitting silently in a cave” (Conscious Immortality, 134). What is interesting is that Ramana justified his belief in the teaching power of silence by appealing to Brunton’s books! We shall see this when we look at the book The Secret Path.

But we should not conclude that Ramana was always silent. His devotees have written many memoirs where they describe a very different Ramana who would recite and enact stories with great emotion, and who would participate in many daily events. These stories are reported in The Maharshi. Ramana read books and engaged in debate. Although he often communicated only by silence, he would also sometimes give very sharp replies. See for example the report by U.G. Krishnamurti of his visit with Ramana: That man [Ramana] was sitting there. From his very presence I felt “What! This man -- how can he help me? This fellow who is reading comic strips, cutting vegetables, playing with this, that or the other -- how can this man help me? He can't help me.” Anyway, I sat there. Nothing happened; I looked at him, and he looked at me. “In his presence you feel silent, your questions disappear, his look changes you”-- all that remained a story, fancy stuff to me. I sat there. There were a lot of questions inside, silly questions -- so, “The questions have not disappeared. I have been sitting here for two hours, and the questions are still there. All right, let me ask him some questions”-because at that time I very much wanted moksha. This part of my background, moksha, I wanted. “You are supposed to be a liberated man” -- I didn't say that. “Can you give me what you have?” -- I asked him this question, but that man didn't answer, so after some lapse of time I repeated that question – “I am asking ‘Whatever you have, can you give it to me?’” He said, “I can give you, but can you take it?” Boy! For the first time this fellow says that he has something and that I can't take it. Nobody before had said “I can give you,” but this man said “I can give you, but can you take it?” Then I said to myself “If there is any individual in this world who can take it, it is me, because I have done so much sadhana, seven years of sadhana. He can think that I can't take it, but I can take it. If I can't take it, who can take it?” - -that was my frame of mind at the time -- you know, (Laughs) I was so confident of myself. I didn't stay with him, I didn't read any of his books, so I asked him a few more questions: “Can one be free sometimes and not free sometimes?” He said “Either you are free, or you are not free at all.” There was another question which I don't remember. He answered in a very strange way: “There are no steps leading you to that.” But I ignored all these things. These questions didn't matter to me -- the answers didn't interest me at all.

But this question “Can you take it?” ... “How arrogant he is!” -- that was my feeling.[23]

Although he felt Ramana’s responses were arrogant, he nevertheless resolved to try to attain Ramana’s state of being. I cite his remarks only to show that Ramana’s did sometimes teach by speech and not by silence. f) Ramana’s Method of Self-Enquiry Although Brunton appears to have embellished and changed the report of his first visit, he did not invent all the facts that he reports. Even the independent report says that the next day Ramana responded to many of his questions. The dialogue among Ramana, Brunton (Hurst) and the monk was as follows: Bhikshu: We have travelled far and wide in search of Enlightenment. How can we get it? Maharshi: Through deep enquiry and confident meditation. Hurst: Many people do meditate in the West but show no signs of      progress. Maharshi: How do you know that they don't make progress? Spiritual progress is not easily discernible. Hurst: A few years ago I got some glimpses of the Bliss but in the years that followed I lost it again. Then last year I again got it. Why is that? Maharshi: You lost it because your meditation had not become natural (sahaja). When you become habitually inturned the enjoyment of spiritual beatitude becomes a normal experience. Hurst: Might it be due to the lack of a Guru? Maharshi: Yes, but the Guru is within; that Guru who is within is identical with your Self. Hurst: What is the way to God-realization? Maharshi: Vichara, asking yourself the 'Who am I?' enquiry into the nature of your Self.

Brunton seems to have correctly summarized Ramana’s method of SelfEnquiry, the “Who am I?” method: Trace thought to its place of origin, watch for the real self to reveal itself, and then your thoughts will die down of their own accord (Search, 304; see also pp. 144-5).

But Brunton understood the self as corresponding to what Thurston had said about the Higher Self, or what the theosophists said about the Overself. Brunton understood these ideas in terms of mentalism, and the importance of the ideas of the mind. His book Conscious Immortality has a whole section on “The doctrine of mentalism.” The introductory paragraph to this section says, ‘Mentalism’–the theory that physical and psychological phenomena are ultimately only explicable in terms of a creative and interpretive mind … For Brunton, the doctrine of mentalism demonstrates that our experience of the world is nothing but our thoughts of it. In short, there is nothing but mind, and the whole world is an appearance in Consciousness. (Conscious Immortality, 111).

The book does not just represent this as Brunton’s idea, for it goes on to report Ramana as saying: The Universe is only an idea. It is the Heart that takes all these forms. That is called the Atman wherein no ego or sense of personality remains.

Surprisingly, Brunton interprets Ramana’s method of self-enquiry as a “rational” process of self-questioning (Search, 302). By this self-questioning one can “ …stand aside and watch the very action of the brain” (p 304). And yet Brunton also recognizes that the process leads beyond mind. He reports, “what the Maharishee has confidently affirmed, that the mind takes its rise in a transcendental source” (p. 304). This was already Ramana’s view in 1913, as reported by Humphreys. Humphreys says that realization is the experience is where you “argue your mind out of existence.” Humphreys says that the only thing that remains is Being, and not explainable in words or ideas. But a Master can use mind, body and intellect without falling back into the delusion of having a separate consciousness (Glimpses, 21). Although Brunton understood self-realization as going beyond mind, he seems to have understood this in terms of a higher transcendental mind observing a lower process of thought.   g) Brunton’s story of Ramana’s Enlightenment It is clear that Brunton relied on previous biographies of Ramana, especially for the account of Ramana’s enlightenment at the age of 16.

(1) Like Narasimha, Brunton emphasizes that Ramana had a propensity for deep sleep as a child. He finds in Ramana’s abnormal sleep and depth of attention an indication of his mystical nature (schoolmates took him from bedroom into the playground, beat his body and boxed his ears and then lead him back to bed; he had no remembrance of these things in the morning) (Search, 282). (2) Like Narasimha, Brunton characterizes Ramana’s experience at the age of 16 as a trance, “a profound conscious trance wherein he became merged into the very source of selfhood” (Search, 283). (3) And like Narasimha, Brunton emphasizes that Ramana had had no previous experience of enlightenment. And Brunton says that Ramana’s next six months involved mystical trances and spiritual ecstasies (Search, 285). The second and third points are questionable, even though they have become firmly established in the traditional hagiographic accounts of Ramana. For Ramana did have some previous knowledge of meditation prior to his experience as a 16 year old, and he derived his teaching of Self-Enquiry from books that he read before he wrote any of his own. Even more importantly, Ramana did not himself have the certainty at the age of 16 that his experience was permanent. And he later disputed the necessity of a state of trance for enlightenment. Based on Ramana’s own writings, the significance of his experience of enlightenment at the age of 16 must be reevaluated. In any event, Brunton seems to have incorporated this view of Ramana’s independence of any written teachings to his own life experience: When later, I came across translations of Indian books on mysticism, I found to my astonishment that the archaic accents of their phraseology formed familiar descriptions of my own central and cardinal experiences…(Hidden Teaching, 23).

This last statement is almost exactly what Ramana claimed for himself–that his experience was direct, and that the later books that he read were only “analysing and naming what I had felt intuitively without analysis or name” (Path of Self-Knowledge, 24 and Teachings, 11). h) Occult powers or siddhis We know that Brunton was interested in special powers or siddhis, such as telepathy or the power to read thoughts.

Humphreys had already written that Ramana that had powers of telepathy: Everyone who comes to Him is open as a book, and a single glance suffices to reveal its content (Glimpses, 16)  

But Humphreys says, Clairvoyance, clairaudience and such things are not worth having when, such far greater illumination and peace are possible without them than with them. The Masters take on these powers as a form of Self-Sacrifice! I know the Masters, two of the greatest, and I tell you that the idea that a Master is simply one who has attained power over the various occult senses by long practice and prayer or anything else is utterly and absolutely false. No Master ever cared a rap for occult powers for he has no need of them for his daily life (Glimpses, 19).

Humphreys says that Ramana noticed his “bent of mind” [towards the siddhis] and was afraid Humphreys would yield to the charms of thaumaturgy (siddhis) (Glimpses, 112). But Humphreys says on the same page that he “felt the magnetic attraction of Maharshi.” Narasimha reports this statement of magnetic attraction (Narasimha, 112). Osborne says that Humphreys was probably wrong about Ramana’s clairvoyance. He says that although Ramana saw through people in order to help and guide them, he did not use any such powers on the human plane. It is Osborne’s view that Narasimhayya, [Humphreys’ Telegu tutor, who brought Humphreys to see Ramana] had previously told Ramana the life story of Humphreys (Path of Self-Knowledge, 101). Thus, Ramana was not displaying powers of clairvoyance. And yet there are stories about Ramana’s siddhis. Narasimha relates the story of Ganapati Muni, who in 1908 went to a temple at Tiruvottiuyr near Madras, and had a vision of Ramana coming in and sitting up next to him. Ganapati Muni tried to sit up but in his vision, Ramana held him down. It gave him something like an electric shock. He regarded this as the grace of the guru. He later asked Ramana about it. On Oct 17/29 [21 years later!], Ramana told Ganapati Muni: One day some years ago I lay down, but I was not in samadhi. I suddenly felt my body carried up higher and higher till all objects disappeared and all around me was one vast mass of white light. Then suddenly the body descended and objects began to appear. I said to myself, ‘evidently this is

how Siddhas appear and disappear.’ The idea occurred to me that I was at Tiruvottiuyr (Narasimha, 94).

Narasimha had a vision of Ramana, but Ramana told him that the visions may be from his study of the Bhagavad Gita. But he also told him that Ganapati Muni had had a similar experience, so Narasimha should go ask him. (Narasimha, 107). Ramana discounted the importance of these powers. For the formless self to have a body, to eat food and drink water–all these are enough siddhis (Letters, 76, Aug. 10, 1946). One of the reasons that Ramana discounted powers was that they implied the existence of others to whom to display them: To have powers there must be others to whom to display them; therefore the wise man does not give them a thought.

and Even if powers come spontaneously they should be rejected. They are like ropes to tether a beast; sooner or later they drag a man back from his pursuit of Moksha (Liberation).[24]

Ramana was asked whether yogis can show us the dead. He answered that they may be able to, but not to ask him because he could not do it. Ramana said, “Why recall the past incarnations? It is a waste of time” (Conscious Immortality, 117). Ramana says that some jnanis may develop siddhis such as invisibility. But no powers can equal Self-realization. “Jnana is everything, and a jnani will not waste any thought on the occult powers” (Conscious Immortality, 39). “The occult powers are only of the mind, they are not natural to the Self.” They are not worth trying for (p. 40). So although there are accounts of Ramana having powers of telepathy and telekinesis, he is also clear that such siddhis must never be sought for themselves. The search for powers distracts one from self-enquiry. In his discussion with Evans-Wentz, Ramana says that siddhis are not natural, and not worth striving for. The would-be occultist seeks to acquire them so that others may appreciate him. These powers do not bring happiness.   Ramana even discounted the importance given to black magic or evil powers:

Another visitor referred to Brunton's statement that he had actually feared a woman for her association with black magic. Ramana said that black magic is condemned in Devikalottaram. By such practices a person ruins oneself. But Ramana goes on to say that avidya or ignorance is itself bad, and why should we add a separate category of black magic? (Talks, 499-500, par. 517).

Nor did Ramana give much importance to dreams: Dreams are only impressions which have been received in the waking state and are recalled to mind in the dream state (Crumbs, 39).

On the same page, it is reported that Ramana seemed to give more value to the conscious mind: The mind is a wonderful power, a mysterious power (shakti) of the Supreme Being. It is after the rise of the mind that God, world and jivas (individuals) appear, whereas in sleep we are not aware of any of these.

And Ramana did not believe in the importance of miracles. K.K. Nambiar asked Ramana about the miracles that Christ performed. Ramana asked whether such Saints know and act as though they were performing those miracles. In other words, they do it unconsciously. This is the same answer that Humphreys had reported. Nambiar says that Ramana is averse to the use and exhibition of any mystical powers. Ramana has warned disciples that indulging in such powers will sidetrack them from Self-realization. But Nambiar himself reports several powers. e.g. a dream that Ramana had where Nambiar needed some ink (Nambiar, 41). Ramana’s dismissive attitude towards miracles is also reported elsewhere: Miracles, clairvoyance, clairaudience–what are these? They are sidetracks. The realized person is above them. (Conscious Immortality, 39).

Although Ramana is clear in discounting the importance of siddhis, Brunton emphasizes the telepathic powers of Ramana that he felt on his first visit: There comes a perceptible change in the telepathic current which plays between us, the while my eyes blink frequently but his remain without the least tremor. I become aware that he is definitely linking my own mind with his, that he is provoking my heart into that state of starry calm which he seems perpetually to enjoy…[…] What is this man’s gaze but a thaumaturgic wand […] Suddenly, my body seems to disappear, and we are both out in space! (Search, 162-63).

Ramana told Brunton that he should find the master within himself (Search, 278). In other words, he should not be traveling about looking for someone else with powers. And yet Brunton did not stay, but left the ashram to search for more holy men in India. i) Theosophy and astral planes Ramana was specifically asked about theosophy. It appears that the following questions were asked by Brunton: Question: Theosophists meditate to seek masters. Ramana: The master is within. Meditation is for removing the ignorant idea that he is external.   Question: Meher Baba (whom Brunton met) says he is an avatar (incarnation). Is that true? Ramana: Everyone is an avatar of God. One who knows the truth sees God in every face and everyone else as a manifestation of God (Conscious Immortality, 136).

Ramana says that occultism and theosophy are circuitous routes to the Self (Conscious Immortality, 44). His response regarding speculation about astral planes was equally dismissive: The theory of evolution, the philosophies of planes and degrees, the systems of spirit descending into matter and evolving back, the idea of the self developing towards perfection–all these things are for spiritually uncultured, materially-minded people, but for the advanced, these thoughts are discarded (Conscious Immortality, 45).

Theosophy speaks of evolving selves. But Ramana asked, How can that be? The true Self is infinite, formless, beyond time and hence beyond evolution, it cannot grow to perfection because it is already perfect, free, boundless. (Ibid.)

Ramana says that reincarnation, astral planes are true, but only from a lower standpoint: It is true that subtle astral bodies exist, because in order to function in the dream-world a body is necessary for that world; but it too is real only on its own plane, whereas the One Self is always real, always and eternally existent, whether we are aware of it or not (Conscious Immortality, 122).

Brunton says that there are “degrees of reality,” but Ramana corrects him and says there is always only one reality and that is the Self (Talks, 127,

par. 144). Ramana told Humphreys that religion, whether Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, or Theosophy can only take us to the point where all religions meet (Narasimha, 118). And when Ramana was asked what happens after death, he merely said, engage yourself in the present.     j) Meditation and trance Brunton, like Narasimha, emphasizes Ramana’s condition of trance. On his first visit, he said that Ramana was “certainly in a trance condition” (Search, 141). When Brunton left Ramana the first time, he reports that Ramana had re-entered the trance-like condition (p. 161). Brunton says that the hall then becomes pervaded with a “subtle, intangible and indefinable power which affects me deeply” (p 161). And on his second visit he remarks on Ramana’s “trance-like abstraction wherein he locks his senses against the world outside” (Search, 292). Brunton says that on this second visit, he himself was in a trance for over two hours, and that Ramana watched him (Search, 310). k) The Overself The term ‘Overself’ does not appear in Search. But there are references to a higher or deeper self: I perceive with startling clarity that a man can look serenely upon his tribulations, if only he can find the standpoint of his deeper self” (Search, 300).

On the same page, Brunton refers to the “mystery of the divine withinness.” There is a deeper being: Self still exists, but it is a changed, radiant self. For something that is far superior to the unimportant personality which was I, some deeper, diviner being rises into consciousness and becomes me. […] I, the new I (p. 305).

Now that we are familiar with Thurston’s writings, we can see similarities in Brunton’s reports about Ramana. Brunton says, “There is That in man which belongs to an imperishable race” (Search, 306). And on the same page, he refers to : “the voice of a hidden, recondite and mysterious being

who inhabits his centre, who is his own ancient self.” Thurston had spoken of “the Higher Self,” which he said was created from the best of man’s aspirations during his descent and evolution through matter (Dayspring, 12). Brunton asked Ramana about the “true self.” Ramana responded, What exactly is this self of which you speak? If what you say is true, then there must be another self in man. Can a man be possessed of two identities, two selves?” (Search, 158; also reported in Talks).

In this conversation, Ramana tells Brunton (to his evident shock) that the sense of the personal ‘I’ must totally disappear into the true self: The sense of ‘I’ belongs to the person, the body and brain. When a man knows his true self for the first time, something else arises from the depths of his being and takes possession of him. That something is behind the mind; it is infinite, divine, eternal.… (Search, 159).

Brunton then refers to Jesus’ words, “Whoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it…” But Ramana himself sometimes refers to the Higher Self, and he does this in reference to Brunton’s books! And then Ramana speaks of two meanings of ‘I’ or Self. In response to a question by a certain Mr. Knowles, who had read Brunton’s two books, Ramana refers to the “true Self” (Conscious Immortality, 11). A similar reference by Ramana to Brunton is found in Talks: Question: The Buddhists say that ‘I’ is unreal whereas Paul Brunton in The Secret Path tells us to get over the ‘I’-thought and to reach the state of ‘I’. Which is true?” M (Ramana): There are supposed to be two ‘I’s’; the one is lower and unreal, of which all are aware; and the other, the higher and the real, which is to be realized (Talks, 56, par. 53)

Ramana also refers to the "Real Self” (Talks, 121, par. 136; Jan. 15, 1936). This was said while Brunton was visiting the ashram. And when Ramana was asked how one could get in touch with the Higher Self, he answered, “The Higher Self is always so, whether you follow the path to it or not” (Conscious Immortality, 161). This is a fascinating interplay between Brunton, who later admitted that he was interpreting Ramana through his own ideas, and Ramana who adopts

Brunton’s ideas to describe his own teachings! This is even more apparent in disciples of Ramana, who adopt the term ‘Overself’ in their translations of some of Ramana’s works. For example, let us look at the works of Sri Muruganar (1893-1973), one of Ramana’s most prominent disciples. David Godman says this about him: He was instrumental in getting Bhagavan to compose the verses that comprise Ulladu Narpadu [40 Verses on Reality] and Upadesa Undiyar [also known as Upadesa Saran [Spiritual Instruction], two of Bhagavan's major philosophical poems, and he composed thousands of poems of his own that either praised Bhagavan, recorded his teachings or expressed gratitude to Bhagavan for having established him in the Self (Godman 2000).

Muruganar personally attended on Ramana after meeting with him in 1926. Muruganar wrote down Ramana’s teachings in Tamil. One of these books is the Guru-Ramana-Vachana-Mala. That book was a collection of verses from Muruganar’s larger work Guru Våchakakkovai. The word ‘Overself’ is used in the English translation of Guru-RamanaVachana-Mala. The real meaning of the two (teachings), namely that “He Himself became all this,” and that “That same Overself created all this,” is that the world is just a false appearance in Him (verse 16).

and This ego is (to be regarded as) a ghost appointed by the Overself (God) to keep the body intact so long as (the current) karma is not spent by their fruits being experienced (verse 62).

So not only did Brunton interpret Ramana through his previous theosophical ideas, but Ramana and his disciples were influenced to interpret the experience in the same way. 4. The Secret Path (1935) In 1935, Brunton wrote The Secret Path. This is the first book in which he mentions the Overself. A whole chapter is entitled “The Awakening to the Overself.” Brunton says that Overself consciousness is equivalent to deep dreamless sleep (Secret Path, 87). Brunton’s mentalism is also evident, since he regards the Overself as Universal Mind: …all men exist within the Universal Mind which has brought this world into being—a Mind which is perennially benevolent, unfathomably wise and

eternally peaceful (Secret Path, 21)

Brunton compares his view of Indian Absolutists to Bishop Berkeley’s idealism. He also refers to Emerson (Secret Path, 13, 25, 98). It is worth looking at this book in some detail. The Foreword is by Alice A. Bailey (1880-1949), a well-known occult teacher at the time. She was the author of 24 books, which she claimed to have authored contacted by means of channeling a Tibetan teacher or master. Her books covered topics like white magic, telepathy, occult meditation, and the reappearance of the Christ. For a time she was a member of the Theosophical Society. Madame Blavatsky's teaching of the occult masters had led her to identify her own spirit guide at the age of 15. But with her husband, another theosophist, she founded and founded The Arcane School, a movement that continues to this day. In the first paragraph of her Foreword, Alice Bailey mentions the “growing sensitivity to that mysterious Overself mentioned by our author [Brunton]" (Secret Path, 9). Now why did Brunton ask for a Foreword by this theosophist and occult teacher? Had he not already obtained enlightenment with Ramana? Brunton had obviously not achieved the enlightenment he sought; he was still searching. Brunton proposed “an exploration right across Asia, an exploration that would continue my old quest of the sviving exponents of genuine Oriental wisdom and magic” (Secret Path, 13). His meeting with Ramana had not diverted him from his real interest in seeing and possessing magical powers. He also speaks of seeking “wonder-working lamas of Nepal and the Tibetan border.” And he speaks of the “Himalayan attitude” of the Overself (Secret Path, 128). Later in 1936, Brunton traveled to the Himalayas, with the intention of reaching Mount Kailas in Tibet. He was influenced in this by Alice Bailey’s purported revelations from her Tibetan Master. Secret Path does not mention Ramana by name, although it does set out his "Who am I?" method. “This inquiry into the true self is the simplest system of meditation I know…” (Secret Path, 51). There is a whole chapter entitled “A Technique of Self-Analysis.” And there is a clear reference to Ramana in a few pages in Chapter 1. Brunton refers to Ramana as “a wise man of the east.” He says that he met the man “unexpectedly.” That is

hardly true, since Brunton had had to make a special train journey to see Ramana. Even the newspapers had been announcing Brunton’s visit. Brunton emphasizes that at that first meeting, Ramana had telepathic insight into his life: There in that seated being was a great impersonal force that read the scales of my life with better sight than I could ever hope to do. I had slept in the scented bed of Aphrodite, and he knew it; I had also lured the gnomes of thought to mine for strange enchanted gold in the depths of my spirit: he knew that too. I felt, too, that if I could follow him into his mysterious places of thought, all my miseries would drop away, my resentments turn to toleration, and I would understand life, not merely grumble at it! (Secret Path, 11-12)

So again we see Brunton’s continued interest in special siddhis or powers. He says, “The spiritual radiations which emanated form him were allpenetrating” (Secret Path, 12). His reference to “gnomes” is probably a reference to the ideas of Le Comte de Gabalis, which speaks of salamanders, sylphs, undines and gnomes. Another reference to powers is at page 106, where Brunton says, The magicians of olden times waved a wand to bring men to see such things as they desired them to see. They touched a seed and it became a tree, or wrapped the Cloak of Invisibility about themselves. But now we have put aside such clumsy effects and seek to place subtle spells upon the mind of man with nothing more mysterious than a humble pen.

Brunton refers to some Christian ideas. With respect to the lack of argument in the book, he refers to Christ’s saying “Except ye become as little children ye shall not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Secret Path, 18). And he refers to Jesus’ words “Seek ye first the kingdom of heaven…” (Secret Path, 51). But he also makes some strange statements, such as “Christ descended on earth from a superior planet, which was His real home…”(Secret Path, 102). In Secret Path, Brunton says that he is putting forward what seems to be an astounding proposition: Assuming that the intellect is not dependent on the flesh for its sole existence, I suggest that it is composed of nothing more than the endless sequence of thought, the endless series of ideas, concepts and memories, which normally make up the waking day, and that therefore there is no true

selfhood even in the intellect. If all this aggregate of thoughts could be eliminated, then we should find that there is no such thing as a separate reasoning intellectual faculty (Secret Path, 65).

Brunton says that if intellect is only this train of thoughts, then we could cease to think but still remain conscious (Secret Path, 66). But this idea of the mind being only a train of thought was hardly original to Brunton. Chadwick also mentions the idea: Bhagavan once told me that thought comes in flashes, like the cycle of alternating current, but was so rapid that it seemed continuous as does the light given off by an electric bulb. If one could only concentrate on the intervals between thoughts rather than on the thoughts themselves that would be Self-realization. He always taught that mind and thought were the same: “The mind is nothing but a lot of thoughts” Upad. saram V.18 (Chadwick, 43).

The quotation is from Ramana’s book Upadesa saram [Spiritual Instruction]. It was written at the request of Muruganar. Ramana wrote it before Brunton wrote Secret Path. The idea that “the mind is nothing but a bundle of thoughts” already appears in Ramana’s work “Who Am I?” And in Upadesa Saram, Ramana says, 17. When the mind unceasingly investigates its own nature, it transpires that there is no such thing as mind.
18. The mind is merely thoughts. Of all thoughts, the thought ‘I’ is the root. (Therefore) the mind is only the thought ‘I’.

Ramana says that the first thought that arises is the “I-thought.” But the state of true Being is where there is not the slightest trace of even this first thought. Ramana emphasizes that this state does not include any telepathy of clairvoyance or other psychic powers of the mind. As for Brunton’s idea that we can retain “consciousness without thought,” this is already in Ramana’s translation of the Vivekacudamani. But although this idea of the mind as a collection of thoughts was not original to Brunton, it is important to note that Ramana read Brunton’s book Secret Path. Already in 1935, a certain Mr. Knowles refers to reading Brunton’s two books (Talks, 56; June 15, 1935). And Swarnagiri shows that Ramana approved of some of Brunton’s ideas: The writer was just about to put a question to Sri Bhagavan and just as he began doing so, Sri Bhagavan answered him by referring him to page 73,

para. 2 of Mr. Brunton’s “Secret Path” and remarked that, as stated therein, speech only beclouded argument and disturbed the silent communication of thought (Crumbs, 45).

The incident is also reported in Conscious Immortality: Read it a thousand times –P.B. [Brunton] has expressed me correctly; then why do you not practice it. Turn to page 73 and see if you don’t find an answer to your question in paragraph 2 (Conscious Immortality, 154).

And in a dialogue in 1937, Ramana continues this line of reasoning. He recommends concentrating on “the interval between thoughts” as an explanation of the realized state. That is the state of the jnani. It is neither sleep nor waking but intermediate between the two. […] It is the state of perfect awareness and of perfect stillness combined. It lies between sleep and waking; it is also the interval between two successive thoughts. It is the source from which thoughts spring…(Talks, 563-64; January, 1937).

So again we note this amazing interplay between Brunton’s ideas and those of Ramana himself. And yet Ramana did not approve of everything Brunton wrote, or at least did not interpret them in the way that Brunton wrote them. Brunton wrote that he had a vision of “the Wise One of the East” [Ramana]. In the vision, Ramana said, My son, it is not well. Hast thou forgotten compassion? Shalt thou go forth to add to thy store of knowledge while others starve for the crumbs of wisdom? (Secret Path, 15)

Ramana was asked whether Paul Brunton saw him in London. Ramana answered that Brunton had a vision. “Nevertheless he saw me in his own mind” (Conscious Immortality, 41).

4. A Search in Secret Egypt (1935) In 1935, the same year that he published Secret Path, Brunton also published A Search in Secret Egypt. That book refers to Brunton’s experience of spending a night alone in the Great Pyramid. Despite his stay with Ramana, Brunton was still interested in esoteric and occult mysteries. We should recall that F.W. Thurstan (who may or may not be Thurston) also wrote about the mysteries of Egypt. The book Egypt refers to many strange powers. He refers to being with others who were in a hypnotic state or hypnotic trance (pp. 99, 101).

Chapter 5 is entitled “With a Magician of Cairo.” Chapter 6 is entitled “Wonder-working by hypnotism.” Chapter 7 is “An Interview with Egypt’s Most Famed Fakir.” Chapter 12 is “The Ancient Mysteries.” Chapter 16 is “With Egypt’s most famed Snake-charmer.” Chapter 18 is “I Meet an Adept.” In reference to the last chapter, Brunton says that he believed that the adept that he met possessed “some unusual power” (p. 275). Adepts are those “who had entered into the councils of the gods and knew the deepest spiritual secrets man could never learn.” Adepts work in silence and secrecy. They can exchange thoughts with fellow Adepts at a distance, that they can temporarily use the body of another person by projecting his soul into that person’s body.” Brunton calls this power to use another body the power of “overshadowing”(p. 276). This is another idea that Brunton took over from Madame Blavatsky’s theosophy. Brunton says that the adept speaks with him about “magical powers of injuring other people.” These powers, originally used for self-defence, were later used for “injuring enemies from a distance or removing those who stood in the path of the magician’s (or his patron’s) ambition” (p. 281). Brunton says that “In ancient times, Egypt was the chief centre of magical knowledge and practice excelling even India.” Brunton says that some Adepts from ancient Egypt were still alive. Their bodies lie in a comatose state in certain Egyptian tombs not yet discovered. “Trance” most nearly describes that state. They are like the Indian fakirs, but the knowledge of these Adepts is far more profound. Hindu fakirs become unconscious, but these Adepts remain fully conscious. While they are in coma, their spirits are free and working. Their hearts were never cut out. Some have been there 10,000 years (pp. 282-284). We see here Brunton’s continued fascination with occult powers. This does not seem to correspond to any enlightening experience with Ramana! Chadwick expressed the opinion that in later years, Brunton wrote a lot of rubbish (Chadwick 16). And yet we know that Ramana read Brunton’s book A Search in Secret Egypt. He says [to Brunton on Brunton’s return in 1936]: Ramana: Just as you have said in Secret Egypt, “The mystery of the pyramid is the mystery of the Self,” so also the mystery of this Hill [Arunachala] is the mystery of the Self (Talks, 25; par. 143).

5. A Message from Arunachala (1936) Brunton returned to India, via Egypt, and again spent some time with Ramana. He reached Ramana’s ashram before the end of 1935 (Brunton 1990, 13). At that time he wrote the book A Message from Arunachala, which was published in 1936. The book does not name Ramana, but refers to “the Maharshee of South India.” After Ramana’s death in 1950, Brunton dedicated a new printing of this book to “The Maharshee of South India.” In the dedication, he says that after the Maharishee’s death, the mountain of Arunachala lost much of its sacred atmosphere. …it is a man and his mind which give holiness to a place, not the place which gives holiness to man.

Brunton compares this book to the Mosaic tablets written on Mount Sinai. In this case, the mountain is Arunachala. Brunton compares Arunachala to the Egyptian pyramids. He says that that Ramana told him that the lost continent of Lemuria had once stretched from Egypt to South India. I find that doubtful. The idea of Lemuria is related to Thurston’s ideas. Thurston refers to Lemuria, although not in an approving way. Thurston said that the worst type of atom is from Lemurian period; bodies were of an animal nature and were constantly engaged in war. They sacrificed their victims and ate their flesh (Dayspring, 49). Brunton later said that A Message from Arunachala was a book of “pointed criticism,” “an indictment of the materialistic foundations of our modern civilization and therefore necessarily destructive in tone.” He said that its bitterness was too extreme. He would now tone down its language. Brunton refers to Emerson (p. 24). Emerson wrote that he did not have a single disciple, because what he wrote was not to bring men to him, but to themselves. The book makes several references to the Overself. Brunton characterizes his first meeting with Ramana in terms of the Overself. He says that his first period with the Maharshee was when the “Overself stretched forth its hand to touch me” (p. 12). And, “to know the Overself is to know the deep, unmoved rest which is at the centre of our being” (p. 100). “The Overself speaks to man in the only language that his deafened mind cares to understand–suffering” (p. 116). The Overself is “inexplicable.” “It is the selfcreated ray of light out of the Absolute Darkness. It is the nearest that any human being can get to God” (p. 138).

In January 1936, Brunton asked Ramana about siddhas, those who have acquired supernatural powers. Ramana tells him that there are reputed to be special beings with powers, siddhas, within the holy mountain Arunachala. Brunton: Siddhas are said to be in the Himalayas. Ramana: Kailas is on the Himalayas: it is the abode of Siva. Whereas this Hill [Arunachala] is Siva Himself. All the paraphernalia of His abode must also be where He Himself is. Brunton: Does Bhagavan [Ramana] believe that the Hill is hollow, etc.? Ramana: Everything depends on the viewpoint of the individual. You yourself have seen hermitages, etc., on this Hill in a vision. You have described such in your book. Brunton: Yes. It was on the surface of the Hill. The vision was within me. Ramana: That is exactly so. Everything is within one's Self. […] Brunton: What is the mystery of this Hill? Ramana: Just as you have said in Secret Egypt, "The mystery of the pyramid is the mystery of the Self," so also the mystery of this Hill is the mystery of the Self (Talks, 25; par. 143).

This remarkable exchange shows that as of this date, Brunton is still very much concerned with those who possess occult powers. This is likely the main reason that Brunton left Ramana in order to visit the Himalayas later that year. Ramana’s exchange with Brunton is important for another reason: it shows that Ramana had read A Search in Secret Egypt, and was now using its teaching to describe the power of Arunachala.

6. A Hermit in the Himalayas (1937) In early 1936, Brunton was still at Ramana’s ashram. But Brunton planned to go to Tibet with Yogi Pranavananda on a pilgrimage to Mount Kailas. Pranavananda's teacher was Swami Jnanananda, in Andhra, then the northeast part of Madras Presidency. So even while he was with Ramana, Brunton was still looking for other teachers. Brunton believed that there are Masters who possess spiritual powers in the Himalayas. Others had told him about the Himalayas, including his former Buddhist mentor Allan Bennett, and the Buddhist monk Frederic Fletcher, who had actually been to the Himalayas before visiting Ramana

with Brunton in 1931. And Alice Bailey, who wrote the Foreword to Secret Path, had told Brunton about Tibet. And we must not forget Sir Francis Younghusband, who had led a military expedition to Tibet. Lord Curzon had sent Younghusband to Tibet in 1904, where Younghusband forced a treaty on the Dalai Lama, after firing on Tibetan soldiers. Younghusband wrote the Foreword to Brunton’s A Search in Secret India. Brunton had discussions with Ramana about his desire to see the holy Mount Kailas in the Himalayas. Ramana told him his real search was within: “Mount Kailas is within you,” my Master [Ramana] has said cryptically a day or two before my departure.

Ramana also told Brunton the story of Appar, a Tamil saint, who wanted to go to Kailas, but found Kailas in a temple tank in Tiruvayyar, near Tanjore, where an old man told him to take a dip. Tanjore is in South India. Ramana said,” Where is Kailash then? Is it within the mind or outside it?” and “Everything is within, there is nothing without” (Conscious Immortality, 111). In the summer of 1936, Brunton went to the Himalayas, where he stayed as the guest of a Nepalese prince, a nephew of Maharajah of Nepal. In 1937, Brunton published A Hermit in the Himalayas: The Journey of a Lonely Exile. The Prince wrote the Introduction to Himalayas. He refers to certain criticism that had been directed against Brunton: I can gauge the profound ignorance of the reviewer who, in a certain European-managed newspaper of Calcutta, denounced the author’s earlier work “A Search in Secret India” as false, denied the existence of any spirituality in India, and finally ridiculed the author’s competency to conduct these researches. All the best Indian journals and leaders of opinion have, nevertheless, given the highest praise to that book… (Himalayas, 8).

The title of the book refers to ‘exile.’ That probably means the renunciation of the world, or a retreat from it. But in a Preface that he added twelve years later to the first British edition of the book in 1949, Brunton warns against any permanent retreat from the world: However, I do not advocate rural or monastic retreat for the purpose otherwise than as a valuable temporary and occasional help, for the real battle must be fought out within one’s self, just where the aspirant now stands. Every successful passage through the tests provided by worldly life

gives him a chance to make a spurt not only in consciousness and understanding but more especially in character.

In his Preface, Brunton says that Westerners need to learn how to be; we have already learned how to do. He says that the mystical quest links us with “an infinite power, an infinite wisdom, and infinite goodness.” Usually only brief glimpses of “the soul’s flower-like beauty” usually only for a few minutes, but the “adept” can return at will to “the serene beatitude of this high consciousness.” The book is a collection of various ideas. Brunton’s publishers called it “a literary cocktail.” It is noteworthy that it begins with a poem by Emerson, “Good-bye, proud world.” Brunton received letters from readers of his books. He replied to some of them. But he says that he sends telepathic messages to others: When the exquisite pulsation of the sacred silence overwhelms me with its sublimity, I telegraph it, as by telepathy, to those faithful souls (Himalayas, 65).

Brunton does not describe observing any special powers in the Himalayas. That must have disappointed him. He does refer to a Buddhist monk with memories of previous existences (Himalayas, 42). And he reports what his companion Pranavananda’s said about his guru, Swami Jnanananda. The Swami was said to have lived for a time in Gangotri in the Himalayas, stark naked in ice and snow that was 7 feet deep. Talking to Pranavananda, Brunton “sees” the sublime presence of the Swami. Brunton says he does this by “overshadowing” Pranavananda. Brunton also makes some comparisons between Hinduism and Buddhism. He says that Mount Kailas is the most sacred spot in Asia to Buddhist and Hindus (Himalayas, 24) He finds the Hindu Krishna more adorable and lovable than Buddha; Krishna preaches no harsh asceticism. Brunton says that Buddha took existence too seriously (Himalayas, 149-150). Brunton also refers to the Bible, “Be still and know that I am God.” That is also the concluding line of the book. Ramana also frequently used that verse in order to sum up his own method of Self-Enquiry. But Brunton does not mention Ramana at all in the book. Brunton says that Jesus spoke out of the deep region of the Overself (Himalayas, 84). Ramana was aware of the book Himalayas. In October 1936, Ramana was read an extract from it that had been printed in The Sunday Times. This

shows that Ramana continued to follow Brunton's work. In the article, Brunton mentioned Buddhist methods of gaining the faculty of recovering past incarnations. Again, this shows Brunton's fascination with powers. Ramana said, “The attempt to recall the past is a mere waste of time” (Talks, 215; para. 260).

7. The Quest of the Overself (1937) a) The Maharajah Brunton spent the winter of 1936 and the spring of 1937 with the Maharajah of Mysore, who had invited him after reading his books (Cahn Fung I, 39). The Maharaja had perhaps learned of Brunton from Ramana, whom he had visited for 15 minutes. When the Maharajah left, Ramana said that he was a highly advanced soul, a Janaka (Conscious Immortality, 154). Janaka is mentioned in the Hindu Scriptures as a king who was also a realized person. Brunton writes with great enthusiasm about some books that the Maharajah gave him to read. These were the Ashtavakra Gita, the Mandukya Upanishad, Gaudapada’s Karika, and Shankara’s Commentary on King Janaka. The Ashtavakra Gita is a record of Ashtavakra's teaching to King Janaka. The Ashtavakra Gita was translated into English by Swami Nityaswarupananda of the Ramakrishna Order. It included a transliteration in the Kannada language. The book was published by the Maharaja of Mysore. Its later chapters emphasize the fact that the true sage does not flee to caves or sit idly in ashrams but is constantly engaged in work for the welfare of others. It points out that he will outwardly pretend to be just like ordinary people in order not to be put on a pedestal by them. Brunton does not seem to know that the Ashtavakra Gita was presented to Ramana in 1932. Ramana then meticulously wrote with his own hand all the Sanskrit verses above each Kannada verse. Brunton also does not seem to know that Ramana also discussed these same books. b) T. Subrahmanya Iyer In Mysore, Brunton met T. Subrahmanya Iyer, who was the Maharajah's reader in philosophy. Iyer would become Brunton’s new guru. Their relationship was more than just academic, for Brunton regarded Iyer as his spiritual teacher (Cahn Fung II, 128). Iyer described himself as “a keen

theosophist.” Cahn Fung writes, “Earlier in his life he had been a regular reader of Blavatsky’s books, and was “several years in the clutches of Annie Besant” (Cahn Fung I, 19). What were Iyer's teachings that so attracted Brunton? Iyer's main difference from Ramana was his more pronounced neo-Hinduism. He emphasized the practical ethics of Vivekananda (1863-1902). Vivekananda was an Indian philosopher who was a disciple of the Indian holy man Ramakrishna (1836-1886). But Vivekananda was also influenced by western thought. Vivekananda wrote the book Practical Vedanta, in which he argued that Vedanta has ethical implications, especially in its doctrine of tat tvam asi, or “that art thou.” Paul Hacker has written extensively about the sources for this teaching of Vivekananda (Hacker 1995, 273-313).  The sources are distinctly Western– the German philosopher Schopenhauer and Schopenhauer’s student, Paul Deussen. Schopenhauer studied the Upanishads, and wrote specifically about tat tvam asi as the basis for morality. Because of Schopenhauer’s world-denying philosophy, he himself did not advocate this morality. Deussen took the principle further and actually advocated it as the basis for how we should act. Deussen gave a lecture in Bombay on February 25, 1893 concerning the tat tvam asi theory of the foundation of ethics. He went again to India in 1896 and there met Vivekånanda. It is not until after this meeting that Vivekånanda’s writings included the principle as a basis for ethics. Prior to this time, Vivekånanda’s ethics were based on the idea of disinterested action. In fact, in his earlier book Karma-Yoga Vivekananda said that it was foolish talk to speak of doing good to the world (Halbfass 1988, 240). Hacker says that neo-Hinduism is a great change from traditional Hinduism. In Vedanta, nondualism was not applied in an ethical sense. Such traditional advaita is concerned with renunciation and asceticism. The world, all difference and diversity, all action and all psychic phenomena are ultimately unreal. The sole reality is Brahman. Ramakrishna's disciples set up the Ramakrishna Missions, which emulated Christian missions in India with their emphasis on service to humanity and social involvement. Following Vivekananda’s ideas, Iyer stressed ethics as based on our interdependence with others. He related this to the Upanishadic identity of

atman and Brahman. This is the tat tvam asi [“that art thou”] basis of ethics. We do good to others not out of altruism, but because in some sense we and others share a common identity, so we are serving our true Self. Iyer therefore interpreted Shankara from a Neo-Vedantic point of view. He found in Shankara a validation of his own ethic of social service (inspired by Western influence), universalism (i.e. Neo-Hindu inclusivism), as well as ideas of Indian nationalism. It is unclear whether Brunton realized that in following Iyer, he was accepting a more western outlook on life. But it is interesting that Brunton found Iyer's emphasis on ethics to be too one-sided. Iyer rejected mystical experience and mystical feeling. For him, intellect alone was important. c) The Quest of the Overself In the summer of 1937, the Maharajah let Brunton stay at a hill station, where he wrote his next book, The Quest of the Overself. He refers to the Cave of Baba Budan that he visited, where the mystic Dattatreya …made his final meditation and then disappeared completely from the face of the earth—to return only, he predicted, when the misery and materialism of the world called for a divine Avatar to help mankind.

Brunton dedicated Quest to his patron, the Maharajah of Mysore. In this dedication, he refers to …the task of building a bridge between the ancient methods of mind-mastery as practised in Your Highness’s land and the modern psychological needs of my Western people.

He says that he regards the Maharajah as a philosopher king. Both the Maharajah and Iyer encouraged Brunton in this task of building a bridge between east and west. Iyer told Brunton You have a very great and important work before you in introducing Vedanta to the West. I want to prepare you to do this, so that my life may bear some fruit (Cahn Fung I, 77).

The book Quest is described as a “more comprehensive and advanced work” than Secret Path. Brunton wants to lead the reader into “realms of knowledge, forms of experience and phases of consciousness that surpass what is usual” (Quest, 9). He says that there has been “considerable expansion in personal realisation” since writing Secret Path (Quest, 32).

In response to his critics, Brunton briefly discusses some of his previous books. He says that if there are contradictions in his writings, this is because of the grade of development in the mind of his readers (Quest, 33). This is the same justification that was frequently given for apparent contradictions in Ramana’s teachings. He says that the title Secret Path was criticized. He had meant a path of spiritual attainment mostly lost to the modern world. He also says that he took the title from Tirumoolar, from the Tamil Sacred Scriptures, as well as from Ramana, whom he quotes as saying “This method of realizing the Absolute is known as the Secret Path of the Heart” (Quest, 12). He says that Ramana is the “highest embodiment” of mysticism (Quest, 15). But he also boasts that it was left to him, “an infidel foreigner, to make the Maharishee famous in his own country” (Quest, 17). Brunton says that the book A Message from Arunachala gave him the least pleasure to write (Quest, 29). Brunton refers to A Search in Secret Egypt. He says that he found actual wonders in Egypt. The revelation during the night spent at the Sphinx’s feet was confirmed by a later archaeological discovery (Quest, 19). India has mothered the deepest thought of man, but Egypt was the father of his “most marvellous magic” (Quest, 43). The fundamental lesson of Secret Egypt is that of man’s survival after death: He steps out of the body, as one steps out of a prison, and does not perish with it. For man is mind, not matter.

But Brunton goes on to say that this view of psychic survival perpetuates the personal ego, whereas spiritual immortality dissolves it. It is important to surrender our ego to the Overself (Quest, 28, 33). But Quest also shows Brunton’s continued interest in special powers. He says he has observed fakirs suspending their breath for hours or days in an airless coffin or below ground. He discusses trance, hypnotism and psychic research. Profound trance is when persons forget their bodies and witness far-off scenes. Brunton sees trance as evidence of separation of mind and body (Quest, 56-60). Thus, Quest teaches a dualistic view of the self, as opposed to advaita’s nondualism! There is “an immaterial Overself, to which the physical body is subordinate” (Quest, 63). Brunton quotes Emerson: “souls are not saved in bundles” (Quest, 48,130)

Brunton also refers to discoveries of modern science, which he tries to relate to his own ideas. He refers to the work of Sir James Jeans. Cahn Fung has pointed out that Iyer assigned Jeans’ book The Mysterious Universe as required reading in the philosophy courses that he taught to the monks of Mysore’s Ramakrishna Ashram. Thus, Quest seems to incorporate ideas that Brunton learned from Iyer. He says that the mind’s incessant movement creates the sense of time (Quest, 96). We must overcome this sense of time by being still. He again quotes the Bible, “Be still and know that I am God.” The ‘I’ of man is the God-element within him, eternal (Quest, 101). By being inwardly still, one avoids this movement. The goal is to seek a kind of semi-trance, in which one must endeavor to remain perfectly awake, perfectly alert, and yet indulge in no mental, emotional or physical movement whatsoever (Quest, 172). This idea seems similar to Ramana’s idea of seeking the state where one is conscious without thinking, seeking the space between the thoughts. Again he refers to special powers. The telepathic power to send or receive thoughts from other minds becomes commonplace. The freed soul can fly the world and appear to others in vision or dream; also prophetic premonitions of future events. There is a “fourth-dimensional consciousness of the Overself” (Quest, 142-146). The “electrifying guidance of a true Adept” is a “potent help” (Quest, 148). And when their great science of the tantras is known, one no longer remains under the limitations of matter. He calls the tantras ‘Secret Books of Power’ (Quest, 176). Brunton speaks of “The Path of Self-Enquiry,” but he does not credit Ramana with the source of this idea (Quest, 143). The Overself is a “region.” It is impersonal, and exceeds our intellect. It can be communicated only by not-words and by profound telepathic silence (Quest, 181, 193). Brunton’s diagram of the refraction of the ray of the Overself on p. 196 of Quest is very similar to the diagram in the Collected Teachings of Ramana Maharshi. Again, Brunton does not credit Ramana. It is also surprising that he says that the Overself is impersonal, when he had previously criticized Ramana for this apparently nontheistic viewpoint. Brunton warns that occult powers should not be sought for their own sake. This is not to say that they do not exist, for “…the supreme power which supports all occult powers is the Overself’s own power. All lesser forces

take their rise therein.” Yet Brunton says that studies of the psychic and occult are not without worth. These studies may “break the back of crude materialism.” He then quotes Jesus that all these things will be added unto us if we seek the kingdom of heaven first. Unexpected miracles and wonders then happen. But they then come unsought (Quest, 223, 224). Brunton continued to be fascinated by occult powers. He believed that upon self-realization, these powers will be there. That seems to me to be a very different attitude from Ramana, who said that the powers do not count for the realized person, since powers are only for the phenomenal level of reality. d) Brunton, Iyer and Jung In August 1937, Brunton and Iyer were in Paris. Iyer represented India at the International Congress of Philosophy at the Sorbonne. It was while they were in Europe that they met C.G. Jung (Jung 1953, Vol. 1, 235fn). Jung invited Iyer and Brunton to Küsnacht, Switzerland, where they discussed problems of Indian philosophy. At this meeting that Jung told Brunton that he was a mystic but could not acknowledge this, because he wanted to preserve his scientific reputation. Both Brunton and Iyer influenced Jung's ideas about Ramana Maharshi (see Chapter 5 below). Brunton and Jung made very similar criticisms of Ramana. The fact that Jung criticized Ramana is also not generally known. This is partly due to the fact that Jung's introduction to the book The Spiritual Teachings of Ramana Maharshi gives the impression that Jung agreed with Ramana. But that introduction was taken from Jung's introduction to Heinrich Zimmer's book about Ramana, Der Weg Zum Selbst: Lehre und Leben des indischen heiligen Shri Ramana Maharshi aus Tiruvannamalei. The English translation of Jung’s introduction is contained in Jung's Collected Works, Volume 9, under the title, “The Holy Men of India.” Only excerpts of that introduction appear in the Shambhala edition. When Jung's full introduction is read, it is clear that he had serious disagreements with Ramana.

8. Discover Yourself [The Inner Reality] (1939) In 1938, Brunton also wrote Discover Yourself [the U.S. title for The Inner Reality]. It was published in 1939. It is addressed to Christians, and does not directly refer to Ramana. Brunton frequently quotes from the Bible. He says that the best advice is “Be still and know that I am God” (Discover, 15). As we have seen, this

verse was also one of Ramana’s ways of characterizing his teaching of Self-Enquiry. In Discover, Brunton uses other Christian language. He refers to the mystery of the Kingdom of Heaven and the words of the Lord's prayer, and the Beatitudes and their emphasis on being called the "children of God,” and he refers to the Gospel of John (Discover, 53, 75, 103, 269). Brunton says that thought is secondhand, but we must have immediate knowledge by unifying ourselves with God: When you have found your inner spiritual self then you can look outwards again, and you will find the sun—in other words the Universal Self. You will see God in every thing and every body—after you have seen God in yourself!”( Discover, 35)

Brunton uses the analogy of the unity of the Self refracted into phenomenal reality, like white light in a prism: Thinking, moving, acting in this material world are merely different manifestations of spiritual consciousness. When you let a light shine through a window made of coloured glass, the rays which appear on the farther side will seem coloured, yet on your side they will be white (Discover, 63).

Meditation is the process of interiorization, withdrawal, and ultimately reaching “the original white lamp.” Now the idea of temporal reality being a refraction of a prism is not unique to Brunton. But did he obtain it from Ramana? Humphreys refers to the prism and the white light. He says that Jesus was utterly unconscious when He worked His miracles. “It was the White Light, the Life, Who is the cause and the effect, acting in perfect concert. My Father and I are One” (Glimpses, 25). Later, in his Notebooks, Brunton admitted that in Discover, he had used Christ's teachings as a peg for his own ideas: In The Inner Reality, I have used the words of Jesus as mere pegs on which to hang my own teaching. This follows the example on the ancient religion makers. It has thus helped thousands of Christians, who might otherwise not have been reached by my words, to a higher concept of Truth.

So it was not only Ramana’s teaching that Brunton used as a peg. He also acknowledges using Christ’s teachings in this way!

9. Indian Philosophy and Modern Culture (1939) Brunton spent the winter of 1937/38 in London (Cahn Fung I, 39). In May 1938, Brunton went to the United States. Then from the west coast of the

U.S., he sailed back to Asia. Brunton published Indian Philosophy and Modern Culture at the request of the Maharaja of Mysore (Brunton 1990, 14). It was dedicated to Iyer. Brunton later referred to this work as his “doctoral thesis” (Hurst, 79). As early as 1937, Brunton had begun referring to himself as having a doctorate. Brunton’s 1937 book The Quest for the Overself gives the author’s name as “Paul Brunton, Ph.D.” Masson says the thesis (if it was a thesis), is only 45 pages long. Brunton told him that his Ph.D. was from Roosevelt University in Chicago. Masson says that he checked–that university has no record of Brunton! And Masson, who studied Sanskrit, says that Brunton had no knowledge of Sanskrit (Masson, 161).

10. The Hidden Teaching Beyond Yoga (1941) In January 1939, Brunton returned to Ramana’s ashram. He had expected to stay there three months, and then spend three months in Mysore. He left Ramana’s ashram after only three weeks, and says he was forced to leave. Brunton’s serious disagreements Ramana and the ashram are not well known, and we will look at these in some detail. Instead of staying with Ramana, Brunton went to Mysore to stay with the Maharajah. He remained at Mysore until 1947 (although the Maharajah died in 1940). While at Mysore, Brunton published The Hidden Teaching Behind Yoga. In Hidden Teaching, Brunton changes the question “Who am I?” to “What am I?” He says that “Who Am I” is a question which emotionally presupposes that the ultimate 'I' of man will prove to be a personal being, whereas “What Am I?” rationally lifted the issue to scientific impersonal enquiry into the nature of that ultimate ‘I’ (Hidden Teaching, 17). In Hidden Teaching, Brunton says that he still regards Ramana as “the most eminent South Indian yogi.” But he also says something quite surprising: that he had known about meditation and yoga before he came to Ramana’s ashram, and that his experience with Ramana was no new experience. He makes the “confession” that when he first came to India, he was “no novice in the practice of yoga.” Even as a teenager …the ineffable exstasis of mystical trance had become a daily occurrence in the calendar of life, the abnormal mental phenomena which attend the earlier experience of yoga was commonplace and familiar, whilst the dry labours of meditation had disappeared into effortless ease (Hidden Teaching, 23).

Brunton claims that he not only had practiced yoga, but that he had experienced the abnormal phenomena, or siddhis. He refers to the experience of being seemingly extended in space, an incorporeal being. What I omitted to state and now reveal was that it was no new experience because many years before I had met the saintly yogi of Arunachala, I had enjoyed precisely similar ecstasies, inward repose and luminous intuitions during self-training in meditation (Hidden Teaching, 25).

Ramana only confirmed his earlier experiences. Is Brunton being honest here? Or has he invented this story of previous experience in view of his disenchantment with Ramana? The independent record seems to show that Brunton may be telling the truth. There is evidence that Brunton had had earlier experiences. The 1931 independent report of his first meeting with Ramana reports Brunton (then known as Hurst) as telling Ramana that he had earlier experienced moments of bliss. It is in Hidden Teaching that Brunton says that he used the story of Ramana as a “peg” on which to hang his own theories of meditation: It will therefore be clear to perspicacious readers that I used his name and attainments as a convenient peg upon which to hang an account of what meditation meant to me. The principal reason for this procedure was that it constituted a convenient literary device to secure the attention and hold the interest of western readers, who would naturally give more serious consideration to such a report of the “conversion” of a seemingly hard headed critically-minded Western journalist to yoga (Hidden Teaching, 25).

It is also in Hidden Teaching that Brunton made public his criticisms of Ramana. He says he left the ashram “abruptly.” He refers to “threats of physical violence” and “malicious lying ignorance.” He speaks of being “harshly separated by the ill-will of certain men.” He speaks of “hate” and “low manners,” which he attributes to jealousy over his success (Hidden Teaching, 18). Brunton did not return to see Ramana at all in the 12 years before Ramana’s death, even though he passed within a few miles of the ashram (Notebooks 8, s. 6:233.) Brunton had several disagreements with Ramana and with the way the ashram was run. We will examine them in detail. a) The allegation of plagiarism An article in The Maharshi says that after the success of his book A Search in Secret India, Brunton published many books without acknowledging that

Ramana was the source of his ideas. Therefore Ramana’s brother, Niranjanananda Swami, who managed the ashram, objected to Brunton continuing to take notes of what Ramana said to disciples. In 1939, Niranjananda asked Munagala Venkataramiah to tell Brunton that he could not longer take notes in the hall. Brunton asked whether this was also Ramana’s own view. Venkataramiah did not reply. Ramana overhead Brunton’s question, but he did not make any response. It is said that this was when Brunton began distancing himself from the ashram. There certainly appears to be truth in the allegation that Brunton did not sufficiently acknowledge Ramana as his source for many ideas. Chadwick says that Brunton was “a plagiarist of the first water” (Chadwick, 16). But Brunton mentions other disagreements with Ramana. b) Management of the ashram Brunton disagreed with Ramana’s brother, the Sarvadhikari in charge of the ashram. Brunton describes ... a highly deplorable situation in the Ramana ashram which represents the culminating crisis of a degeneration which has been going on and worsening during the last three years.

He says that Ramana’s ascetic indifference meant that he could not control the ashram: But during my last two visits to India it had become painfully evident that the institution known as the Ashram which had grown around him during the past few years, and over which his ascetic indifference to the world rendered him temperamentally disinclined to excercise the slightest control, could only greatly hinder and not help my own struggles to attain the highest goal, so I had no alternative but to bid it an abrupt and final farewell (Hidden Teaching, 18).

The ashram had turned out to be “a miniature fragment of the imperfect world I had deserted” (Hidden Teaching, 43). c) Comments made about Ramana Masson says that Brunton had given interviews in the Indian papers about Ramana, which Ramana’s brother had not found satisfactory (Masson, 25). Were these disagreements even earlier than 1939? Brunton had not been at the ashram since early 1936. In September 1936, Ramana was asked

about “some disagreeable statements by a man well known to Maharshi.” Ramana replied, I permit him to do so. I have permitted him already. Let him do so even more. Let others follow suit. Only let them leave me alone. If because of these reports no one comes to me, I shall consider it a great service done to me. Moreover, if he cares to publish books containing scandals of me, and if he makes money by their sale, it is really good. Such books will sell even more quickly and in larger numbers than the others […] He is doing me a very good turn (Talks, 204; paragraph 250 (Sept. 7, 1936).

Perhaps this is not a reference to Brunton. But the dates fit with his trip to the Himalayas “in exile.” Brunton did write an article in September 1936 in The Leader. The article concerned the Maharaja in Pithapuram (in northeastern India), of whom Brunton spoke very favourably (Cahn Fung I, 38). In Conscious Immortality, the reference to the “vilifier’ of Ramana is indicated to be someone from the town, and to a pamphlet that this person has printed, and not to a newspaper interview. It is unclear why this reference was changed from what is reported in Talks. The changed version appears to be avoiding a reference to Brunton. Chadwick reports that when Ramana was asked why so many things happened at the ashram of which he did not approve, Ramana replied, What can I do? If I go off to the forest and try to hide, what will happen? They will soon find me out. Then someone will put up a hut in front of me and another person at the back, and it will not be long before huts will have sprung up on either side. Where can I go? I shall always be a prisoner (Chadwick, 93)

d) Lack of guidance by Ramana Brunton says that with Ramana, he experienced intermittent satisfactions of mental peace. But these entered into conflict with “an innate, everenquiring rationalism” (Hidden Teaching, 21). He had hoped to obtain guidance from Ramana, but “the guidance never came.” His [Ramana’s] immense attainment lay in the realms of asceticism and meditation. He possessed a tremendous power of concentrating attention inwardly and losing himself in rapt trance, of sitting calm and unmoved like a tree. But with all the deep respect and affection I feel for him, it must be said that the role of a teaching sage was not his forte because he was primarily a self-absorbed mystic. This explained why his open disdain for life’s practical

fulfilment in disinterested service of others had led to inevitable consequences of a disappointing kind in his immediate external environment. It was doubtless more than enough for himself and certainly for his adoring followers that he had perfected himself in indifference to worldly attractions and in the control of restless mind. He did not ask for more. The question of the significance of the universe in which he lived did not appear to trouble him. (Hidden Teaching, 16)

Brunton had Ramana’s instruction of the method of self-enquiry. What additional guidance did Brunton want? It seems to me that he wanted the magical powers or siddhis associated with yoga. Brunton wanted initiation. That is the only meaning that I can give to his statement that Ramana “never instructed any other person.” Examples are the power of telepathy or of foreseeing the future. And he refers to the “higher mysteries of yoga.” e) Insufficiency of trance We have seen that Brunton’s book Search emphasizes Ramana’s trances, and that Brunton regarded these trances as evidence of Ramana’s enlightenment. But in Hidden Teaching, Brunton criticizes trances. Brunton refers to the “sheer shrivelled complacency” of some of Ramana’s followers, and their “hidden superiority complex.” He refers to this mystical attitude as a “holier than thou attitude,” and an assumption that total knowledge had been reached when in fact it was only a partial knowledge (Hidden Teaching, 16). He says that without the healthy opposition of active participation in the world’s affairs, mystics have no means of knowing whether or not they are living in a realm of sterilized self-hallucination (Hidden Teaching, 19). Brunton’s change from emphasizing trance to criticizing it as insufficient seems to be based on Iyer’s neo-Hindu emphasis on helping others. Brunton says that meditation on oneself is a necessary and admirable pursuit but it does not constitute the entire activity which life is constantly asking of us. Meditation apart from experience was inevitably empty; experience apart from meditation was mere tumult. A monastic mysticism which scorned the life and responsibilities of the busy world would frequently waste itself in ineffectual beating of the air (Hidden Teaching, 19).

Furthermore, the ecstasies of meditation were not lasting. They had to be repeated if one wanted to live again in the original condition (Hidden

Teaching, 26). Brunton cites Aurobindo with approval: Trance is a way of escape--the body is made quiet, the physical mind is in a state of torpor, the inner consciousness is left free to go on with its experience. The disadvantage is that trance becomes indispensable and that the problem of the waking consciousness is not solved, it remains imperfect (Hidden Teaching, 27).

Brunton says Zen is more sensible and practical. Young men are trained for three years; during that time they are given active tasks. They are not allowed to pass the day in “lazy, futile or parasitical existence.” A half hour of meditation daily is sufficient after their departure from the monastery to keep them in contact with spiritual peace; their worldly life did not suffer but was enriched (Hidden Teaching, 28). But as we have seen, Ramana was opposed to trance in the sense of loss of consciousness. Ramana distinguished between nirvikalpa samadhi (trance) and sahaja samadhi. f) The lawsuit Someone published a statement that Brunton had started a lawsuit against Ramana. Brunton felt compelled to deny the allegation (Notebooks, vol. 10: 2:462). But it is true that a legal action had been commenced for control of the ashram. K.K. Nambiar says that the lawsuit was started by one of Ramana’s attendants, named Perumalsami, claiming the right to the land on which the ashram had been built (Crumbs, 26). The action was commenced some time in 1936. Brunton was at the ashram for part of 1936. Even if he was not involved in any legal action to take control of the ashram, Brunton had strong objections to the ashram management. And he blamed Ramana for not caring how the affairs in the ashram were being managed. He says that Ramana’s ascetic indifference to the world had rendered him “temperamentally disinclined to exercise the slightest control.” The lawsuit is very interesting, since Ramana was compelled to testify in the case. A fascinating excerpt is given in Talks (Talks 237-240; November 15, 1936).) The plaintiff argued that if Ramana was truly a sannyasin, he could not own any property. The same issue was to arise later when Ramana made a will. How could a sannyasin own any property that he could dispose of by a will?

g) Ethical disagreements Brunton’s concern about Ramana’s indifference to the way that the ashram was being managed was really only one issue within the larger issue of how the realized person is to interact with the world. And it is this larger ethical issue that is really the basis of Brunton’s ultimate dissatisfaction with Ramana’s teaching. For Brunton, it is not sufficient for a realized person to meditate. Interaction and involvement with the outside world is necessary. Meditation apart from experience is “inevitably empty.” Brunton says the price of yoga is world-renunciation–fleeing from wife, family, home, property and work; taking refuge in ashrams, caves, monasteries, jungles or mountains. But we were meant to live actively in the world. The field of activity is in the external world, not in the trance-world (Hidden Teaching, 20). Brunton felt that Ramana took no stand on issues like the coming war. Brunton was particularly upset by an incident when news was brought to the ashram that Italian planes had gunned undefended citizens on the streets of Ethiopia (the Italians invaded Ethiopia in October, 1935). Brunton reports that Ramana said: The sage who knows the truth that the Self is indestructible will remain unaffected even if five million people are killed in his presence. Remember the advice of Krishna to Arjuna on the battlefield when disheartened by the thought of the impending slaughter of relatives on the opposing side.

Brunton’s criticisms of Ramana are quite different from what he said in Search: But perhaps it maybe good for us to have a few men who sit apart from our world of unending activity and survey it for us from afar (Search, 289).

Ramana seemed to believe that a realized person was above ethical obligations of right and wrong. For the jnani there is no good or evil, only spontaneous activity or actionless-activity of Tao: What is right and wrong? There is no standard by which to judge something to be right and another to be wrong. Opinions differ according to the nature of the individual and according to the surroundings. They are again ideas and nothing more. Do not worry about them. But get rid of thoughts. If you always remain in the right, then right will prevail in the world (Talks, 428; Feb. 8, 1938).

Our concern is to be with our own self-realization, and that if good results, we will be unconscious in performing it: Do not think that you are the one to bring about some reform. Leave these aims alone and let God attend to them. Then, by getting rid of egoism, God may use you as an instrument to effect them, but the difference is that you will not be conscious of doing them; the Infinite will be working through you and there will be no self-worship to spoil the work (Conscious Immortality, 12).

Ramana said “Self-reform automatically brings about social reform” (Conscious Immortality, 14). He referred to Tayumanavar for support: As the Tamil Saint, Tayumanavar, points out in a poem, a person who sits still and silently can influence a whole country (Conscious Immortality, 83).

Humphreys refers to Vivekananda for interpretation of this view. “You do not help the world at all by wishing or trying to do so, but only by helping yourself” (Glimpses, 21). I believe that Brunton's criticism of Ramana is correct, at least with respect to ethics. Ken Wilber also says that, however realized Ramana was, he had ethical shortcomings (Wilber 1999, 201). The problem is an inconsistency in Ramana’s teachings between different views of the self. On the one hand, the self is seen as static and unmoving, uninvolved in the world. The world is seen as illusion. On the other hand, there is the view of the self as dynamic and participating in the world.   h) God as an illusion. Brunton also criticizes Ramana’s view that even God is an illusion: The final declaration which really put me, as a Western enquirer, off Advaita came later: it was that God too was an illusion, quite unreal.

This is a rather strange criticism, and reflects a rather naive view of Vedanta. Brunton had discussed this issue with Ramana as early as December 1935 (Talks, 106, par. 112). Brunton’s own later teaching moves from a personal to an impersonal Absolute. Instead of “Who am I?” Brunton refers to “What am I” as being more scientific (Hidden Teaching, 17). i) Lack of Originality

Finally, Brunton criticizes Ramana for a lack of originality. He says, “some years after I met Maharshi I discovered in an old Sanskrit text the same Who Am I method.” This is also a strange criticism, in view of the fact that Brunton was not really interested in Ramana’s ideas at all, except as a peg for his own ideas. Nevertheless, there is some point to the criticism, for Ramana’s disciples have often assumed more originality in Ramana than is warranted by the facts. As we have seen, Ramana relied on many previously written works, including some tantric works. Although Brunton left the ashram, and wrote publicly about his disagreements with Ramana, he nevertheless expressed his “loving devotion and profound reverence for him”: As I wrote in a London journal when he died in 1950: "He was the one Indian mystic who inspired me most…The inner telepathic contact and close spiritual affinity between us remained vivid and unbroken… (Hidden Teaching, 33).

But even in this appreciative comment, Brunton is emphasizing special occult powers, such as telepathy. In his Notebooks, Brunton wrote that he regretted saying some of the things he did about Ramana. He says that this criticism was occasioned “more by events in the history of the ashram than by his own self.” But although he continued to admire Ramana as a mystic, Brunton did not change his views about the importance of ethics.

11. The Wisdom of the Overself (1943) From 1939, and throughout World War II, Brunton remained as a guest of the Maharajah of Mysore. Brunton was still there when his own disciple Jacques Masson visited him in December 1945 (Masson, 9). Brunton completed the book The Wisdom of the Overself in 1942; it was published the following year. In it, Brunton stresses his idea of mentalism. The world outside of us has been projected as a thought by the World Mind. We have already seen how Thurston had a similarly mentalistic view of the world in Dayspring.

12. The Spiritual Crisis of Man (1952) In 1946, Brunton wrote to Ramana. The letter was read to Ramana on March 29, 1946. A disciple of Ramana reports this:

In this [letter], Brunton says he is going back to America and that he should have very much liked to meet Bhagavan [Ramana] during the last six years, but that that was rendered impossible by the attitude of the Asramam [ashram] and that therefore he had come to accept fate in this matter and was meeting Bhagavan only in the deep places of his heart where Bhagavan still is (Day by Day, 163).

Brunton stayed in Mysore until 1947, when he moved to the Masson home in Los Angeles (Masson, 27). In 1954, Masson lived in Hawaii, with Brunton as guest (Masson, 47). In 1952, Brunton published The Spiritual Crisis of Man. That same year, he went back to Ramana’s ashram: In 1952, more than two years after Ramana’s death, Brunton again visited the ashram at Tiruvannamalai, and discovered within 24 hours that he and the ashram leaders had nothing to say to each other (Cahn Fung I, 49).

13. Essays on the Quest Essays on the Quest was published after Brunton’s death. He sets out his views against black magic or “evil occultism” (Essays, 12). And he speaks about the unity of Mind: The Overself is a ray of the Mind. “Just as the sun appears to have split itself up into millions of rays but nevertheless remains the same single sun that it was before, so the ineffable Mind cannot be separated into parts except in appearance, and cannot be divided into individual entities except in human thinking of it (Essays, 100).

This shows that Brunton continued his mentalist or idealist view of the world. In these essays, the following words surely have reference to Ramana: Whoever has attained true and permanent insight does not need to spend his time always in meditation. For meditation is a form of mental exercise to help its practise get into the transcendent consciousness of pure Mind. He who sees pure Mind all the time does not need to practise any exercise for its possible perception. When, therefore, we are told that a sage lives in remote places and mountain caves in order to practise his meditations undisturbed, we may be sure that he is only an aspirant, only a would-be sage. The populace, impressed by his asceticism and awed by his trance often regard such a yogi as a sage. He may himself accept such a valuation. But he will really possess the status only of a mystic, perhaps even a perfect

one. If he reaches such perfection and is bewitched by his transient trances, he will feel that he is all-sufficient in himself and that he does not need anything from the world. The corollary of this, unfortunately, is that the woes of his fellow creatures have nothing to do with him (Essays, 117).

A person who merely meditates is “a complacent recluse and nothing more.” The true sage “is the man who has finished all three stages of religion, yoga and philosophy, has realized the Overself and has come in consequence to a wide compassion for his fellow creatures” (Essays, 118). And, contrary to what he says in his first book, A Search in Secret India, Brunton says that the aura of peace radiated by a mystic is not a sign of perfection: The aura of intense mental peace which is felt in the presence of a perfect mystic is not necessarily a sign of perfection, as the ignorant think, but a sign of successful inward-turned concentration. He consciously exerts a mesmeric force on the disciples who sit passively around him. The sage, on the other hand, spends all this concentrative force in action intended to render real service to others whilst at the same time spontaneously and effortlessly also giving that which is given by the mystic to those who search (Essays, 118).

It is this lack of ethical concern for others that was Brunton's primary criticism of Ramana, and the reason that he chose V. Subrahmanya Iyer as his guru instead of Ramana.

 

Chapter 5: Interpretations of Ramana after Brunton 1. Major A.W. Chadwick (1890-1962) Major Chadwick came to Ramana’s ashram on Nov 1, 1935, having heard of Ramana though Brunton’s book A Search in Secret India. Chadwick had met Brunton in London. When Chadwick first met Ramana, Ramana was very interested to hear about Brunton, who would be returning to India in a few months. Chadwick became a disciple. Many years later (1961), he published A Sadhu’s Reminiscences of Ramana Maharshi. Chadwick enthusiastically refers to Brunton’s book A Search in Secret India: “I have always felt that his [Brunton’s] chapters in the book which refer directly to Bhagavan were certainly inspired by Bhagavan himself (Chadwick, 16). Chadwick emphasizes Ramana’s written teachings. When he arrived, Ramana told someone to give him a copy of Who am I? and told Chadwick to read it. Ramana always insisted that the book should be sold so cheaply that it could be purchased by the poorest person (Chadwick, 17). Ramana told Chadwick that the book was “…direct from his own experience and in no way influenced by his reading of various Upanishads and other sacred writings which were afterwards brought to him to explain.” These are his teachings “at first hand and uncoloured” (Chadwick, 22). The second book that Ramana told him to read was Narasimha’s biography of him, Self-realization. Chadwick says, “Without this book we should have known nothing of the early years of Bhagavan’s life.” But Chadwick acknowledges that Humphreys was the first European to record a visit to Ramana (Chadwick, 20-21). The Prologue to Chadwick’s book cites Narasimha’s biography of Ramana. Chadwick repeats the story of Raman’s abnormally heavy sleep as a boy, and how his friends took advantage of this by taking Ramana from his bed, hitting him and playing tricks when he was asleep. Chadwick sees this as a sign of spirituality: I think that this heavy sleep of his must have been associated with his future attainment, the tremendous power of his concentration being here illustrated (Chadwick, 5)

Like Narasimha, he acknowledges that there are many interpretations of Ramana. Ramana was like a mirror, which seemed to reflect back your own feelings (Chadwick, 150).

Chadwick gives a very interesting account of Ramana’s silence. He asked Ramana about his vow of silence after he left home at the age of 16. Ramana told Chadwick that there was never any vow of silence! Ramana had observed how convenient it was in that the crowds no longer bothered him (Chadwick, 18). He says that Ramana’s mouna [silence] was “mythical” (Chadwick, 18). Once Ramana had achieved perfection, he simply sought out quiet places where he thought that he would not be disturbed and where he might enjoy Bliss (Chadwick, 19). But despite Ramana’s pragmatic reasons for his silence, people were still helped merely by being in his presence. Chadwick says that people identified Ramana with Dakshinamurti, the silent guru (an aspect of the ascetic form of Siva). They would come into his presence with doubts, sit in his presence, and go away without asking a single question, all their doubts cleared” (Chadwick, 63). Chadwick also says that Ramana gave initiation to disciples by his mere presence. He gave initiation through the eyes (Chadwick, 66). And yet Ramana discouraged devotees from taking a vow of silence, just as he was against people becoming sannyasins. Ramana was not always silent. Chadwick says that Ramana had a great sense of humour. He was also a magnificent actor, and would dramatize the protagonists in any story he related. At times, Ramana became filled with emotion was unable to proceed. He would “laugh with the happy and at times shed tears with the bereaved. In this way he seemed to reciprocate the emotions of others” (Chadwick, 26). Someone asked Ramana why he remained at the ashram, since so many things occurred of which he could not approve. Ramana replied that if he moved, he would be discovered, and huts would spring up around him again. “I shall always be a prisoner”(Chadwick, 91-2). Chadwick interprets ‘advaita’ as neither dualistic nor monistic: Now Advaita is not the same as is usually meant by Monism nor is it some catchword to avoid difficulties. The word means, of course, Not-Two, but this [is] not the equivalent for One, though to the casual thinker it is not easy to see where the difference lies. But if we call it Monism then premising one we infer a whole series, one, two, three etc. No such series actually exists, there is just Not-Two (Chadwick, 44).

And Chadwick interprets the doctrine of maya as meaning not illusion, but only impermanence. When we see things we see duality; in one sense this duality is not unreal, it is only unreal in the sense that there is Not-Two. It is there in appearance but yet is impermanent and fleeting. […] But even though the snake is quite unreal the rope is there. So the obvious solution for our riddle is to search out and find the permanent behind the impermanent. This was Bhagavan’s solution and he taught us how to do it by his method of self-enquiry. Though the ego changes minute by minute, though we are entirely different people through every stage of our life, there has always been for us and [sic] “I.” Not the ego because the ego changes every second (Chadwick, 44-45).

Chadwick asked Ramana about Richard Bucke’s book Cosmic Consciousness, and about Bucke’s report that illumination comes in a flash. Bucke was a Canadian doctor who in 1901 wrote about a sudden experience of illumination. Ramana said that that which comes in a flash will disappear in a flash: Actually it is not Self-realization they experience but Cosmic Consciousness where they see all as one, identify themselves with Nature and the Cosmic Heart. In Hinduism this is called Mahat. Here a trace of ego remains even during the experience and a consciousness of the body belonging to the visionary. This false sense of “I” must go entirely, for it is the limitation which serves as bondage (Chadwick, 25).

And yet Ramana himself speaks of cosmic consciousness as that which lies behind the ego. In answer to a question from Chadwick, Ramana says that cosmic consciousness pervades even Iùvara or the Absolute (Talks, 149; para. 177; March 10, 1936). Ramana criticizes Bucke’s idea that cosmic consciousness is only possible at a certain stage of life (Talks, 307; Jan 23, 1967). As we shall see, another biographer of Ramana, Lakshmana Sarma, also refers to Bucke’s book. And Swami Siddeswarananda of the Ramakrishna Mission asked Ramana about a verse by Nammalwar embodying his vision of “cosmic consciousness” (Conscious Immortality, 137). Like other biographers, Chadwick tries to reconcile contradictions in Ramana by saying that the contradictions are only apparent. They are there because Ramana had to speak from two points of view (Chadwick, 45).

Chadwick reported to Ramana that as he began meditating in the presence of Ramana, he experienced fear. Ramana told him that this was his ego that was experiencing the fear. The ego was “was losing its grip and dying” (Chadwick, 46). Chadwick is important not only for his recollections of Ramana, but for what he says about others who visited Ramana. Chadwick refers to Brunton, whom he says was “a plagiarist of the first water” and who later “wrote a lot of rubbish” (Chadwick, 16). So his initial enthusiasm for Brunton had faded. Chadwick reports the visit by the novelist Somerset Maugham, who came to the ashram in March 1939. Maugham wrote that he sat in the hall of the ashram, but Chadwick says that that is untrue, because he could not enter with his boots; he only gazed at the hall from the outside. Chadwick says that in his novel The Razor’s Edge, Maugham tacked on philosophy that Ramana could never have accepted. Maugham’s emphasis on Brahman and on reincarnation is dualistic and has nothing to do with advaita. Chadwick refers to Ramana, who always said, “Find out if you are born now. If you are not even born, how can you be reborn?” (Chadwick, 37-40). Chadwick also reports the visit of the American Bierce Spaulding [sic], who came to the ashram in 1936 with a group of Americans. His reference appears to be to Baird Thomas Spalding, who wrote about his trip to India in 1894 (Spalding 1994). In 1935, when Spaulding was 78 years old, he organized another trip to India with 18 other seekers. They had bought oneway tickets to India, since they had been told that once with the Masters, they would be taken care of, and that they would not want to return to America. They arrived in Calcutta, where Spalding left them in a hotel while he tried to communicate with the Masters as to how to proceed. Spalding told his group that he had met Brunton, who invited them to Ramana’s ashram. Spalding first took the group to Pondicherry for a darshan of Aurobindo. Brunton was present at the same darshan and stayed at the same hotel. Brunton told Chadwick that members of the group accused Spalding of having swindled them. When they arrived at Ramana’s ashram, there were only 12 members left of the group. Others had left in exasperation. Mrs. Taylor, one of the members of the group, asked Ramana for Self-realization “right away.” Chadwick thought that Spalding was an interesting person, who “obviously suffered from delusions” and was “slightly mad” (Chadwick, 48-51).

Ramana told Chadwick that in ancient India, Rama had his flowercar, which was an aeroplane. There were fire-weapons, diamond weapons and electric weapons. They had a combination of metals by which they were able to overcome gravity (Chadwick 90-91). Chadwick also reports some tantric influences on Ramana, such as the granite Sri Chakra Meru that was installed in Ramana’s mother’s tomb, and which is still regularly worshipped. It is one and a half feet square. Chadwick says that Ramana personally superintended the installation in the inner shrine and blessed the Sri Chakra. Because of this interest by Ramana in tantra, Chadwick later (after Ramana’s death) was able to persuade the ashram to institute the Sri Chakra Pujas six times a month (Chadwick, 59-60). The only occasion when such a puja was performed during his life, Ramana refused to go for his evening meal but insisted on remaining a witness of it until the end. He thought it would be good if such pujas would be continued. Chadwick says that Shakti must always accompany Siva. Otherwise, the world would stop. Ramana told Chadwick that people do not want simplicity. They want something elaborate and mysterious that is why so many religions have come into existence. The Christian will not be satisfied unless taught that God is in Heaven and can’t be reached without help of the church. He is not satisfied with the simple truth “The Kingdom of God is within you” (Chadwick, 70). He said that the Tamil Saint Manickavasagar’s body disappeared in a blaze of light leaving no residue. Chadwick referred to the prophet Elijah (who is said to have been taken up to Heaven in a chariot). He asked Ramana whether Christ’s death was different. Ramana said that Christ’s body remained for a time after death but other bodies were immediately and utterly consumed (Chadwick, 71). But Chadwick does not interpret Ramana in Christian terms. Chadwick reports on the visit by the Christian missionary Stanley-Jones (Chadwick, 80-85). Stanley-Jones emphasized that the Kingdom of Heaven was personified in Jesus Christ, and that “if that Kingdom is universalized, each of us will become at one with the rest.” Ramana answered that there are no differences between people. The “real waking state” does not involve differences. Chadwick became frustrated at Stanley-Jones’ “pestering” of Ramana, and he referred Stanley-Jones to the Biblical saying “The Kingdom of Heaven is within you.” Stanley-Jones said that the real

translation was “among you.” Stanley-Jones then left. Another record of this visit is found in Talks, 452-55. Ramana’s reply to Stanley-Jones raises issues that are not really resolved. If the waking state of the realized person does not involve differences, how does the jivanmukta function in the world? Chadwick himself raised this issue, and reports Ramana’s answer: How can he [the jnani] both see distinctions and not see distinctions? He obviously does. He can answer questions, discuss and apparently do all things in that way we do, yet for him I repeat, there is only one Self and this life is nothing but a dream (Chadwick 73).

Chadwick also criticized Ramana. He says that Ramana used to chew snuff and betel nuts (Chadwick, 35). A more serious ethical problem concerned the observation of caste in the ashram dining room. The Brahmins were seated on one side; other castes were seated on the other side. Ramana insisted on it (Chadwick, 34). And Ramana seemed unconcerned regarding World War II. He is reported to have once remarked, “Who knows but that Hitler is a Jnani, a divine instrument” (Chadwick, 35).

2. W.Y. Evans-Wentz (1878-1965) W.Y. Evans-Wentz, the Oxford scholar of Tibetan studies, visited Ramana in January 1935, and he carried a letter of introduction from Paul Brunton. Evans-Wentz had by then translated the Tibetan Book of the Dead (1927) and Tibet's Great Yogi Milarepa (1928) and a third book on the Tibetan Yoga and its Secret Doctrines (1935). He gave copies of these books to Ramana. Ramana liked The Life of Milarepa the best. Evans-Wentz asked Ramana about the nature of time. Ramana replied, “Time is only an idea. There is only the Reality” (Talks, 10). He asked Ramana about illusion. Ramana replied: “To whom is the illusion? Find it out. Then illusion will vanish.” But Ramana also said, “Maya is used to signify the manifestations of the Reality. Thus Maya is only Reality” (Talks, 16). As we shall see, these two views of maya are inconsistent. The view that maya is reality is a tantric idea. Evans-Wentz asked whether work is an obstruction to Self-realization. Ramana replied:

No. For a realized being the Self alone is the Reality, and actions are only phenomenal, not affecting the Self. Even when he acts he has no sense of being an agent. His actions are only involuntary and he remains a witness to them without any attachment. There is no aim for this action. Even one who is still practising the path of Wisdom (jnana) can practise while engaged in work. It may be difficult in the earlier stages for a beginner, but after some practice it will soon be effective and the work will not be found a hindrance to meditation (Talks, 11)

Ramana told Evans-Wentz that one must search for the ego, and that one must find out, “Who am I?” This could be done by someone who was married or unmarried. Celibacy (brahmacharya) means “living in Brahman.” Similarly, solitude is in one’s mind. Whether one is in the thick of the world or in a forest, one may still not be controlling the mind. But it is possible to be in solitude even when working, provided that one works with detachment (Talks, 15, para. 20). Ramana’s emphasis on being able to be enlightened and still act in the world is the idea of living liberation, or jivanmukti, an idea which is not shared by all Hindus. Evans-Wentz then focused on ethical questions. He asked Ramana how the saint helps humanity. Ramana said that the help is imperceptible but still there; humanity is not aware of the help it receives. Evans-Wentz asked, would it not be better if the saint mixed with others? Ramana replied “There are no others to mix with. The Self is the one and only Reality” (Talks, 16, para. 20). Ramana thus gave two different answers to the ethical issue. The first is that the realized person helps the world without the world being aware of it. The second is that there is in fact no world, anyway. These two answers are not consistent. The second is a much more monistic view, regarding the world as illusion. Ramana also gives a third view–that of quietism. He says “The power which has created you has created the world. If it can take care of you, it can similarly take care of the world also.” None of these three answers calls for any active involvement in the world. Evans-Wentz asked about occult powers, and Ramana replied, The occult powers (siddhis) are only in the mind. They are not natural to the Self. That which is not natural, but acquired, cannot be permanent, and is not worth striving for (Talks, 17, para. 20).

Ramana’s views on these powers or siddhis therefore are quite consistent. They are not to be sought.

3. K. Lakshmana Sarma (1879-1965) In 1937, K. Lakshmana Sarma published Maha Yoga (or The Upanishadic Lore in the Light of the Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana). He published it under the pseudonym “Who”–a most appropriate name given Ramana’s method of “Who are You?” The Ramana website refers to this book as “the most thorough and intriguing study” of Ramana’s teachings. Sarma refers to Ramana’s experience at the age of 16 in terms of “grace”: We must take it that, possessed by this power–which is identical with what devotees call ‘grace’–the mind plunged deep into the Source of all life and mind and was merged in It (Maha Yoga 5).

Sarma says, Soon after coming to Tiruvannamalai, as a result of his continuous experience of the Egoless State, he [Ramana] realized the truth of the ancient Revelation: “I and my Father are one” (Maha Yoga 12).

Does this mean that the realization was not during the enactment of death at Ramana’s home when he enacted his death? Or that Ramana was only able to articulate this when he came to Tiruvannamalai? In either case, why is it that the revelation in question is with reference to a Christian text? Later, Sarma refers to the “I am” of Jehovah (Maha Yoga 120). And he quotes the words of Jesus, “The kingdom of Heaven is within you,” (Maha Yoga 129). Like other biographers of Ramana, Sarma makes many references to Western writers. He refers to William James, and to Bucke’s Cosmic Consciousness (Maha Yoga 38). He refers to Kant’s view that what we perceive is not the world itself, but an ever-shifting mass of sensations, sounds, contacts, forms, tastes and smells, and that space, time and causality are the mind’s creation (Maha Yoga 63). He even refers to Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland; the wonder-world is seen as quite real until the very end (Maha Yoga 73). But Sarma says we must distinguish between yogis, saints and sages. No sage ever contradicts another sage. Non-sages have only a distorted view of truth. For proof, he refers to the Vivekacudamani, verse 365 (Maha Yoga 39). Sarma quotes Ramana as saying that when we seek to know anything other than oneself, without caring to know the truth of oneself, the

knowledge obtained cannot possibly be right knowledge (Maha Yoga 26). There is the eye of flesh, and the Real eye (Maha Yoga 73). Sarma also refers to other non-traditional Hindu works. He says that Ramana referred him to the Vishnu Purana and to the sage Ribhu (Maha Yoga 70). And Ramana quoted the Yoga Vasistha (Maha Yoga 124). Of special interest is what he says of our “identity” with the Self. Sarma says that to say that the individual soul is God is “blasphemous” (Maha Yoga 87). He quotes Ramana, that these issues arise only in “controversies” by those who have not attained true identity: He that has not attained the state of perfect identify with the Reality,–which is his Natural State, since that Reality is ever shining in the hearts of all creatures as the real Self–by seeking and becoming aware of It, engages in controversies, asserting ‘There is something real,’ ‘no,’ ‘that something has form,’ ‘no,’ ‘It is one,’ ‘It is twofold,’ ‘It is neither’ (Maha Yoga 89).

Sarma has what might be called a negative theology. He says that we can only know what the Self is not, and not what it is (Maha Yoga 127). It may be said that there are positive descriptions about It in the ancient lore, namely that It is Reality, Consciousness and Happiness–Sat, Chit, and Ananda. The answer is that these descriptions are positive only in form; they are negative in meaning, being intended only to dispel misconceptions (Maha Yoga 128).

But Sarma says that Ramana quoted from the Yoga Vasistha, that the Heart is the real Self, the original Consciousness. Here, Sarma places a monistic interpretation on the Self: It is called the Heart, because It is the Source of intelligence from which the mind takes its rise and expands into the world. To that Source it must return, so that relativity may be wound up and may cease. When the mind, with life, returns to the Heart and stays there in unity with It, then it can no more project on the Self the world-appearance which conceals It. From this it follows that the Sage does not see the world, though he rarely says so, having regard to the weaknesses of questioners… (Maha Yoga 129-130).

And yet Sarma tries to reconcile the teachings of Shankara and aregarding maya. Ramanuja says that the world is real and there is no maya. Shankara tells us to find out Reality underlying the ever-changing world. “What is called changefulness by Ramanuja is called illusion by Sankara” (Maha Yoga 203).

Sarma also translated Muruganar’s Guru Vachaakakkovai which is said to embody the oral teachings of Ramana (Sarma 1998). That book states “Self-Realization is not learning something new, but of unlearning, eliminating the false knowledge that the ego-mind has gathered in the course of numerous lives” (Sarma 1998, 5 fn1). The book is also of interest with respect to the idea of maya or illusion. It is not wrong to say that the world is unreal and real provided both statements are understood to mean the same thing. The names and forms that diversify the world are unreal but the world is real in the sense that the something, on which the names and forms are superimposed by the ego-mind, is real. “He does not endorse the common man’s view that the world is real with all its names and forms” (Sarma 1998, 6 fn7). Guru Ramana-Vachana-Mala also deals with ethics. The teaching of nonduality is to be meditated upon. It is not to be the basis of actions (Sarma, 43 v. 209). A footnote explains that because actions proceed from the contrary idea that the doer is an individual, the teaching of non-duality will be mis-applied. So for our actions, we must assume that duality is real! The Sadhaka must act always according to the best standard applicable to other men; that is, in conduct he must respect the distinction between moral and immoral conduct, as if duality were real.

But there is a difference between a sage and a mere sådhaka. Guru Ramana-Vachana-Mala emphasizes that the true Self is to be sought in the Heart, not in books (Sarma 1998, 43, v. 211). The state of the Real Self is one where no object appears (Sarma, 49, 243), and where there are no pairs of opposites, nor space nor time, nor action, nor its fruition, nor any other non-self (implying) duality (Sarma, 51, v. 248). The triad of knower, knowing and known does not exist in the Transcendental State (Sarma 1998, 57, v. 263). For one who looks outwards (at objects) both ignorance and knowledge exist; Consciousness in the case of the ‘knower of the Self’ is free from both, always of the same nature (Sarma, 57, v. 266).

The one who is liberated, the mukta, does not see differences (Sarma 1998, 70, v. 338). There is also no longer any ‘I’: In this State of Silence, which is egoless and mindless, who is there called ‘I’ to say ‘I am Brahman?’ (Sarma 1998, 50, v. 247).

The seemingly real ego, called jiva, is unreal (Sarma 1998, 59, v. 277). Pure Consciousness has the form I AM (Sarma 1998, 61 v. 286). And yet Guru Ramana-Vachana-Mala does not say that the world is totally unreal. It is real insofar as it is the place where the creative Consciousness plays: The three categories of the creator, the creature and the world, maya the creative Consciousness who plays with them, and the place where she plays; all these are the Pure Reality only (Sarma 1998, 61, v. 288).

The one who has attained the Natural State (sahaja) may seem to have the mental mood of the quality of Rajas, like a crystal mirror (Sarma 1998, 71, v. 342).

4. Jean Herbert (1897-1980) Jean Herbert, a French writer on eastern spirituality, visited Ramana’s ashram twice before the beginning of the war. In 1937, Herbert published Quelques grands penseurs de l'Inde (Herbert 1937). This is a 45-page booklet about several of India’s holy men and women, including Ramana, Aurobindo, Ramakrishna, Ananda Ma, and Gandhi. Herbert says that, unlike other gurus in India, Ramana hardly ever talks to his disciples. Being a rishi, one who has “seen” God, Ramana is content to “radiate” in silence. Although a person may arrive with questions and problems, these problems are solved naturally after a brief time with Ramana. He says that Ramana does not claim to teach anything new, but wants to guide his disciples into their own direct and personal experience of the Divine. Herbert describes the method of Self-Enquiry, which leads to the further step of union with the Divine. Herbert explicitly compares this with the words of Jesus, “My Father and I are one.”[25] Quelques grands penseurs de l'Inde gives only brief information about Ramana. It was expanded in a book that Herbert published ten years later, Spiritualité hindoue.[26] In this later book, Herbert says that Ramana does not usually appear to be conscious of anything that happens around him, that he usually does not talk except about indifferent subjects, and that Ramana attaches a considerable importance to the perfection of each of his acts, even the act of undoing a package. He passes his days in an almost complete immobility, stretched out on a couch at the foot of which his disciples prostrate themselves and burn incense. Herbert says that for his whole life, Ramana has allowed “commercial parasites” to install themselves around him and to monopolize him. Ramana watches and

allows them to drive away his oldest and most faithful disciples, sometimes with clubs.[27] On a positive note, Herbert writes that Ramana’s disciples receive from him “an astonishing spiritual impulse.” One look from Ramana can change a person’s life completely. An apparently insignificant word can open vast horizons, a sign from him can be more convincing than long explanations. Herbert reports that Ramana has written a few verses of poetry. He says that Ramana allows the most contradictory interpretations to be given to this poetry. In 1940, Herbert had published Études sur Ramana Maharshi, containing French translations of some of these contradictory interpretations of Ramana’s teachings.[28] There are, for example, both monistic and nonmonistic interpretations of Ramana’s teachings. Études sur Ramana Maharshi contains a long article by “Dr. Sarma K. Lakshman.” This is Lakshmana Sarma, and the article is an extract from his book Maha Yoga.[29] Sarma gives a monistic interpretation of Ramana’s teachings–that there is neither God nor world outside of Self. It is Sarma’s view that Ramana only learned this monistic view in later life, although his experience at the age of 16 had given him an experience of the Self. In contrast to this monistic interpretation, Swami Siddheswarånanda’s article says that Ramana’s conception of life embraces the totality of life, which for an Indian includes the three states of waking, dream and deep sleep. Siddheswarånanda was a member of the Ramakrishna Order, and thus a disciple of Vivekånanda.[30] We can therefore see a pronounced neo-Hindu interpretation in this article. Siddheswarånanda says that one cannot say that the exterior world did not interest Ramana. Siddheswarånanda cites the Vivekacudamani as support for this viewpoint. He says that going beyond ego does not signify that one is dead to all sensibility. In realization of the Self, one does not just content oneself by denying false ideas of reality; the positive element is most important, and that is to know the place of the ego with respect to the totality. If that were not the case, people could find emancipation without making any personal effort, like sleep without dream, or like a loss of consciousness, where all perception disappears completely.

An article in Études by another disciple, Anantachari, records that when Ramana himself was asked for an interpretation of his poems, Ramana said that he had no idea at all what he meant. “How can I explain what I wanted to say? I didn’t want to say anything at all.” A similar viewpoint is expressed in the article by Swami Tapasyånanda, who also asked Ramana how his teaching corresponded to that set out in a book about him. Ramana said that it was very difficult to know, since he himself did not have any particular doctrine. And he did not have any desire to write a book. A further article in Études by Swami Tapasyånanda is interesting in an unexpected way. He says that Ramana has a unique imperturbable serenity, and that he just exists, without waiting for anything and without any anxiety at all. But he also says that he does not know whether or not Ramana is really a jnani. Swami Tapasyånanda asked Ramana to instruct him in spiritual matters. Ramana’s first response was that the best instruction is by silence. According to Ramana, the advaitin has no opinion no express and no teaching concerning Vedanta. Because he had no particular doctrine, Ramana could not say whether books about him corresponded to his “teaching.” In his Preface to Études, Herbert says that he wrote the book because the spiritual influence of Ramana had become considerable, and that readers wanted to know more than romantic ideas of western journalists who thought they had understood Ramana. That is probably a criticism of Brunton. Herbert says that Ramana’s real teachings are in the way that he interprets other Hindu works that he refers to (the book includes French translations of excerpts from the Yoga Vasistha, the Vivekacudamani, and a poem of Tayumanavar). Herbert says that Ramana’s responses to questions from disciples are usually intended not so much to provide information as to give the questioner a shock, and causing him or her to reflect. Thus, the answers must always be seen in relation to the context in which they are given. Ramana believed that the paths to truth vary according to individuals; each can interpret what he hears or reads, as long as this interpretation helps him progress. Therefore, there can be contradictory interpretations. There is evidence within Talks (p. 415) that Herbert is correct–Ramana was not concerned about contrary viewpoints. Grant Duff asked Ramana how Lakshmana Sarma’s Maha Yoga and another publication (Sat Darsana Bhashya) could both claim to represent Ramana’s views when Maha Yoga

actually condemned the other views. Sat Darsana Bhashya claimed that individuality was retained even after the loss of the ego. Ramana said they were written from different standpoints–that of the body, and that of the realized state. Perhaps Ramana was following Shankara’s two-truths theory. But that doctrine did not prevent Shankara from engaging in intense intellectual debate with those who disagreed with his views of advaita. In Herbert’s criticisms of Ramana, we see some of the same concerns that are raised by other western interpreters. There is the same concern with ethics, and the issue whether the jivanmukta should involve himself in the running of the ashram. But Herbert’s books raise additional issues. One issue is that of the relation between concepts and experience. Are there inconsistencies in Ramana’s ideas? Do inconsistencies of thought matter? How does the jivanmukta perceive the world? Is the realized person conscious of the external world? Siddheswarånanda compares the outlook of a man who has attained realization with stereoscopic vision. Siddheswarånanda’s article is one of the first to draw connections between Ramana’s teachings and the Vivekacudamani. Herbert also relates Ramana’s ideas to Christian ideas, and especially to the words of Jesus that “I am my Father are One.” This is the issue of the “identity” between oneself and the Absolute. What is the meaning of nonduality or advaita in this connection? Is it the same as monism, or absolute identity? Or is there still a distinction between the Self and the Absolute?

5. Olivier Lacombe (1904-2001) Olivier Lacombe was the attaché consul for France in Calcutta. A record of his brief (three hour) visit with Ramana in 1936 is contained in Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi (Talks, 155-157). Lacombe asked Ramana whether his ideas corresponded with Shankara. Ramana did not give a direct reply, but said that others had found that his ideas corresponded to Shankara. Lacombe asked about the various types of yoga and methods of enlightenment in Hinduism. Ramana told him that the method chosen will vary according to the standpoint of the person, although he also said, “To remain in the Self amounts to all these [yogas] in their highest sense.” Once a person is realized, he will use individual language to teach about it. Lacombe recorded his reflections of this brief visit in the October 1937 volume of Études Carmélitaines.[31] Lacombe refers to Ramana as a yogi. Lacombe believed Indian yoga to be a “natural spirituality” as distinct from

the supernatural spirituality given by the Holy Spirit in Christianity. Yoga is a conquest of the soul by itself, a kind of dis-incarnation, the isolation of the spirit in its native and original purity. Yoga starts by emptying one’s consciousness and proceeds ultimately to an intuitive knowing beyond sensing and discursive thought. Lacombe relates the traditional story of Ramana’s enlightenment at the age of 16, and how Ramana did not have previous knowledge or training. He says that the foundation of Ramana’s mysticism is the “grasping of the soul by itself” in the depth of its substance–a depth that is beyond even the most spiritual actions, and beyond the root of our powers of knowing and loving. Lacombe says that this grasping of the soul by itself is a passage from extraversion to introversion. For Ramana, his shock or fear of death rendered him immediately introspective or introverted. Ramana’s later sayings as a sage were designed to give a similar psychological shock to those who asked him questions. He wanted to plunge them into their depths, to convert them in a radical introversion. But although this experience of introversion is valuable, Lacombe says that Ramana “exalted the experience of the individual self to the experience of the universal self.” Lacombe later referred to this radical introversion as a state of enstasis (“standing within”) (Lacombe 1951).[32] Most people assume that this term originated with Mircea Eliade. But both Eliade and Lacombe were in India in the 1930’s. Lacombe was the attaché consul for India. Eliade was studying at the University of Calcutta, and wrote his doctoral dissertation on yoga in 1933. That dissertation does not use the word ‘enstasis.’ Instead, he used other categories, such as magical/mystical and abstract/concrete (Rennie, 1996). Eliade’s first use of the term ‘enstasis’ was in his 1948 book, Techniques de Yoga (p. 106). The term ‘enstasis’ actually predates both of them. It was first used in 1800 by H.E.G. Paulus (1761-1851). Paulus was a rationalist theologian, and he used the term ‘enstasis’ to try to explain away spirituality. In 1800, in his Philologisch-Kritischer und Historischer Kommentar über das neue Testament, Paulus contrasts enstasis and ecstasis (PAULUS 1800, Vol. 1,15). This contrast occurs in his discussion about the vision of Zacharias, as recounted in Luke 1:11-22. Paulus refers to Zacharias’s vision as enstasy (Enstase). Paulus explains this vision by an analogy to dreams. When we are asleep, a person “turns within himself.” We are then

unconscious of our own actions, and we engage in dialogue with other inner persons. People often mistake this internal dialogue as the actions of spirits. But within ourselves we are multiple (verfielfältigt), and our own thoughts can appear to us as the speech of different people. The dreamer receives questions and objections; he fears, hopes, doubts, etc. These events seem real as long as there is an interruption between our spirit (which makes judgments), and our sensation and fantasy. But we eventually learn to acknowledge that these intuitions are produced by ourselves and not due to any superhuman source. Paulus says, By analogy (the reader need only bring to mind his strange inner capacity for psychological experiences made in dreams!), one may also conceive of a state of mind, where after a certain tension and consequent exhaustion of the gross body, there can in the state of wakefulness be a similar drawing back of the spirit from external reality, and a deep directedness to one’s inner sensory system.  This is a state of mind which is often called ‘ecstasy’ [Ekstase], a displacement outside of oneself, but which should rather be called ‘enstasy’ [Enstase], a displacement within oneself (PAULUS 1804, I, 74; my translation).

In this way, Paulus tried to explain away miracles. The Catholic theologian Abbé Jean Hermann Janssens (1863-1853) responded to Paulus’s ideas of enstasis and ekstasis. In 1818, Janssens explained (in Latin) the derivation of the term ‘enstasis’ from Greek: “Enstasis ab  = in et i9 στημι = sto” (Janssens 1818, Vol. II, 149fn). The meaning of those roots is “to stand within.” The fact that he gave this footnote indicates that Janssens believed that the word was rare or newly coined. In contrast to Paulus, who saw enstasy as a dream, Janssens describes enstasy as an “intuition of the soul” or “being absorbed in oneself.” (Although he does not cite Janssens, Lacombe seems to be using this same idea. Disciples of Ramana knew about Lacombe’s 1937 article in Études Carmélitaines. It is referred to by Swami Siddheswarånanda, one of the writers in Herbert’s Études sur Ramana Maharshi. Swami Siddheswarånanda disputes the characterization of Ramana as a yogi. He also disagrees with Lacombe’s view that Ramana proceeds by a psychological shock that was the equivalent of his own fear of death and by which he became introverted. He says that Ramana never provoked a shock, because he did not have any preconceived idea of the results of his

action. He was just not concerned with psychological or philosophical problems. Lacombe’s writings raise important comparative issues about how Ramana’s teaching and experience corresponds to other Hindu schools or darshanas, and to yoga in particular. Lacombe’s idea of the yogic experience as a “grasping of the soul by itself” seems to correspond to what has been referred to in later literature as a “pure consciousness” experience (Forman 1990).

6. Lanza del Vasto (1901-1981) Lanza del Vasto’s book Return to the Source was published in 1943. Like Brunton’s works, this book was very popular and it was translated into other languages. It sold over a million copies in France alone. Del Vasto gives a brief account of his meeting with Ramana in 1937. He is very critical of Ramana’s appearance: “a little man who goes about half naked and remains perfectly simple in the midst of the great honours done to him”; “the grey eyes in his dark face are mild and vacant”; and “He has been laid on a small sofa styled in the worst taste.” He criticizes the fact that Ramana chewed betel nut and that he “sometimes opens his mouth wide and belches.” He refers to the self-enquiry practiced by the disciples: The disciples look at Him who Is and think of what they are. Or, rather, they think of what they are not. They are not this arm or this leg, this head or this heart, they are not this body, they are not this anxiety or this joy, this hope or this remorse, this anger or this love nor any of these changing emotions. They are not their thought, since their thought ceases when they sleep, whereas they do not cease to be. They are not the I that names itself.

Del Vasto rejects Ramana’s model of spirituality: There is a Christian restlessness in me that prefers itself, imperfect as it is, to the perfect serenity of which I see the model here. If I had the rare courage and the power to dedicate myself to godliness, I should seek it, not so much in the peace of absolute sleep as in the frenzy of the enamoured soul. If I had the rare courage and the power to do so, I should still not think I had the right to seek salvation by myself and for myself. I should have to reach my own good through the good of others, and I maintain that charity is greater than wisdom.

This is harsh criticism. Del Vasto left Ramana’s ashram to look for Gandhi at Wardha (the site of Gandhi’s ashram), in order to “learn how to be a

better Christian.” Del Vasto’s criticisms of Ramana are very similar to Brunton’s. Is it correct to say that Ramana sought “the peace of absolute sleep,” or what Brunton calls trance? And what role does “charity” or ethics play for the jivanmukta?

7. S.S. Cohen S.S. Cohen was another disciple of Ramana. He wrote several books, including Guru Ramana: Memories and Notes, and Reflections on Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi.[33] Abhishiktananda (see below) met Cohen in 1952. He says that with Cohen he had some of his best conversations about Ramana’s teaching. But he found Cohen rather too intellectual in his approach.[34] It is important to note that Cohen had also been involved in Annie Besant’s Theosophical Society. He worked with her for five years at the headquarters of the Theosophical Society in Chennai. He had access to the library there, and studied Vedānta. A friend sent him a copy of Brunton’s book A Search in Secret India. As a result, Cohen moved to Ramana’s ashram in 1936, and became a permanent resident there (Ganesan, 259-60).

8. Arthur Osborne (1906-1970). The devotee Arthur Osborne wrote another biography of Ramana.[35] Osborne follows Narasimha’s biography, but deletes most of the Christian references to Ramana. Osborne repeats the story of Ramana’s sound sleeping as a boy. In 1964, Osborne founded the ashram’s monthly review, The Mountain Path (named after the sacred mountain Arunachala, symbol of the Guru, Siva, and of the formless Absolute). In the first volume of that journal, Osborne said, The aim of this journal will be to set forth the traditional wisdom of all religions and all ages, especially as testified to by their saints and mystics, and to clarify the paths available to seekers in the conditions of our modern world.[36]

It is interesting that Osborne emphasizes the “traditional wisdom of all religions and all ages.” This perennialist view represents neo-Hinduism and not traditional Hinduism. Osborne continues by making a link to Buddhism:

It is related (and the story is no less significant whether historically true or not) that after attaining Enlightenment the Buddha's first impulse was to abide in the effulgence of Bliss without turning back to convey the incommunicable to mankind. Then he reflected: “Some there are who are clear-sighted and do not need my teaching, and some whose eyes are clouded with dust who will not heed it though given, but between these two there are also some with but little dust in their eyes, who can be helped to see; and for the sake of these I will go back among mankind and teach. “It is for those with little dust in their eyes that this journal is intended (Ibid.).

The same issue of The Mountain Path contained another article, “Outside the Scriptures,” by Dr. T. N. Krishnaswami, referring to Buddhism’s emphasis on experience transmitted apart from the scriptures: A special transmission outside the scriptures; No dependence upon words or letters; Direct pointing at the heart of man; Seeing into one's own nature, and the attainment of Liberation.

Other works that Osborne published include Buddhism and Christianity in the Light of Hinduism, a study of Sai Baba of Shirdi, and many studies of Ramana Maharshi. He was the first to assemble Ramana’s Collected Works.[37] Osborne uncritically repeats the view that Ramana’s teachings were not derived from the books he read: There was no change or development in his philosophy during the half century and more of his teaching. There could be none, since he had not worked out any philosophy but merely recognized the expositions of transcendental Truth in theory, myth, and symbol when he read them (Preface to Collected Works, 11).

It is worth looking at Osborne’s own influences prior to meeting Ramana. Osborne was educated at Oxford. He was an enthusiastic reader of the writings of René Guénon. Guénon's Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines made a strong impression on Osborne.[38] Osborne corresponded with Guénon, and translated into English Guénon’s Crisis of the Modern World. Osborne and his wife then left with his wife for Thailand, where he taught at the University of Bangkok. Osborne was interned by the Japanese. It was only after the war that he went to Tiruvannamalai, where he stayed for the rest of his life. Osborne’s interest in Guénon is another Western influence that needs to be considered in understanding the teachings of Ramana Maharshi.

As an aside, it is interesting that Osborne’s son was the inventor of the Osborne computer, one of the first personal computers.

9. Abhishiktananda (1910-1973) Abhishiktananda is the Indian name given to the French Benedictine monk Henri Le Saux. Abhishiktananda came to India in 1948 with the intention of converting Hindus to Christianity. He visited Ramana’s ashram and thereafter tried to emulate what he understood to be Ramana’s advaitic experience (Friesen 2015b). Abhishiktananda believed that Ramana’s state of trance was evidence of a direct experience (anubhava). This experience is more immediate than the knowledge of the great saying (mahåvåkya) “I am He.” Because of this immediate experience, Abhishiktananda believed that Ramana was greater than Shankara. He still saw traces of duality in S0ankara: Shankara understood so’ham–I am He; for Bhagavan there is only aham–I. The “ashes” of duality that still appeared in Shankara were never there in Bhagavan. Bhagavan’s experience required years of “trance” before his body could be brought back to normal (Abhishiktananda 1995, Diary, 27.11.53).

In defence of his view that distinctions are real, Abhishiktananda refers to Ramana’s work Ulladu Narpadu. He also says that it is because distinctions are real that the jivanmukta does not have to stay in samadhi. This relates an appreciation of the reality of the world to the sahaja experience. In immersing ourselves in God, we do not disappear. The sage can discover, adore and serve God in creation and in the multiplicity of beings.[39] When Abhishiktananda arrived in India, his idea of advaita was that of nirvikalpa samadhi. He was disappointed that Ramana seemed so ordinary, and that he participated in everyday activities. Over time, Abhishiktananda came to appreciate the idea of jivanmukti. He did not seem to appreciate the difference between the interpretation of the jivanmukta’s actions as due to prarabdha karma, and the interpretation that the jivanmukta was actively doing good. In his book Guhaja, Abhishiktananda identifies these two ideas. He says that the Christian idea of vocation is called prarabdha karma in Hinduism (Guhaja, 88). In emulating Ramana by meditating in the caves, Abhishiktananda seems to have interpreted Ramana in terms of yoga and meditation. Although he mentions it, Abhishiktananda does not seem to fully recognize the difference between sahaja and nirvikalpa samadhi, nor of Ramana’s own

opposition to meditation. Abhishiktananda believed that the kevala (or nirvikalpa) state was a necessary stage in order to attain to the sahaja state. Abhishiktananda’s understanding conflicts with Ramana’s own opinion. Abhishiktananda’s conception of advaita, insofar as it affirms the reality of the world, and the possibility of liberation as a jivanmukti, follows a tantric view of advaita. This fits with his Christian bias that reality has both unity and diversity. He compares the state of the jivanmukti to that of resurrection to new life. In choosing to enter into dialogue with the type of experience exemplified by Ramana, Abhishiktananda assumed that Ramana embodied the traditional teachings of Vedanta. Although Abhishiktananda was aware of some influences of Kashmir Shaivism on Ramana, he does not seem to have been aware of the way that Ramana had been influenced by nontraditional Hindu influences, such as tantra, neo-Hinduism, western philosophy, and Christianity. If he had known of these other influences, he might not have been so eager to engage in dialogue with Ramana’s teachings.

10. Jules Monchanin (1895-1957) Together with Abhishiktananda, Jules Monchanin founded the Christian ashram Shantivanam in Tamil Nadu, India. Monchanin also wrote about his visits to Ramana. In addition to his visits with Abhishiktananda, Monchanin also made several visits on his own. Monchanin visited Ramana on February 14, 1950, while Abhishiktananda stayed at Shantivanam. Monchanin reports that he was filled with admiration for Ramana. He asked himself whether he was the victim of a mirage. He concluded that his experience was not a mirage, because he did not stop for an instant of being the lucid master of himself. Nevertheless, Monchanin says that he was “seduced” by Ramana. Monchanin writes that there was mystery in this man who had found by his own experience the essence of India’s mysticism–“an unpitying, obstinate negation of all that is not the Necessary One [l’unique nécessaire].”[40] Monchanin visited Ramana a fourth time on March 7, 1950. Ramana was dying, but Monchanin reports that he seemed to be detached and almost absent to his own body. Monchanin wrote Abhishiktananda that the death of Ramana should not sadden beyond measure those at the ashram,

because the Shakti is immortal. He says that Ramana’s devotees call this Shakti “mother.”[41] Monchanin also read and referred to Lacombe’s articles, including the article on Ramana and yoga. Contrary to Lacombe, Monchanin did not think that the idea of a natural mysticism based on enstasy necessarily implied a distinction between nature and supernature.[42] Monchanin was aware of the criticism of Ramana by more traditional sannyasins. In 1949, Monchanin referred to a sannyasi named Ùuddhacaitanyaùiva, who said that Ramana’s serene indifference comes “out of stupidity rather than out of jivanmukti.”[43] Monchanin used a pragmatic criterion to judge Ramana’s experience. In an entry of April 12, 1950, Monchanin asks what outward signs there are of a jivanmukta. He says that the supreme criterion is that of direct experience; only a jivanmukta can really know whether or not someone else is a jivanmukti. Monchanin then looks at the fruits of the experience. He lists the following characteristics that he finds in Ramana: equanimity, being beyond contraries, universal benevolence, imperturbable grace [ùanti], and the state of being beyond good and evil. He also points to consistency between thought and life. He finds in Ramana a remarkable consistency between life and Vedantic doctrine.[44] For example, during the operation on what would prove to be a fatal tumour on his arm, Ramana continued to smile and to behave as if his body were not-self. We should contrast this with Chadwick’s record of Ramana’s suffering. But Monchanin sees Ramana’s attitude towards pain as an indication that Ramana lived his doctrine of the successive sheaths of the self. Monchanin Ramana’s method was not meditation so much as a rejection of these illusory sheaths or envelopes that are not the true self. The true self is the atman, unborn, unchanging, and unique. According to Ysabel de Andia, Monchanin considered the problem of the One and the Many to be the true axis of thought.[45] One of his first communications to the Societé Lyonnaise de Philosophie was in 1931, and it was entitled “l’Un dans le multiple, dans le Parménide de Platon.”[46] Monchanin says that the problem of the One and the Many leads to the dilemma of monism vs. pluralism. If only the One is real, the result is

monism. If only the Many are real, then there is pluralism. Other dilemmas that Monchanin believed resulted from this problem are the contrasts personal/impersonal and monotheism/polytheism. He believed that only the idea of the Trinity goes beyond these dilemmas. In the Trinity there is neither only unity nor is there only diversity. Monchanin thought that the Vedantic idea of advaita was an equivalent form of thought to the Trinity.[47] Just as the Trinity is neither one nor three (it is not tritheism), so advaita is neither monism nor dualism. Reality surpasses our reasoning or logos. There is both unity and diversity. The fact that diversity is real also means that neither solipsism nor idealism is true. Monchanin was not the first to apply Trinitarian ideas to Hindu thought. Many years before, Brahmabandhav Upadhyaya (1861-1907) had done the same.[48] He compared the Trinity to the Hindu idea of Saccidånanda (Sat-chit-ånandam). Monchanin refers to Brahmabandhav Upadhyaya in Ermites.[49] Monchanin’s emphasis on the Trinity clearly influenced Abhishiktananda’s own view of the Trinitarian structure of reality. The Trinity was an important idea for both of them; even the ashram Shantivanam was called “The ashram of the Trinity.” Monchanin’s Trinitarian ideas also help to explain Abhishiktananda’s view of advaita as non-monistic. Monchanin’s Trinitarian ideas also explain his view of yoga. Yoga leads to the One, but is incomplete. It needs to be completed by the Christian revelation of the Trinity. For Monchanin, mysticism is the participation in the Trinitarian relation. This mysticism is an intuition that surpasses image and concept, a direct experience, not made by humans, but given by God.[50] In this Christian mysticism, the enstasy of yoga transubstantiates itself in the Spirit into pure ecstasy. The Hindu kevala, (aloneness, esseulé) is sublimated to Trinitarian thought after a “crucifying dark night of the soul.”[51] Monchanin believed that advaita could not account for love (bhakti). Love involves a distinction between beings. According to advaita, love is in the realm of maya. But as soon as we say “God is love,” this is to confess a Trinity.[52] Monchanin liked to say that he would not be Christian if the Trinitarian revelation had not introduced him to a better knowledge of creation and of humans. The internal dynamism of Trinity and the infinite stability of the

absolute alterity is reflected in creation, in the physical universe as well as in human sociability.[53] In 1956, Monchanin said that Christian mysticism is Trinitarian or nothing.[54] After Ramana’s death, Monchanin accompanied Abhishiktananda to Arunachala from mid-May to June, 1954. Monchanin did not stay in a cave but in a bungalow two kilometers away. He was worried about Abhishiktananda. Each morning Abhishiktananda came down to celebrate Mass with him. Monchanin asked Abhishiktananda to try to pierce the advaitic experience to discover the communion (samsat) beyond. Abhishiktananda thought that Monchanin was too Greek to understand advaita.

11. C.G. Jung (1875-1961) C.G. Jung is mistakenly regarded as a supporter of Ramana’s teachings. Jung visited India in 1948, and had an opportunity to visit Ramana. He decided not to visit Ramana. This seems to have been a result of his conversations the previous year with Paul Brunton and V. Subrahmanya Iyer at his home in Küsnacht, where they discussed problems of Indian philosophy.[55] Iyer was the teacher that Brunton turned to after he became disillusioned with Ramana. The next year, when Jung visited India, he again met with Iyer, who was then the guru to the Maharajah of Mysore, and they had “searching talks.”[56] During this time, Brunton was also with Iyer. On both of these occasions, it seems most probable that Brunton and Iyer would have discussed Ramana. Although Jung did not meet Ramana, he did meet a disciple of Ramana, the Dutch sociologist Dr. Gualthernus H. Mees, with whom he later corresponded. Jung was also made aware of Ramana through the Indologist Heinrich Zimmer. Jung met Zimmer in the 1930’s when Zimmer was Professor of Sanskrit at Heidelberg. Zimmer attended some of the meetings at Eranos. Most importantly, Zimmer translated some writings of Ramana into German (Zimmer, 1954). Zimmer was greatly disappointed that Jung had not met Ramana. Zimmer’s book on Ramana was published in 1954, but Zimmer had begun work on it earlier, and had discussed Ramana with Jung. Jung wrote an

introduction to Zimmer’s book. The introduction makes it clear that Jung had read Ramana’s teachings. He says, “Shri Ramana's thoughts are beautiful to read.”[57] He was also aware of how Ramana’s sympathetic views on his disciples’ activity in the world differed from that of another sage, Ramakrishna (Ibid. p. 182, para 958). Jung also writes of Ramana’s equation of the self and God, which he says Westerners would find shocking (Ibid. p. 182, para 959). One introduction to the Collected Works of Ramana uses an excerpt from this introduction to Zimmer’s work as an introduction to the book on Ramana.[58] But these excerpts do not tell the complete story. When we look at the full document, together with Jung’s letters, it is evident that Jung had deep disagreements with what he regarded as Ramana’s message. Jung expressed difficulties with what he believed to be Ramana’s emphasis on meditation, and his lack of interest in the temporal world. Jung says a claim to have had a religious experience cannot be disputed: You can only say that you have never had such an experience, whereupon your opponent will reply: “Sorry, I have.” And there your discussion will come to an end. No matter what the world thinks about religious experience, the one who has it possesses a great treasure, a thing that has become for him a source of life, meaning and beauty, and that has given a new splendour to the world and to mankind. He has pistis and peace. Where is the criterion by which you could say that such a life is not legitimate, that such an experience is not valid, and that such pistis is mere illusion? Is there, as a matter of fact, any better truth about the ultimate things than the one that helps you to live? [59]

And yet even within this statement, Jung gives criteria by which to evaluate an experience. Is the experience a source of life, meaning and beauty? Is the experience one that has helped that person to live? Has it resulted in a transformation of the person who had the experience? These pragmatic criteria are similar to those of William James. Jung disagreed with Ramana teachings and example. He wrote to one of Ramana’s disciples: I consider a man's life lived for 65 years in perfect balance as most unfortunate. I'm glad that I haven't chosen to live such a miracle. It is so utterly inhuman that I can't see for the life of me any fun in it. It is surely very wonderful but think of being wonderful year in year out! Moreover I think it is

generally much more advisable not to identify with the self. I quite appreciate the fact that such a model is of high paedagogical value to India.[60]

Jung becomes quite sarcastic in this letter. He refers to Ramana’s enlightenment experience as a child: I wonder wherein his self-realization consists and what he actually did do. We know this running away business from parents etc. with our saints, too! But some of them have done something tangible–if it was only a crusade or something like a book or the Canto di Sole. I had a chance, when I was in Madras, to see the Maharshi, but by that time I was so imbued with the overwhelming Indian atmosphere of irrelevant wisdom and with the obvious Maya of this world that I didn't care any more if there had been twelve Maharshis on top of each other. I was profoundly overawed and the black pagoda of Bhuvaneshvara took all the air out of me. India is marvelous, unique, and I wish I could stand once more on Cape Cormorin and know once more that this world is an incurable illusion. This is a very helpful and salutary insight, when you must not live daily in this damn machinery and these undeniable realities which behave exactly as if they were real.

It is interesting to compare Jung’s evaluation of Ramana with Ken Wilber’s. Wilber writes that although Ramana’s Self-realization was unsurpassed, he is not an exemplary representative of an integral view. In other words, he did not live a life integrated in all of Wilber’s four quadrants.[61]

Chapter 6: Conflicts and tensions There were many influences on Ramana: neo-Hindu, tantric, and Christian influences. These influences often contradict each other. Each of these influences is also in tension with traditional Hinduism. The first tension to be explored is that between traditional Hinduism and neo-Hinduism, or Hinduism that has been influenced by Western philosophical traditions. The next tension to be explored is that of the Vedanta advaita versus tantra. Ramana has been viewed as an authentic sage of VedantaAdvaita or nondualism. Vedanta Advaita tends to emphasize the importance of liberation from a temporal world of illusion or maya. But Ramana is also regarded as an example of a jivanmukta–one who becomes liberated whilestill living in this temporal world. This idea of living liberation is a tantric idea. It is not universally accepted within Hinduism. Ramana says that the world has some reality, thus contradicting the Vedantic view of maya as illusion in favour of the tantric idea of maya as the creative power of Shiva. Andrew Fort says that the idea of jivanmukti was popularized by writings such as the Yoga Vasistha. Fort has provided an excellent analysis of how the idea of jivanmukti applies to Ramana, in his book Jivanmukti in Transformation. But Fort tends to rely on later sources and interpretations of Ramana (Fort 1998, 134-51). Specifically, he relies on Osborne’s biography. But Osborne admitted that he had “improved” the earlier biographies. We have looked at some of the earliest interpretations of Ramana. We will also examine the tantric and yogic influences on Ramana by books he read during his twenty years of meditation in the caves of Arunachala, as well as the considerable tantric influence on Ramana by Ganapati Muni and T.V. Kapali Sastri. As we shall see, Ramana frequently refers to the Yoga Vasistha and other tantric works. We will also look at the Christian influences on Ramana, which he frequently reinterprets to avoid conflict with his views.

1. Traditional Hinduism versus neo-Hinduism

The Indologist Paul Hacker used the term ‘neo-Hinduism’ to refer to the interpretation of Hinduism by Hindus in response to the concerns of the non-Hindu West, and the use of the terminology and assumptions of the West. For example, Hacker shows how Paul Deussen, a disciple of Schopenhauer, influenced Vivekånanda. Hacker contrasts neo-Hinduism with “surviving traditional Hinduism.” This is represented by pandit literature, often written in Sanskrit, and by devotional tracts. It is often bitterly opposed to any Western interpretation of Hinduism (Halbfass 1995). Some of the ideas that Neo-Hinduism has taken from the West are (a) the importance of direct experience (b) the idea of a perennial philosophy and (c) a social ethics based on the idea of tat tvam asi [that art thou]. I would add (d) disagreement as to whether advaita means the same as ‘monism’ and (e) differing views of the role of the sannyasi.         a) The importance of direct experience (1) Advaita Vedantaversus direct experience

Ramana is often regarded as a follower of traditional Advaita Vedanta, as expressed in the teachings of Shankara. For example, Mahadevan sees continuity with Shankara’s thought.[62] Ramana was asked whether his teaching agreed with that of Shankara. He replied, “Bhagavan’s teaching is an expression of his own experience and realization. Others find that it tallies with Sri Shankara’s.”[63] So we see that Ramana emphasized the importance of his own experience, and not whether his ideas agreed with those of Shankara. Halbfass refers to this importance placed on experience. He says that Ramana has become “a living symbol of the idea of religious experience.”[64] Ramana’s method of “self-enquiry” emphasizes the primacy of direct experience. In his translation of the Vivekacudamani, Ramana emphasized this necessity of direct experience. True liberation can be achieved by Self-enquiry or vichara, and not by book learning (Collected

Works, 207). He says, “The Power will come down from above. It is a direct experience.” (Talks, 151, March 13/36). Halbfass says that the idea of immediate experience is more obscure and ambivalent than is usually admitted.[65] He agrees with Hacker that the neoHindu emphasis on the personal experience of the rishis is something new to neo-Hinduism, and is not to be found in traditional Hinduism such as in the writings of Shankara. Traditional Hinduism holds to the priority of the revealed word of the Vedas. The use of the word anubhava in neoHinduism to refer to personal experience is therefore open to the criticism that it is due to the influence of Western ideas in neo-Hinduism.[66] Hacker refers to the philosopher Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan as “the most typical neo-Hindu.” Radhakrishnan believed that all genuine religious documents and scriptures have their origin in the immediate personal experience of “seers” or rishis. Hacker suggests that these ideas of Radhakrishnan come not so much from Hindu sources as from his reading of William James.[67] In addition to William James, Radhakrishnan’s sources included the ideas of F.H. Bradley, Henri Bergson and Baron F. von Hügel (Halbfass 1988, 398). Hacker and Halbfass have therefore raised the issue whether the idea of immediate experience is really more Western than Hindu. Can this emphasis on experience or anubhava found in Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta? Eliot Deutsch has interpreted Shankara in terms of a philosophy of experience (Deutsch 1969). But Halbfass says that an emphasis on direct experience, or anubhava is absent in Shankara. Shankara does not base any veridical claims upon personal experiences of his own; he does not even speak about them. The Vedas are his ultimate authority, and particularly the Upanishads (Halbfass 1988, 388). The Upanishads are considered to be authorless. The Upanishads do not record anybody’s personal experience; they are rather an objective structure that guides experience. Shankara criticizes such experiential principles as the “voice of the heart”; guidance must be by the Vedas because there can be false anubhava which does not recognize non-duality. In order to recognize nonduality, Scripture is needed.[68] It is in this sense that the word, the Vac is primary. The word comes first, but the process culminates in the experience of samadhi (Rambachan 1991, 181).

Halbfass says that although Shankara uses the word anubhava, it is not be confused with “personal experiences” or “observations” which one could use as evidence for or against the Vedas. It is rather used to refer to an ultimate experience, a goal, the knowledge of Brahman (brahmajnana). The neo-Hindu emphasis on experience is also evident in Aurobindo, who denied that his philosophy was derived from Shankara: That is not true. I have not read much philosophy. It is like those who say that I am influenced by Hegel. Some even say that I have been influenced by Nietzsche…The only two books that have influenced me are the Gita and the Upaniúads. What I wrote was the work of intuition and inspiration working on the basis of my spiritual experience…experience and formulation of experience I consider as the true aim of philosophy. The rest is merely intellectual work and may be interesting but nothing more.[69]

J. L. Mehta has written about Aurobindo’s view of Scripture. He says that for Aurobindo, the myths and rites recorded in the Vedas are above all symbols (in the Jungian sense). Authority attaches not to Scripture, but to the yogic process. But for Aurobindo, the yogic process itself relies on …a textual tradition, a Sruti, an ‘order of words’, a pre-existent given tradition of language, images, myths and concepts and the key-words that open out its linguistic space within which experience is then ordered and comprehended (Mehta 1990, 179).

Aurobindo’s emphasis on experience is significant in view of his influence on Ganapati Muni and Kapali Sastri, who in turn influenced Ramana (see Chapter 7 below). (2) Ramana’s emphasis on experience

Ramana makes many references to the necessity of direct experience. Here are some examples: We regard as saints those persons who have realized the Self, i.e. those who have had direct or immediate knowledge of the Self (Day by Day, 166). The intuitive knowledge of the Heart is direct immediate experience. Selfenquiry: realized the Self by direct and immediate experience (Self-Enquiry, 25). Knowledge of the Self It shines as ‘I-I ‘, as ever-present, direct experience (Collected Works 224 ; Osborne 1997a, 139).

We also see in Ramana the neo-Hindu emphasis that experience is more important than the Vedas. Mere knowledge of Scripture is not sufficient (Teachings, 14). The Scriptures are only meant to make a man retrace his steps to his original source (Teachings, 63). Study of the Scriptures becomes unnecessary because there is nothing else to be gained; you must actually experience the Self. The great sayings like “I am Brahman’ will not remove bondage without direct experience. It is like a treasure trove, which is not obtained by hearing about it, but by being told by a friend who knows about it and then digging. We experience the Self directly through constant meditation (Talks, 114, Collected Works, 217). The intellect cannot attain to the Self (Teachings, 53). Mere book learning never yields this bliss, which can be realized only through Self-enquiry or vichara (Collected Works, 207). Ramana opposes mere philosophy and the intricacies of distinctions (Conscious Immortality, 178). As for intuitive understanding, a person may laboriously convince himself of the truth to be grasped by intuition, of its function and nature, but the actual intuition is more like feeling and requires practice and personal contact. Mere book learning is not of any great use. After Realization all intellectual loads are useless burdens and are to be thrown overboard (Teachings, 13, 28). Nor can the experience be expressed in words. Realization is beyond expression. Expression always fails to describe it. Although the expression of realization is impossible, still its existence is indicated (Erase the Ego, 12). Samadhi transcends thought and speech and cannot be described. (…) You know samadhi only when you are in samadhi (Reflections, 152). Ramana compares the experience to poetry and music. In poetry or music, when you experience bliss, you are plunging into the Self, albeit unconsciously. “If you do so consciously, you call it realization. I want you to dive consciously into the Self, i.e. into the Heart” (Conscious Immortality, 43). And yet to some extent, this experience is not knowledge, since knowledge depends on distinctions. The transcendental state is beyond experience, because it involves dissolution of mind (Collected Works, 33). Reality lies beyond and beyond the triad of knower-knowledge-known (Teachings, 174). Ramana says that we must even give up meditating on Scripture like the Bhagavad Gita:

Even books like the Bhagavad Gita and Light on the Path, must be given up to find the Self by looking within. Even the Gita says, ‘Meditate on the Self.’ It does not say, ‘Meditate upon the book of the Gita’ (Conscious Immortality, 83). As for intuitive understanding, a person may laboriously convince himself of the truth to be grasped by intuition, of its function and nature, but the actual intuition is more like feeling and requires practice and personal contact. Mere book learning is not of any great use. After Realization all intellectual loads are useless burdens and are to be thrown overboard. (Teachings, 13; also in Talks, 31) The Self is self-luminous because it is self-evident, that is, it knows itself and does not depend on an external knowledge to be known–itself being pure knowledge (Reflections, 86). (3) Non-western sources of the idea of direct experience

If Ramana uses the word anubhava in the sense of direct experience, does this mean that Ramana was influenced by Western ideas, like other neoHindus? Halbfass does acknowledge that there are non-traditional advaitic sources that emphasize direct experience and that these sources are independent of any European influence.[70] He refers to the “vision” of the Vedic poets, and to the Upanishads, which show an early awareness of the four states of consciousness. These states are: waking, dreaming, sleeping and the fourth state turīya that is beyond the other three states. Another source of the importance of experience are the poet-saints like Tukaram and others from Maharashtra who glorify personal experience or anubhava. Ramana refers in his teachings to these poet-saints, and to the Tamil poet-saints. There are also traditions in Yoga that emphasize direct experience. One source from these traditions is the Yoga Vasistha. Another work that is popular among yogic practitioners of advaita is the Vivekacudamani, a work that is often attributed to Shankara. Both of these works strongly influenced Ramana, and will be examined in more detail. Here we can point out that the Vivekacudamani itself speaks of anubhava. For example, verse 62 states: An illness is not cured just by pronouncing the name of the medicine without drinking it, and you will not be liberated by just pronouncing the word God without direct experience [anubhava].[71]

Another Hindu source that emphasizes immediate experience is Kashmir Shaivism, which emphasizes consciousness and internality.[72] It also predates any possible European Romantic influence. A traditional Hindu source emphasizing experience is the Bhagavad Gita. It refers to Arjuna’s direct experience of Krishna. This vision is said to be one that could not be attained by the Vedas or study (BG 11:48). The Bhagavad Gita also refers to the experience of reaching the Self (BG 6:20). Buddhist traditions also emphasize the experiences and visions of the Buddha. As Halbfass points out, the very title of the Buddha indicates an event of awakening, a “radical transformation of awareness.” Western scholars also see the influence of Buddhism in Hindu works like the Yoga Vasistha. Ramana himself sometimes refers to Buddhist ideas. In view of all these sources, it is unfair to dismiss Ramana’s emphasis on the importance of direct experience as merely based on western ideas, or as merely neo-Hindu. Nevertheless, the western influence must not be disregarded, since Ramana was aware of Vivekånanda’s teachings. And Westerners like Major Chadwick and Paul Brunton also influenced Ramana. As we shall see, even Ganapati Muni, one of the most important influences on Ramana, was himself influenced by western ideas of philosophy and theosophy. Even if Ramana’s emphasis on direct experience can be related to non-Western sources, these sources stand in tension with traditional Advaita Vedanta. b) Perennialism Perennialism is the view that all religions are a path to God, or at least to realization of the self. Perennialist ideas appear in Ramana’s comparisons of his own teachings to Jesus, or to the Buddha. This view should be contrasted with traditional Hinduism, which regarded non-Hindus as mleccha (barbarians, foreigners). Perennialism in neo-Hinduism tends to view other religions as having a partial truth, with Hinduism providing the truest answer. The lesser truths are valuable to those at a lower stage of their spiritual development. Thus, Ramana says that views of a personal God are appropriate for people at a certain stage. Or that although all religions teach the same things, there is a higher truth: All religions postulate the three fundamentals, the world, the soul and God; but it is the One Reality that manifests itself as these three. One can say:

The three are really three only so long as the ego lasts (Teachings, 44).

But sometimes, Ramana also seems to take a view that all religions are expressions of comparable experiences. He says, for example, that the Bible and the Gita are the same (Teachings, 58). And he says that the last stages of all paths are the same: surrender of the ego (Conscious Immortality. 58). This is an emphasis not of Hinduism as the highest stage, but as being similar to other religions. Narasimha quotes him as saying: …religion takes us only to the one point where all religions meet and no further. That point is the realization that God is every thing and every thing is God (Narasimha, 118).

Ramana was asked whether it was true that Buddhists deny the world whereas Hindu philosophy admits its existence but calls it unreal. Ramana replied that it is only a difference of point of view (Teachings, 17). c) Social ethics According to Paul Hacker, neo-Hinduism’s emphasis that Hinduism has ethical consequences in the temporal world derives from Vivekånanda (1863-1902), an Indian philosopher who was a disciple of the Indian holy man Ramakrishna (1836-1886). Vivekånanda wrote the book Practical Vedanta, in which he argued that Vedantahad ethical implications.[73] Vivekånanda’s view of ethics is based on the Upanishadic idea of tat tvam asi [that art thou]. In doing good to others, we are really doing good to our true Self. He founded the Ramakrishna Mission, which emulated the social efforts of Christian missionaries in India. But Hacker has shown that Vivekånanda obtained this idea of basing ethics on the idea of tat tvam asi from Paul Deussen, a disciple of the German philosopher Schopenhauer (Halbfass 1988, 240). Ramana was acquainted with the neo-Hindu ideas of Vivekånanda as early as 1901. Narasimha reports that from 1900, G. Seshier of Tiruvannamalai visited Ramana. Seshier was studying yoga, especially Vivekånanda’s English lectures on Raja Yoga, Jnana Yoga and an English translation of the Rama Gita. He brought these books to Ramana and Ramana …then went through each of them and wrote out in easy Tamil prose the gist of these works on bits of paper and answered similarly supplemental questions. Thus Seshier had quite a sheaf of these slips written by the swami in 1900, 1901 and 1902, and he copied them into a small note-book (Narasimha, 32).

Narasimha says that Ramana used these slips and Seshier’s notebook to publish his book Vichåra Sangraha (Self-Enquiry) (Narasimha, 73-74). This fact is of enormous importance, since it shows that Ramana was exposed to Vivekånanda’s neo-Hinduism at a very early date, and that these ideas may have formed part of the basis of his ideas of Self-Enquiry. But although Ramana may have derived neo-Hindu ideas from Vivekånanda, he was not at all clear about the need for us to involve ourselves in social issues. In this respect, Ramana was much more traditionally advaitic in his views. He said, “There are no ‘others’ to be helped. For the Realized Being sees only the Self.”[74] Ramana says that our concern about the world’s suffering comes from our misidentification of the body and the self: When you are not aware of the world, that is to say when you remain as the Self in the state of sleep, its sufferings do not affect you. Therefore turn inwards and seek the Self and there will be an end both of the world and of its miseries (Teachings, 38)

This is an idealist/monistic view. Neither the world or its suffering exist except within our thoughts. Ramana says that both the world and the pain are within us. War, for example, is just a thought of the deluded questioner. All suffering is due to the false notion ‘I am the body.’ Getting rid of this false idea is knowledge (Teachings, 40-42). Ramana’s answer to suffering in the world is that one should be concerned only about the Self, which does not suffer and is indestructible. Ramana’s ethics are therefore an ethic of non-involvement in the world. Ramananda Swarnagiri relates how Ramana was asked about the plight of the untouchables. Ramana replied, “We have left the world and society. Why do you pose questions about social problems?” When the visitor persisted, he said, “In these matters, the one who searches for spiritual development only has to conform to the attitude of the majority” (Herbert 1972, 217). Fort says that the closest that Ramana comes to acknowledging the need to take action in the world is in the following question and response: Question: But we see pain in the world. A man is hungry. It is a physical reality. It is very real to him. Are we to call it a dream and remain unmoved by his suffering? Bhagavan: […] But all this is not to say that while you are in the dream you can act as if the suffering you feel in it is not real. The hungry in the dream

has to be appeased by dream food.[75]

Even if this can be interpreted as a direction for social action, Ramana is devaluing the hunger and the food; they are only a dream reality (Reflections, 53). And yet, inconsistently, Ramana does speak about others. He says that service of others is only permitted if it is done as a sådhana [discipline] with jnana [knowledge] as the ultimate aim, as a means to self-purification.[76] Narasimha says, Maharshi pointed out that the path to peace runs through social service, that a man should develop his full power to serve the society in which he is born before he can fall into a life wholly absorbed in the Self (Narasimha 215).

At other times, Ramana takes a view of the world as having some reality. The world exists, but we do not have to be active. Mahatmas help the world by their silent centredness. They accomplish more than others do. It is better to silently send out an intuitive force than to preach to others. Selfreform automatically results in social reform. Realization of the Self is the greatest help that can be given to humanity (Conscious Immortality, 144). And a realized person helps the whole of mankind, although without their knowledge (Teachings, 90-92). Realized ones send out waves of spiritual influence which draw many people toward them, even though they may be sitting silently in a cave (Conscious Immortality, 134). A rishi sitting in one place can do anything, if he wills it. He can start wars or end them, but he knows there is a cosmic and karmic process going on, so he will not interfere unwisely. [… Public speeches, physical activity and material help are all outweighed by the silence of the mahatmas. […] How do you know they do not help? (Conscious Immortality, 145-46).

This is a more intermediate view of social ethics, based on the argument that the one who meditates does more for the world than anyone else: Realisation of the Self is the greatest service that can be rendered to humanity. Therefore the saints are helpful although they dwell in forests. But it should not be forgotten the solitude is not obtained in forests only, but even in towns, n the thick of worldly occupations. The help is imperceptible, but it is still there. A saint helps the whole humanity unknown to it (Reflections, 53).

Finally, Ramana sometimes just asserts a passive view of involvement. It is God’s responsibility to take care of the world, and not ours.

If God has created the world, it is His business to look after it, not yours (Maharshi’s Gospel, 33; also Teachings, 87).

But this is inconsistent with what Ramana says elsewhere: God has no purpose. He is not bound by any action. The world’s activities cannot affect him. (Osborne, Path of Self-Knowledge, in answer to the question, “Is not this world the result of God’s will?”)

And sometimes Ramana says that the realized one is beyond ethics. Restrictions and discipline are for jivas and not for muktas (Conscious Immortality, 129). There is evidence that Ramana recognized the inconsistency of his views. The truth of Non-Duality is to be only meditated upon by the mind; do not do any action from belief in Non-Duality (ft. because actions proceed from the contrary idea that the doer is an individual; he is sure to mis-apply it and thus worsen the bondage he is in (Sarma, Guru-Ramana-Vachana-Mala, 43).

Ramana’s lack of acceptance of any active involvement in social ethics was criticized by many of his followers. As we have seen, Paul Brunton turned instead to a new guru, the neo-Hindu V. Subrahmanyah Iyer, who advocated social change. Kapili Sastri, whose ideas we will examine later, turned to Aurobindo’s idea of integral yoga. Aurobindo synthesized the ideas of liberation and the duty of social involvement. For Aurobindo, yoga is not just for individual transformation. To further this, Aurobindo proposed a synthesis between tantra and Vedanta. We have in this central Tantric conception one side of the truth, the worship of the energy, the Shakti, as the sole effective force for all attainment. We get the other extreme in the Vedantic conception of the Shakti as a power of illusion and in the search after the silent inactive Puruúa as the means of liberation from the deceptions created by the active energy. But in the integral conception the conscious soul is the Lord, the nature-soul is his executive energy. Puruúa is the nature of Sat, conscious, self-existence, pure and infinite; Shakti or Prakôti is of the nature of Cit, –it is the power of the Puruúa’s self-conscious existence, pure and infinite. The relation of the two exists between the poles of rest and action.[77]

Ramana did not have this view of active involvement in the world. Ken Wilber, who otherwise admires Ramana, says that this is an area where Ramana was not advanced (Wilber 1999, 201).

Many neo-Hindus, like Aurobindo, sought to break down the barriers of caste. This was not Ramana’s attitude. In the dining hall at the ashram, the Brahmins were separated from the others. Chadwick says that Ramana objected to Brahmins sitting with the non-Brahmins. The dining room was divided into two by a screen almost the whole width of the room. Ramana sat at right angles to the screen and could be visible on both sides. One side were the Brahmins; the other side the rest. This was done at Ramana’s insistence: “Not only did he allow it but he insisted on it.” Ramana said that he was not to be used as an excuse to do something that you would consider wrong at home (Chadwick, 34). Chadwick also reports Ramana as saying that Hitler might be an instrument of God: “Who knows but that Hitler is a jnani, a divine instrument.” Chadwick’s own comments are equally surprising: He [Hitler] was certainly a man of fate. To deny of his acts as evil is wrong. For the Jnani there is no good and evil. There is only action–spontaneous activity or the actionless-activity of Tao. This has no karma-binding effects. Yet it seems doubtful if Hitler’s actions were quite so disinterested, though it is not impossible (Chadwick, 52).

Chadwick had apparently tried to bring this same disinterestedness into his own life. Chadwick says that prior to coming to Ramana’s ashram, he had thought he could not lead a worldly and spiritual life at the same time, divided into two compartments. He had not realized that worldly life was just as unreal as the unworldly life, and that both were as real as each other; prarabdha [karma] had to be worked out: …that actually there was no such thing as good and evil, only attachment; that actions were actions and it was identifying oneself with such that mattered and not the actions in themselves. I still believed in the importance of morals, as such, as absolute standards, and, so my meditation could be nothing but a spasmodic affair (Chadwick, 12).

Evans-Wentz asked Ramana whether it was right to take the life of another person, whether in war or execution of a murderer. Evans-Wentz suggested that it was not right to take any life, since God is immanent in all. But Ramana did not follow up on this. Instead, he said that for the realized person, the loss of several or all lives either in this world or in all the three worlds makes no difference. He referred to the Gita, c. 18:7 (Talks, 12-13)

David Loy says that it is acting from non-ego that is the basis for ethical action in the nondual experience. Nonduality, in denying an ego-self, eliminates the basis of selfishness. The realized person therefore acts appropriately. The “appropriate” choice of action arises quite spontaneously from what is normally called the subconscious (Loy 1988, 131). But what does ‘appropriate’ mean in this context? Is it acting in disinterest with respect to oneself? Is it action that has a positive effect on others? Is it acting beyond our sense of ego and self-interest? Abhishiktananda also saw the basis for ethical action in acting without ego. He says that the jnani will always act well because there is no egoism.[78] Do everything, act in everything without “mine”, without ego [nirmamo nirahamkara].[79]

If ethics is a result of our acting beyond ego, Ramana could be said to have an ethical attitude, since he does speak of going beyond ego and ‘I.’ For example, he says that in the state of sahaja samadhi you realize that nothing belongs to you as ego (Teachings, 185). In fact, destroying the ego is the direct path to liberation: Destroy the ego by seeking its identity (with the Self). Because the ego is not an entity it will automatically vanish, and Reality will shine forth by itself. This is the direct method (Reflections, 92).

And Ramana says that you then realize that everything is being done “by something with which you are in conscious union” (Teachings, 185). Selfrealization is therefore a state beyond ego-consciousness. And elsewhere, he says, Get rid of egoism. Do not think you are the one to bring about some reform. Then God may use you as an instrument to effect deeds, but you will not be conscious of doing them (Conscious Immortality, 12).[80]

Other parts of the same book support this view. He says that good social work is a way to render the mind purer (p. 13). Sannyasa is giving up of the ego (p. 21). Simply become aware of it [Self] during your work and do not forget it. Contemplate it in the background of your mind even while you are working. To do that, do NOT hurry. Do not imagine it is you who are doing the work. Think that it is the underlying current which is doing it. Identify yourself with this current (Conscious Immortality, 27).

But in the same book, Conscious Immortality, Ramana also says that our only concern should be self-reform: self-reform automatically brings about social reform. Confine yourself to self-reform. Social reform will take care of itself (Conscious Immortality, 14). And he slips into the monistic viewpoint of denying that there are any others to help: What other is there for you to help? Who is the ‘I’ that is going to help others/ First clear up that point and then everything will settle itself…If you believe in the problem of another, you are believing in something outside of the Self. You will help him best by realizing the oneness of everything, rather than by outward activity. (Conscious Immortality, 15).

Yogananda asked Ramana why God permits suffering in the world. Ramana’s response was “Who suffers? What is suffering?” Yogananda did not respond.[81] So although Ramana speaks of going beyond ego, the ethical problem is that for Ramana, this state of being beyond ego sometimes does not seem to have led to any concrete action at all. And yet Ramana emphasized the importance of treating animals ethically. He referred to the principle of samabuddhi: the principle of equal treatment to man and animal, citing the Bhagavad Gita V, 18. Ramana loved animals and treated them as humans. One was Lakshmi the cow. He said that if a cow trespassed on the vegetable garden, the fault was with the fence and not the animal. When Lakshmi died, she was buried in the ashram compound. Ramana composed a Tamil quatrain in which he referred to her as a “liberated soul.” He considered dogs his disciples, even though Brahmins considered them as unholy. One dog performed the function of leading visitors around the hill. Narasimha says that he regarded animals as souls that have cast off their human sheaths to live near him to work out the effects of past karma. He would stop quarrels among monkeys. Crows and squirrels would eat from his palm. He refused to kill scorpions (Narasimha, 157-59, 164-70). How did the goal of disinterestedness affect Ramana’s ability to express emotion? On the one hand, Narasimha says that he displayed equanimity, and did not show anxiety, depression or elation. He says that Ramana was not fond of music, and that he kept his attention fixed on the sruti (the monotone drone) so as not to be distracted by the diverse notes or tunes. Similarly, in the world of sights and sounds we must attend to the sruti, the

one Reality that the Vedas proclaim, and our concentration will then remain undisturbed (Narasimha, 184-86). And when he ate, Ramana …would mix up the little food he would allow to be put on his leaf–the sweet, the sour and the savory, everything together–and gulp it down carelessly as if he had no taste in his mouth. When we would tell him that it was not right to mix such nicely made up dishes, he would say: “Enough of multiplicity. Let us have some unity.”[82]

On the other hand, and inconsistently, Narasimha says that Ramana did display emotion and did enjoy music. Narasimha says that Ramana shed tears of devotional fervour when he listened to devotional songs or music. He reports Ramana as saying that devotion (bhakti) and realization (jnana) are the same. In bhakti, one dwells on a Personal God that one worships until one loses oneself or merges in Him. In the path of inquiry, one dwells on oneself, which one loves most, and loses oneself or merges in that. In both cases, emotion or personality characterizes the beginning. The end is beyond emotion, thought, will and personality (Narasimha 133). d) Monism, Advaita and Maya Is traditional VedantaAdvaita monistic? For Shankara, what is important is not personal experience, but overcoming ignorance or avidya of one’s true nature. And for Shankara, once one has overcome ignorance, and realized one’s true nature, then one also realizes that what one thought was real was only illusion or maya. Only Brahman is real. Shankara therefore seems to interpret advaita in a monistic sense. Western interpretations of advaita often apply Western ideas of monism to describe it. For example, Ninian Smart describes Vedantic advaita as monistic: Though the non-dualism of Shankara is well known, it is useful to recapitulate briefly its main features. For Shankara the ‘That art thou’ is to be taken in the starkest, clearest sense. It means that the eternal self within the individual is identical with Brahman, the Absolute or Ultimate Reality. (…) This rigorous insistence on the non-dualism between the soul and the divine Reality is paralleled by an equally uncompromising monism in relation to the world (Smart 1968, 36-7).

Such monistic interpretations of advaita are also very common in Hindu philosophers. For example, Radhakrishnan refers to advaita as “monistic idealism”:

Even systems which announce themselves as dualistic or pluralistic seem to be permeated by a strong monistic character. For our purposes monistic idealism is of four types: (1) Non-dualism or Advaitism; (2) Pure Monism; (3) Modified Monism; and (4) Implicit Monism (Radhkrishnan 1970, 75-6).

Radhakrishnan says that his first category, ‘Advaitic monism’ relies on abstract and philosophical reflection, particularly the psychological interpretation of the three states of waking, dreaming and dreamless sleep. Through all these states, there remains the self that is permanent and “ever-identical.” Only the self is real. The categories of the world of experience, time, space and cause are self-contradictory and have no real existence. Their inexplicable existence is explained by the word maya. For Radhakrishnan, the self is “the true and the eternal and there is nought beside it.” His second category, ‘Pure Monism’ recognizes a higher power than the abstract intellect relied on in the first category: We have to sink ourselves in the universal consciousness and make ourselves co-extensive with all that is. We do not then so much think reality as live it, do not so much know it as become it. Such an extreme monism with its distinctions of logic and intuition, reality and the world of existence, we meet with in some Upaniúads, Någårjuna and Ùaîkara in his ultraphilosophical moods, Ùrë Harúa and the Advaita Vedåntins, and echoes of it are heard in Parmenides and Plato, Spinoza and Plotinus, Bradley and Bergson, not to speak of the mystics, in the West (Ibid., p. 81).

Radhakrishnan considers both Non-dualism and Pure Monism to be monistic. His two other categories also are monistic, at least by implication. Modified Monism (e.g. Ramanuja) recognizes degrees of reality, but these are measured in relation to their distance from the one integral reality. And he says that even the dualism of Madhva is fundamentally a monism so long as the reals are dependent on God who alone is independent. But other Hindu philosophers are equally adamant that advaita, even in Shankara, is not monism. For example, T.M.P. Mahadevan says, The term advaita is negative. It does not imply a monistic ideal, but implies a negation of dualism. And this negation applies both to two-ness as well as to the attempt to grasp the world as a whole by means of any logical system with rational distinctions. Because Brahman is beyond duality, it cannot be known conceptually, nor can it be substantially or qualitatively determined, for this would imply a division of the One.[83]

And in his book on Ramana Maharshi, Mahadevan makes the same point: Brahman is without characteristics. Even to say that it is one is not strictly true, for the category of number is not applicable to it. That is why the negative expression ‘non-dual’, or ‘not-two’ (advaita), is preferred (Mahadevan 1977, 12).

There are therefore differing views, even by Hindu philosophers, as to whether or not advaita is monistic. If it is not monistic, then it may not be correct to speak of the individual’s identity with Brahman. And if advaita is not monistic, then the ideas of maya and of the unreality of the world may also be reinterpreted. Ramana has inconsistent views of what maya means. Sometimes he takes a thoroughly monistic view of reality, regarding as illusory everything other than the Self. We have seen this in his attitude towards ethics, sometimes arguing that only the Self is real, and that there are no “others.” But at other times, Ramana says that the world has a relative reality, and that it is illusory only when it is regarded apart from Brahman: All this world is indeed Brahman (Collected Works 234; Osborne 1997a, 147). The whole world emanates from Brahman, which alone is. It emanates like pots come from clay (Collected Works 237; Osborne 1997a, 149). [To abolish thought] …hold firmly to the view that” ‘All this that appears as separate names and forms is Brahman Itself’ (Collected Works 242; Osborne 1997a, 152), Everything from (the threefold appearance of) Personal God, individual being, and world down to the minutest atom is merely a form of Brahman (Collected Works 250; Osborne 1997a, 160). Do not differentiate between Self and Brahman or between world and Brahman (Collected Works 253, Osborne 1997a, 162). [Re: “I am Siva”] One is not transformed into Siva, but the ruinous effects of the ego are put an end to (Talks, 307).

In this view, it is important to recognize that Shakti (power) is coeval with Shiva. The one does not exist without the other. Shiva is unmanifest, whereas Shakti is manifest on account of Her independent will (swatantra). Her manifestation is the display of the cosmos on pure consciousness, like images in a mirror. The images cannot remain in the absence of a mirror. So also, the world cannot have an independent existence.

Ramana says that both ideas mean the same thing. Maya is not and has no real being. Images in a mirror cannot in any way be real. But the world is real if it is seen as a manifestation of consciousness. “If the world be taken as chit (consciousness), it is always real.” Ramana himself tried to dismiss issues of the meaning of advaita by appealing to experience instead of concepts. He was asked whether Shankara was only an intellectual and not a realized person. He answered that we should not worry about Shankara, but should rather realize our own self. Ramana also emphasized that the different doctrines of advaita were unimportant. We should seek the experience without asking questions about the exact nature of the experience. He said that non-dualism or dualism cannot be decided on theoretical grounds alone. If the Self is realized the question will not arise (Teachings, 27). In a dialogue with one of his disciples, Ramana refused to speculate regarding dualism and nondualism: [Disciple]: The final State of Realization is said to be according to Advaita the absolute Union with the Divine and according to Visishtadvaita a qualified Union, while Dvaita maintains that there is no Union at all. Which of these should be considered the correct view? [Ramana]: Why speculate as to what will happen some time in the future? All are agreed that the 'I' exists. To whichever school of thought he may belong, let the earnest seeker first find out what the 'I' is. Then it will be time enough to know what the final State will be, whether the 'I' will get merged in the Supreme Being or stand apart from Him. Let us not forestall the conclusion, but keep an open mind (Maharshi’s Gospel, 55).[84]

Ramana says that to answer this question depends on the intellect, which shines only by the light it derives from the Self. It is presumptuous of the intellect to sit in judgment over that of which it is but a limited manifestation: How can the intellect which can never reach the Self be competent to ascertain, and much less decide the nature of the final State of Realization? It is like trying to measure the sunlight at its source by the standard of the light given by a candle. The wax will melt down before the candle comes anywhere near the sun (Ibid.)

Rather than theoretically discuss the nature of nondualism, we should realize the Self:

Both the non-dualists and the dualists agree on the necessity for Selfrealization. Attain that first and then raise other questions. Non-dualism or dualism cannot be decided on theoretical grounds alone. If the Self is realized the question will not arise (Teachings, 27).

This emphasis on experience is quite different from Shankara’s detailed theoretical expositions of the meaning of advaita, and his opposition to those who held contrary viewpoints. e) The sannyasi (1) Family

A traditional sannyasi is supposed to leave his family behind. This is why, when Ramana’s mother came to visit him, Ramana refused to see her. But later, when his mother was ill, Ramana moved out of the cave in which he was meditating, and down to where his mother was staying. That was the beginning of the formation of the ashram. He said it was not of his own will that he moved from Skandashram, but something placed him there; the will of others or of the Lord.[85] Ramana allowed his mother to cook for him and his adherents. But Ramana was criticized for this family domesticity. Some said he was not a yogi at all. While his mother was alive, Ramana corrected some of her notions of acquiring religious virtue by bathing and eating. He would “joke” with her that someone had touched her clothing and that therefore it was polluted, or that cooking with an onion was a great obstruction to achieving liberation (Sastri, 28). But this “joking” by Ramana was also a recognition that his activities were contrary to traditional Hindu ideas. When his mother came, there was much opposition to her coming, since it was feared that Ramana would move away. The criticism was based on the view that a sannyasi was supposed to have no family. Some people dismissed Ramana as a hybrid–neither an orthodox Brahmin nor a regular sannyasi. Narasimha comments on this inconsistency: “the maintenance of an aged and helpless mother may be a duty devolving even on a hermit” (Narasimha, 126). Ramana’s mother cooked food for herself, her sons and visitors. This again caused some people to comment that Ramana’s life was really more like a householder than a sannyasi (Narasimha, 127). We see here the conflict

between the traditional view that a sannyasi should aim to remove himself from life, and the jivanmukti view that one can be liberated in this life. When she died on May 19, 1922, Ramana was with her and placed his right hand on her heart and the left on her head. He said that during these 10 or 12 hours, the vasanas (innate tendencies and memory of past experiences) were very active in her. She might have required many rebirths except for the special touch on her. But by his touch, “the soul was disorbed of the subtle sheaths before it reached the supreme Peace, Nirvana, Samadhi from which there is no return to Ignorance.” Ramana therefore said that she had not passed away, but had been absorbed. This was not the case with his attendant Palanasvami, whom he had also tried to assist in this way, but who had merely passed away (Sastri 28-29; Shankaranarayanan, 24). We have earlier seen that there was a question as to whether Ramana’s mother should be buried as a saint. It was Ganapati Muni who settled this matter by reminding Ramana of something he had written earlier. Ganapati Muni cited verses from his Ramana Gita to show that women had an equal right to sannyåsa as men (Shankaranarayanan, 24). Chapter 13 of that book is entitled “Women eligible for Sannyåsa.” Verse 8 says that a woman can abide in the Self. And verse 9 says, In liberation and Self-knowledge there is no difference between men and women. The body of a woman liberated while alive is not to be cremated as it is a temple of God.

Later, a memorial or samadhi was erected over Ramana’s mother’s tomb. There were tantric influences involved in this samadhi. At the time it was erected, Ganapati Muni also composed verses praising Ramana’s mother: Spotless in character, she was the mother of Ramana Maharshi, as amsa of the God Guru Guha. Washing her sins by her devotion to the feet of Siva, abandoning her mental attachments, her Prana controlled by the force in the hand of Guha (Ramana), she cast away all distractions at that very moment and became liberated (cited, Shankaranarayanan 25).

And in a letter dated June 9, 1931, Muni wrote Ramana, comparing Ramana’s mother to the mothers of Rama, Krishna, the Buddha, and even to Mary: Mother Mary gave birth to the son of God who bears the burden of sin of all devotees. Likewise, for the welfare of the world, for removal of the darkness

of ignorance, for the casting away of all ill-conceived notions, for the realization of the Truth, thy mother gave birth to thee endowed with all these excellent qualities (cited, Shankaranarayan 26).

So we can see that Ganapati Muni was very important in influencing Ramana’s understanding of his mother as a saint. (2) Possessions

A sannyasi is not supposed to have any possessions of his own. This caused complications when an attendant of Ramana named Perumalsami started a lawsuit. He claimed ownership of the land on which the ashram was constructed. How could Ramana defend the ashram against the lawsuit that was brought claiming possession of the land? In his reminiscences, K.K. Nambiar says: The civil suit in the District Munsiffs court at Tiruvannamalai was filed by one of the erstwhile disgruntled attendants of Bhagavan named Perumalsami claiming right to the land which the Ashram was constructed and allied properties. He wanted Bhagavan to be summoned to attend the court to defend the case. But some of Bhagavan's devotees, particularly Grant Duff informed the Governor of Madras about the case and explained to him that it would be a sacrilege to drag Ramana Maharshi to court, whereupon a Gazette Extraordinary was issued granting exemption to Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi from appearance in court in civil suits. I was particularly delighted to see a copy of the Gazette Extraordinary (Nambiar 1997, 26).

It was therefore necessary to examine Ramana at the ashram. Ramana himself had to testify in deposition, although special arrangements were made for the deposition to be taken outside of the courtroom, and at the ashram. The commissioner, Sri V. Krishnaswami Reddi, came to the ashram and heard the case in November. Ramana’s testimony was given in 1936, and a fascinating excerpt of the transcript is given in Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi (Talks, 237-40, Nov. 15, 1936). Ramana was asked to which of the four stages of life he belonged. This is a reference to the four life stages of student, householder, forest dweller and sannyasi. The point of asking this question was that if Ramana were a sannyasi, he would have renounced all property and therefore could not own the ashram. Ramana replied that he belonged to the atiasramam, which means “beyond the four stages.” He was asked whether there were any others who belonged to that stage, and he referred to Suka, Rishabha, and Jada Bharata. Suka is

mentioned in the Yoga Vasistha. Rishabha and Jada Bharata are mentioned in the Srīmad Bhågavatam. Rishabha was a saintly king who once ruled over the earth. Jada Bharata was his eldest son. Ramana clearly compared himself to these saintly figures. Ramana was asked why he didn’t sign his name, and he said he did not know by which name he should be known. People had given him several names since he had arrived. This response is rather misleading, since already in 1933, Ramana had signed a Power of Attorney in favour of his brother Niranjanananda Swami. Ramana was asked how the ashram accumulated property. He said, “Property is thrust on me. I neither love nor hate it.” And, Properties came and I accepted them. I agree that owning properties relates to worldly affairs, but I do not hate worldly affairs...I used to accept anything if given to me. Moneys were given only on my behalf.

He was then asked whether the property was given to himself. He said it was given to “the Swami in the world”–to his body. Donations were accepted by the ashram, and Ramana neither approved nor disapproved of these actions. Ramana was asked how he had approved the building of the ashram. He said he was “guided by the same Power which made me come here and reside on the Hill.” As for people living near him, he said that he was not a guru and that he did not have any disciples. If people considered themselves his disciples and wanted to live near him, he could not help it. If he did not find it agreeable, he could always move away. Following his testimony in the legal action, Ramana was asked whether the examination had caused him any strain, and he said, no, because he had not used his mind. Paul Brunton reports a similar comment, so Brunton may have been present at this examination, although it is unclear which side of the litigation he was supporting.[86] The legal action was apparently settled in 1938, although it is not clear on what terms. There was a discussion whether a Board of Trustees should control the ashram. But Ramana disagreed. He thought that trustees would take no real interest in running the ashram, and that they would only use it “for a milch-cow for their own ends.” Ramana thought that it would be better to give permanent management to those who were tied by “blood and sentiment” (meaning his brother).

In 1933, Ramana had already executed and registered a General Power of Attorney in favor of Niranjanananda Swami, his brother and manager of the ashram. But it was decided that a will would be also required, to ensure that there would be no problems after his death. The information about the will is also interesting. Chadwick says that there was again a lot of debate whether Ramana could even make a will, but one was drafted in 1938 by K. Sundaram Chetty, a retired high court judge from Salem.[87] The will was read out to Ramana, clause by clause. Ramana approved the draft will, and marked an ‘X’ on every page, and put a line on the last page in lieu of a signature. The line followed this declaration: In token of my execution of this document I affix my mark and also authorize G. Sambasiva Rao to sign for me in my presence as I have not been in the habit of affixing my signature.

The 1500 word will contains a biographical section, which begins, BORN AT TIRUCHUZI, a village in the present Ramnad Dt., on the 30th of December, 1879, I left my native Home for good in my 17th year under Divine inspiration in quest of Arunachala and reached Tiruvannamalai in the year 1896.

Ramana’s will goes on to provide that: All the properties hereunder described and comprised in what is called ‘Sri Ramanasramam’ (and the accretions thereto) are dedicated by me to the Idol already installed and consecrated therein, viz., Sri Mathrubhutheswara Swami and also to the Idol or Statue as my symbol to be installed and consecrated after my demise on my Samadhi at a suitable place in the Asramam itself. I appoint my brother, Niranjanananda Swamy, as the sole manager. After him his son, T.N. Venkatarama Iyer, will be the sole manager. This right of management or trusteeship will vest as a hereditary right in the latter's family so as to devolve successively on his lineal male descendants from generation to generation.

The final document was signed by witnesses and the Maharshi then officially filed the Will for registration by handing it over to the Sub-Register of Tiruvannamalai. Ramana told the Sub-Register that he had executed the Will, and he then requested him to register it. Chadwick says that just before Ramana’s death, his brother asked him to sign a new will because the old one might have some legal loopholes, but

Ramana “flatly refused” to sign another will. At the time, Ramana was already ill with his final illness.[88] The will did not solve all problems. For after Ramana’s death, “there were a lot of quarrels and feelings of enmity towards the management of the ashram. And there were numerous lawsuits against the ashram (Ganesan, 263). (3) Retreat from the world

Fort says that Ramana rejected the traditional view of renunciation (Fort 1998, 142). Chadwick says that Ramana was against Sannyåsa. “Thought goes on; people will think, Now I am a sannyasi, instead of ‘now I am in the world” (Chadwick, 92). He cites the Bible: “Be in the world but not of the world.” For Ramana, a sannyasi did not have to retreat from the world. Ramana says that some realized persons carry on trade or business or rule a kingdom. Our occupation or duties in life need not interfere with spiritual effort. Some enlightened people withdraw to solitary places and abstain from all activity; others carry on trade or business or rule a kingdom. There is no general rule (Teachings, 186). For Ramana, the key in acting as an enlightened person is knowing that you are not the doer of your actions. The householder when detached, renders “selfless service” to his family (Teachings, 81). True sannyåsa means renouncing one’s individuality, not merely shaving one’s head and putting on ochre robes (Teachings, 79). Ramana told Brunton that the life of action need not be renounced (Narasimha, 237). Ramana himself helped out in tasks in the ashram, such as cutting vegetables for cooking, polishing walking sticks, stitching leafplates, copying from books, binding books and other useful work (Narasimha, 195). When Natesa Mudaliar wanted to leave his family for an ascetic life, Ramana told him, “go home and try to be equally unconcerned and unaffected in the midst of home life.” Although he tried for a while to become a Sannyåsi, Mudaliar resumed his place as a householder and teacher (Narasimha, 224). (4) Refusal to give initiation

Traditionally, a guru gives initiation to a disciple. But Ramana did not consider his followers to be his disciples, and he did not give initiation.

Narasimha reports that one Brahmin said he had spent 16 years with Ramana, trying to get his anugraham (grace) but Ramana was so indifferent. “Even if you break your head there, he will not care or inquire why” (Narasimha, 219) Ramana’s response to disciples who sought initiation was, “I am always giving my anugraham. If you cannot apprehend it, what am I to do?” (Narasimha, 221). f) Sources of neo-Hindu and Western influences As already discussed, Ramana became acquainted with the ideas of Vivekånanda at least as early as 1901. He was also indirectly influenced by the theosophical ideas of Madame Blavatsky. Ganapati Muni was also aware of her ideas. And Ramana’s biographers Frank H. Humphreys and Paul Brunton were both highly interested in Blavatsky’s theosophy. Brunton also influenced Ramana in taking over some of this terminology, such as speaking of the ‘Overself.’ Many of Ramana’s followers (both Hindu and non-Hindu) used Western ideas to interpret Ramana. Several devotes used the ideas of William James to describe Ramana’s religious experience. Others viewed Ramana’s experience in terms of a dualistic spiritualism, of mind over matter. This spiritualist interpretation appears in the writings of Humphreys and Brunton. Ramana had what is described as a visual photism–a vision of dazzling light suddenly streaming forth and pervading the place. Narasimha (p. 99) refers to William James’s Varieties of Religious Experience in support of such a phenomenon. And yet Ramana discouraged his disciples from seeking such photisms. Echammal (Lakshmiammal of Mandakolathur) had studied yoga. She fixed her attention on her nose; she could remain for days contemplating the light that appeared before her. Ramana said that those lights should not be her real goal but that she should aim at realizing her Self. She discontinued the yogic practice. He gave similar advice to Santammal of Ramnad, who saw flashes of light and the figure of Rama (Narasimha, 103, 105). Ramana says that this experience of a blaze of light is an indication that the mental predispositions (vasanas) are not yet destroyed (Talks, 166). Other disciples asked Ramana about ‘cosmic consciousness’ (Conscious Immortality, 137). Cosmic consciousness is an idea that was made known

by Bucke’s book of the same name (Bucke 1923). But Ramana says that it is possible to lose Self-realization after having achieved cosmic consciousness. He says that the vasanas are not destroyed by a flash of cosmic consciousness (Chadwick, 52). Heinrich Zimmer wrote a book about Ramana entitled, Der Weg zum Selbst (Zimmer, 1944). Dr. B. K. Roy reviewed Zimmer’s book and advised Ramana it was only a translation of Ramana’s ideas (Day by Day, 285). But Ramana recommended to someone to read this book (Day by Day, 168).

2. Traditional Hinduism versus tantra and yoga a) Non-Traditional Hindu Written Sources Ramana obtained various books while meditating in his cave, and he even translated some of these works. It is worthwhile briefly reviewing some of these works, for they relate not to traditional Advaita Vedanta, but to a later tantric and yogic tradition. (1) The Vivekacudamani

During his stay in the caves, Ramana translated the Vivekacudamani. As discussed, he believed that this was a work by Shankara, although this is questioned by modern scholarship. Ramana’s method of “self-enquiry” emphasizes the primacy of direct experience. In his translation of the Vivekacudamani, Ramana emphasized this necessity of direct experience. True liberation can be achieved by Selfenquiry or vichåra, and not by book learning (Osborne 1997, 125). This idea of self-enquiry is itself an idea that derives from the Vivekacudamani. Verse 32 speaks of an inquiry into the reality of one’s own nature. Verse 15 speaks about knowing one’s own nature. Verse 472 is recognition of the supreme truth about one’s self. Ramana cites the Vivekacudamani in his work. For example, he cites it in his book Self-Enquiry (p. 22). (2) The Yoga Vasistha

One of the most important influences on Ramana’s teaching is the Yoga Vasistha, which he first read while he was living in the caves of Arunachala. The Yoga Vasistha was known at least as early as 13th century CE, but may date from as early as the 6th or 7th centuries. Olivier Lacombe dated it in the interval between Gaudapåda and Shankara (Lacombe 1937, 14). The Yoga Vasistha is attributed to Valmiki, the author of the Råmåyana.

Western scholars say that the work is syncretic, with borrowings from Yoga, Samkhya Shaiva Siddhanta and Mahayana Buddhism.[89] Some have said that it is specifically related to Yogacara Buddhism. Parallels to Yogåcåra Buddhism are found in its description of mind as a creative force, the negation of the reality of the world and the claim that all appearances proceed from the mind.[90] Insofar as the Yoga Vasistha denies the reality of the world, it is inconsistent with Ramana’s understanding of the reality of the world as set out in the Vivekacudamani. But the Yoga Vasistha also speaks of the power or energy (shakti) of infinite consciousness (Yoga Vasistha, 73). This shakti brings into manifestation the infinite variety of beings, from the Creator to the blade of grass; it also sustains these beings (Yoga Vasistha, 193). Shakti is always dynamic and active. The Yoga Vasistha therefore supports the doctrine that the world has some reality. It specifically refers to the world as an object in a mirror that is neither real nor unreal (Yoga Vasistha, 230). Two attitudes are conducive to liberation. One is that “I am the extremely subtle and transcendent self.” The other is that “I am all and everything” (Yoga Vasistha, 234). The Yoga Vasistha also lends support to the view that nondualism is different from mere unity or monism. It says that when the mind drops the perception of duality there is neither duality nor unity (Yoga Vasistha, 75). Unity is seen only in opposition to duality. We are to be freed from the conditions known as duality and non-duality (Yoga Vasistha, 209). The allpervading consciousness is not an object of knowledge; it is beyond the concepts of unity and diversity. It is that “other than which nothing else is” (Yoga Vasistha, 214). The Yoga Vasistha also played a role in developing what Fort refers to as “Yogic Advaita” (Fort 1998, 85). Yogic Advaita continued Shankara’s idea that knowledge of the nondual Self brings liberation. It also emphasized certain Buddhist ideas, as well as Yogic practices, such as exerting control of mental states. It urged “destroying the mind.” We should destroy the vasanas, mental impressions that are the cause of bondage. The Yoga Vasistha speaks of the state of nirvikalpa samadhi in which “there is no movement of thought.”[91] But what is interesting is that when the Yoga Vasistha speaks of a state of nirvikalpa samadhi, there remains a kind of perception. It tells the story of Lëlå, who enters into nirvikalpa samadhi. It is said that she was in the infinite space of consciousness, and yet she can

see the king, although he cannot see her (Yoga Vasistha, 53, 57). She was on another plane of consciousness. The Yoga Vasistha also was important in popularizing the idea of the jivanmukta (one who is liberated in this life). It says that a liberated person may act in the world. It tells how the sage named Vasistha gives instruction to Råma. Råma becomes enlightened, and returns to rule his kingdom. This is an example of a jivanmukta. Such a person can lead an active life without incurring any further bondage or karma from one’s actions. Vasistha tells Råma that samadhi is where one realizes the objects of the senses in a state of “not-self” and thus enjoys inner calmness and tranquility at all times. If one can mentally renounce all false identification of the self with objects, one can then live where one likes, either at home or in a mountaincave. If the mind is at peace and if there is no ego sense, even cities are as void. On the other hand, forests are like cities to him whose heart is full of desires and other evils (Yoga Vasistha, 223). The continuance of perception is related to the idea of jivanmukti. For the one who is liberated in this life, certain vasanas remain. But they are pure (shuddha) vasanas that are free from joy and sorrow and cause no further birth. Andrew Fort comments: Even though awake, the mukta’s vasanas and vrttis are at rest. Thus, the liberated being is often described as “asleep while awake”: detached and desireless, doing all while doing nothing, having perfect equanimity in activity. When acting with a one-pointed “sleep mind,” this being is not a doer and acts without bondage (Fort 1998, 94).

Just as in deep sleep one experiences no duality or suffering, so in the vasana-less state, the knower has equanimity and “a kind of coolness within.” This is the turiya or fourth state. There is a state beyond even this, called the turiyatita, a nondual “state” beyond great bliss. It is associated with bodiless liberation, which is even higher than liberation in the body. The Yoga Vasistha says that in order to attain liberation, one must abandon the aspect of the mind called the “I” notion, ahamkara, ahambhava (Fort 1998, 92). Samadhi is specifically said to be the same whether one is engaged in constant action or in contemplation. Thus, it is not limited to a state of trance, since in a trance, one would not be able to be in a state of action. The emphasis is on attaining a state of egolessness:

Knowledge of truth, Lord, is the fire that burns up all hopes and desires as if they are dried blades of grass. That is what is known by the word samadhi in which there is eternal satisfaction, clear perception of what is, egolessness not being subject to the pairs of opposites, freedom from anxiety and from the wish to acquire or to reject (Yoga Vasistha, 227)

In samadhi there is “clear perception of what is.” This is not a cessation of consciousness, but a state of egolessness. This egolessness is obtained when one realizes that the light rays are not different from the sun, that the waves are not different from the ocean, that the bracelet is not different from gold, that the sparks are not different from the fire. Someone who has seen this true has an understanding that is said to be unmodified (nirvikalpa). We are to abandon the perception of diversity or objectification and remain established in the nirvikalpa consciousness. Then we do not get enmeshed in the objects.[92] It is clear that, like the Vivekacudamani, the Yoga Vasistha was a source for Ramana’s teaching of self-enquiry. According to the Yoga Vasistha, liberation is achieved only by the conquest of the mind by self-enquiry, and specifically the question “Who am I?”: What is inquiry? To inquire thus: “Who am I? How has this evil of saîsåra (repetitive history) come into being?” is true inquiry–knowledge of truth arises from such inquiry (Yoga Vasistha, 34)

Not everyone enquires into the truth of the self. But the self alone is to be sought, adored and meditated upon (Yoga Vasistha, 194). By this enquiry of self-knowledge, one obtains infinite consciousness. There is no other way of liberation from bondage (Yoga Vasistha, 229). The Yoga Vasistha advises abandoning the aspect of the mind called the “I” notion, ahamkara ahambhava (Fort 1998, 92). There is no liberation as long as one clings to the reality of ‘you’ and ‘I’. We are to rest in the self (Yoga Vasistha, 107). We are warned against taking our stand on concepts and percepts of the mind (Yoga Vasistha, 211). We are rather to rely on pure experience (Yoga Vasistha, 234). Immediate experience is described: “whatever vision arises within oneself, that is immediately experienced. Consciousness (as subject) itself becomes, as it were, the object of knowledge (Yoga Vasistha, 62). You cannot merely verbally deny a dual notion of existence. Such denial itself becomes a further distraction (Yoga Vasistha, 39). We are to become conscious of the self in all states of awareness.

Ramana frequently refers to the Yoga Vasistha and he even incorporates six couplets from it in his Supplement to Forty Verses (verses 21 to 27) (Collected Works 125-26; Osborne 1997a, 80). The remaining six shlokas were printed separately by the ashram, with a translation in English. We are to be free from egoism, with mind detached as in sleep, pure like the sky, ever untainted. Inwardly cool but outwardly full of fervour, we should act playfully in the world. Ramana also refers to the Yoga Vasistha in Self-Enquiry—in support of his view that we should not search for the Self outside ourselves. It constantly shines as “I-I’ within the Heart (Collected Works 6; Osborne 1997a, 27). He says that Vasishta and Valmiki possessed siddhis: That might have been their fate. But don’t aim at that which is not essential but apt to prove a hindrance to wisdom (Talks, 36).

He refers to the story of Punya and Papa [in Yoga Vasistha, V. Ch. 20]. Punya consoles Papa on the death of their parents and shows him how to realize the Self (Talks, 233). In Conscious Immortality (p. 172), he says, “Yoga Vasistha says that the quest ‘Who am I?’ is the axe which, when struck at the roots of the go, destroys it.” A couple of pages later (p. 174), he says, In the Yoga Vasistha it says that what is real is hidden to us, but what is false is revealed as true. Actually, we are experiencing only the reality, but we do not know it. Isn’t it the wonder of wonders?”

Ramana cited the Yoga Vasistha regarding the futility of searching for the Self outside oneself, oblivious of its constantly shining as 'I-I' within the Heart (Osborne 1997a 27). Nambiar’s The Guiding Presence of Sri Ramana Maharshi has an appendix of verses from the Yoga Vasistha, selected by Ramana to describe the state of Jivanmukti. Of these, the slokas 20 and 23 were incorporated in verse 26 of anubandham [supplement] to Ulladu Narpadu. Likewise the slokas 24 and 26 were incorporated in Verse 27 of the anubandham. The remaining six slokas were printed separately in loose sheets by the ashram authorities, with translations in English (Nambiar, 72). Ramana cites Lila’s story. Jnana stands for knowledge without practice; abhyasa stands for practice without knowledge; dhyana stands for practice with knowledge (Talks, 114).

Ramana refers to the Yoga Vasistha’s statement that Kundalini is composed of 101 nadis [channels] and that the heart is the seat of meditation. You see the body in the Heart, the world in it (Talks, 378). And he says that the Yoga Vasistha defines liberation as the abandonment of the false, and just remaining as Being (Talks, 413). The Yoga Vasistha is a kind of yoga. But Ramana is careful to distinguish it from some other yogas. He says that one does not have to first develop all the qualities of perfection for a seeker as mentioned in the Yoga Sutras. There may not be any individual in the world possessing all those qualities. K.K. Nambiar says that Grant Duff (Douglas Ainslie, the nephew of one of the British Governors in India) asked Ramana how a jivanmukta could engage in worldly activities. Ramana referred to the Yoga Vasistha, verses 17-26 of sarga 18 (Nambiar, 9). When a sage engages in activities, they don’t disturb him, because his mind abides in Brahman, just as a woman walking with a waterpot on her head can engage in talk with companions, all the while remaining intent on water above (Conscious Immortality, 10). (3) The Ashtavakra Gita

We have already referred to the Ashtavakra Gita. Ramana frequently related the story of King Janaka. He says that Ashtavakra composed the Ashtavakra Gita, the main theme of which is “Brahman is not anything new or apart from one and no particular time or place is needed to realize Brahman” (Crumbs, 32-34) (4) The Ribhu Gita

Ramana refers to the Ribhu Gita many times, including a reference in his earliest book, Who Am I? Ramana was acquainted with this work from an early date. In 1908, he often gave V. Ramaswamy Iyer the Ribhu Gita to read (Narasimha, 98). Ramana later said that readings from the Ribhu Gita are as good as samadhi (Narasimha, 208). Narasimha reports that he also read Kaivalya Navaneetha. The Ribhu Gita is an extract from a much longer epic, the Sivarahasya. It tells of the experience of nonduality by the sage known as Ribhu. The focus of the text is on the Self. In order to achieve bliss, one must discard the mind. There is nothing that is not-self (1:11). Verse 24 says that if there is no “you”, there is no “I”. The Ribhu Gita refers to the heart-space within all beings (1:59). It is also significant in its view of nonduality as something that cannot be conceptualized:

26. If there is duality, there is (a concept of) nonduality; in the absence of duality, there is no (concept of) nonduality either. If there is something to be "seen," a seer is also there; in the absence of anything to see, there is no seer at all either.[93]

But whereas the Ribhu Gita confirms that nonduality cannot be conceptualized, this view of nonduality, which denies that there is in fact anything to see, is inconsistent with the view that Ramana takes from other texts that refer to seeing Brahman in all things. (5) The Tripura Rahasya

One of the publications still for sale at Ramana’s ashram is the Tripura Rahasya. Its English translation contains the subtitle: “The Mystery Beyond the Trinity.”[94] It is unclear who chose this title for the work. It may have been the English disciple of Ramana, Major Chadwick. Chadwick wrote the Foreword to the book. The Tripura Rahasya is a tantric work. It refers to the Supreme Goddess by various names. She is called Tripura, because Her Body consists of three shaktis (Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva).[95] Chadwick says that Ramana considered this as one of the greatest works of advaita and that he often quoted from it. Ramana regretted that it was not available in English. According to this work, the Pure Self sometimes unfolds itself as the cosmos, and at other times withdraws Itself and remains unmanifest. Therefore cosmos and the Self are only the same, but different modes of the one Reality, which is Consciousness.[96] The cosmos is therefore not unreal. It is real in the same way that an image in a mirror is real; the cosmos is a real image of the Self. This book helps to explain Ramana’s view that the world is real, although only insofar as it is dependent on Brahman. The Tripura Rahasya also emphasizes the importance of direct experience. It says, Second-hand knowledge of the Self gathered from books or gurus can never emancipate a man until its truth is rightly investigated and applied to himself; direct Realisation alone will do that. Therefore, follow my advice and realise yourself, turning the mind inward (Tripura Rahasya 18: 89-90). (6) The Tayumanavar

Thayumanavar was a saint and a poet. Sometimes he would retire to the forest or public gardens and remained for days absorbed in the bliss of the

Self. According to legend, he was sitting in meditation in a public garden in Ramnad when the gardeners, not noticing him, piled a heap of dry leaves and twigs about him and set fire to it; in this way, Thayumanavar merged in the Supreme. The Tayumanavar is one of the earliest works with which Ramana was familiar. He had read parts of it even as a boy. But his reading of the Tayumanavar might have induced him to seek a trance state. The Tayumanavar says, When I think, I will have to shuffle this body

I swoon in fear, my heart trembling

Long, long indeed is the distance between

The blissful state of Transcendent Silentness

And this ignorant one.[97]

Later in life Ramana recited portions of the hymns in the Tayumanavar. He used to quote the following from the Tayumanavar: When overpowered by the wide Expanse which is without beginning, end or middle, there is the realization of non-dual bliss (Path of Self-Knowledge, 61).

Of all the stanzas in the Tayumanavar, Ramana preferred the one that says, “Ego disappearing, another ‘I-I’ spontaneously manifests in full glory.” This manifested state is called mouna (silence). The Tayumanavar defines mouna as “that state which spontaneously manifests after the annihilation of the ego” (Talks, 111). This stanza therefore appears to be another source for Ramana’s teaching of self-enquiry. The Tayumanavar says that eternal Being is that state in which you disappear. You are eternal and also still. This cannot just be done by the mind telling us to be still. He quotes the Tayumanavar as saying that silence is the ocean in which all the rivers of all the religions discharge themselves (Talks, 547). Ramana explains this doctrine of the Tayumanavar with the story of someone who is told that the medicine he is given will work if only he doesn’t think of a monkey. Naturally, he will always think of the monkey. Conscious, deliberate effort is necessary to reach the state of stillness (Talks, 555, 606; also Teachings, 70). It is the state that is free from thoughts (Talks, 606). Ramana defines the silence of mouna as that state which spontaneously manifests after the annihilation of the ego. Ramana says that although

mentioned several times, the Tayumanavar defines it in only one verse (Talks, 11, Jan 1/36). Silence is the ocean in which all the rivers of all the religions discharge themselves. So says Thayumanavar (Talks, 547, Dec 15/38).

He refers to the influence of the sage who sits in silence: A person who sits still and silently can influence a whole country. The force of meditation is infinitely more powerful than speech or writing. One who sits in silence, meditating on the Self, will draw a whole crowd of people to him, without his going out to anyone (Conscious Immortality, 83).

Balaram Reddy says that Ramana often quoted this stanza of Saint Thayumanavar's in praise of the Guru: Oh Lord! Coming with me all along the births, never abandoning me and finally rescuing me![98]

Reddy says that Ramana was often heard quoting from Thayumanavar's verses. He says that the following are ten verses especially selected by Ramana: 1 & 2. The individual ego known as "I" having manifested and troubled everyone, the universal Maya, the diversifying agency, spontaneously follows in its wake. Who can possibly describe the vast ocean of misery consequent upon it? It appears as the flesh, the body, the senses, interior and exterior, as the all pervading ether, air, fire, water and earth, as mountain, forest, huge visions like hills physical and subtle, as forgetfulness and memory, and so on, rising up wave after wave and beating against man, bringing pleasure and pain, which are the result of his past actions, and also their remedies known as creeds, religions, God-Seeker, and the testimonies and sanctions found in various sciences, and explained by logic. All these are more numerous than even the fine grains of sand on the seashore. 3. Unaccountable troubles crop up spontaneously, sheaf upon sheaf. How to root them out wholesale, even as burning up a hill of camphor without residue in a vast blaze of fire? In order to achieve this miracle, and to enlighten me, Grace took shape. In every respect, like my self, eating and sleeping, suffering and enjoying, bearing a name and born somewhere, it appeared as the Silent Guru, like a deer used to decoy another of its species. 4. And claimed my body, possessions and life itself and consistently with the process of elimination, signified “you are not the five senses nor the five

elements, nor the limbs, nor the mind, nor their attributes, nor all these collectively, nor the body nor knowledge nor ignorance. You are pure consciousness, unassociated like a crystal, but reflecting the background to lookers-on; whereas we (guru) are only the inherent nature revealing the truth on finding you ripe for it.” 5. If eager to reach Consciousness-Bliss-Eternity innermost in all, which is also the inner abode of refreshing Grace, listen to the course I indicate. May you reach the Pure Heart and abide there forever! May dense ignorance vanish for you! May you attain to Bliss-Consciousness! May bondage cease for you! Communicating thus, 6. And dispensing the true knowledge of the Natural and Unique Silence which destroys all bondage and where there is no meditation nor the ego, no space, no time, no direction, no association, no elimination, no differentiation, no expression, no phenomena of night and day, no end, no beginning, no middle, no interior or exterior, nor an aggregate of all these. 7. (The Guru indicated further) that, though all these are eliminated, "It" is not void, but is Natural, Eternal Be-ing inexpressible by words, not manifesting as ego, but is the Reality engulfing all, having swallowed all ignorance like day covering night, and absorbing unhindered all knowledge, metamorphosing the person into Itself, It shines in Silence, Self-effulgent; 8. With its emergence, It prevents any other from appearing; and all else is put out suddenly like burning camphor blown away without residual flicker or glow; and in its place It shines beyond the senses, and apart from the knower, known and knowledge; and yet It is there, though who can speak of it and to whom? For if It arises, the individual is metamorphosed; It will assert Itself (Literally: It Speaks Itself), 9. (And further on), if it is said to be “It,” the question arises "which," though such doubt about the non-dual One is illogical; so transcending it also, King Janaka or Suka and others remained like the bee intoxicated with honey in that state. (The same Guru's) blessing helped me to reach it. Grace is needed in order to reach the Nirvikalpa Samadhi and attain absolute Bliss. I will not rest nor attend to my wants until I attain it. 10. On the "I" idea of the individual ego vanishing, there springs up within me a current of "I-I" endless indeed. This confers bliss engulfing all my knowledge, unique and transcendental, ending in Silence! How then can Silence be expressed?[99]

Ramana also referred to the Tayumanavar regarding the state of a jnani (More Talks, 61). Ramana also referred to other Tamil saints. He said that the Tamil Saint Manickavasagar’s body disappeared in a blaze of light leaving no residue. This was because our body is solidified mind. “When in Jnanam the mind dissolves and consumes itself in a blaze of light, the body is burnt up in the process.” He gave Nandanar as another example. Chadwick referred to Elijah being carried up to Heaven in a chariot. But Ramana said that Christ ‘s death was different; Christ’s body remained for a time after death, whereas the bodies of the others had been immediately and utterly consumed (Chadwick, 71). b) Jivanmukti Ramana accepted that one could be a jivanmukta, one who is liberated in his body in this world. Full liberation is only gained after death (in videhamukti). But jivanmukti allows for the continuing the liberated person to continue functioning within the world of diversity. This idea of jivanmukti is not at all universally accepted within Hinduism. Indeed, as Fort has shown, the entire idea of jivanmukti probably derives from tantric sources, and is connected with the tantric ideas of the reality of the world, and of maya in terms of the shakti or energy of Shiva (Fort 1998). The jivanmukta sees Brahman within all things. But there is an inconsistency between the state of kevala (the experience of the aloneness of the atman) and this state of sahaja (seeing Brahman within all things). As Fort says, Vedantahas two ideas of mukti: freedom from saîsåra and knowledge of Brahman/atman. The first view, freedom from saîsåra, is a more negative idea of liberation. It usually requires some form of world renunciation, and some kind of yogic practice; it ends in the perfect isolation (kaivalya) of the spirit (Fort 1998, 6). This view is also connected with seeing the world as maya in terms of illusion. The second view of liberation is knowledge of Brahman/atman. In this second view, some Vedantic thought holds that there can be liberation when one is in a body, with the mind and the senses. Even for those who believe in the possibility of jivanmukti, there is a further problem. There are those who argue that the only reason that the jivanmukta can continue to function in the world is because of his or her prarabdha karma. This is the karmic energy that continues from before

liberation, like the continued spinning of the potter’s wheel. On this view the jivanmukta is not really participating in the world, since the energy of acting in the body comes from the past. However, another opinion is that the jivanmukta is participating in the world out of a mission to save the world or to do good in the world. Fort argues that this second opinion is not found within traditional Hinduism; it is a Western conception (Fort 1998, 13). It may also be linked to the Buddhist idea of the bodhisattva. For those who accept the idea of jivanmukti, it is often unclear what the idea means. If the liberated person has attained to unity with Brahman, how does he or she deal with the diversity of the world? Is the jivanmukta conscious of his or her actions? Are rational distinctions still made after liberation? Is there a distinction between subject and object, between self and others? And what are the jivanmukta’s ethical obligations to others? c) Tantric view of maya We have already discussed differing views as to whether advaita is monistic. Tantra does not regard the world as totally illusory. Maya is regarded as the creative power of Brahman (or more frequently, of Siva). The world has a relative reality. It is real insofar as it is related to Siva, as the field play of Siva’s creative power or shakti. We have seen how this view of relative reality is supported by the Vivekacudamani. In his translation of the Vivekacudamani, Ramana also refers to the world as having emanated from Brahman: “Thou are That” because this whole world emanates from Brahman, which alone IS, and is Brahman Itself, just as pots come from clay and are clay itself and indeed are made of clay (Osborne 1997, 149).

But although traditionally ascribed to Shankara, recent scholarship has questioned whether the Vivekacudamani was written by Shankara. This view of maya as a relative reality is more closely related to tantra. Hacker also comments that the Upanishads speak of the world when not yet unfolded. This is designated as “the unmanifest” (avyakta).[100] This view that Brahman emits or emanates the world is not emphasized in Vedanta. Vedanta tends to regard the world as a result of ignorance and illusion. Although Vedanta does acknowledge some reality to the world in its doctrine of anirvacaniya, the emphasis on the full reality of the world as an expression of shakti is more a tantric doctrine. Loy says that both Hindu and Buddhist tantra hold that the ultimate nondual reality possesses two

aspects in its fundamental nature–negative and positive, static and dynamic, Ùiva and Shakti, Prajna and Upaya, Shunyata and karuna. The ultimate goal of tantra is union between these two aspects of the reality. In this union, one realizes the non-dual nature of the self and the not-self.[101] Ramana says that tantric advaita admits world, soul, God. There is the Tantric Advaita which admits three fundamentals jagat, jiva, Isvara–world, soul, God. These three are also real. But the reality does not end with them. It extends beyond. That is the Tantric Advaita. The Reality is limitless; the three fundamentals do not exist apart from the Absolute Reality. All agree that Reality is all-pervading…. (Talks, 118).

This tantric positive valuation of the world is expressed in the Yoga Vasistha and in Kashmir Shaivism. Swami Muktananda points out that within Kashmir Shaivism, the world is seen as a real manifestation of Shiva’s shakti. Everything is in consciousness, including the material world. Christopher Chapple cites Abhinavagupta in this connection: Shiva the independent and pure Self that always vibrates in the mind, is the Parashakti that rises as joy in various sense experiences. Then the experience of this outer world appears as its Self. I do not know where this word ‘saîsåra’ has come from.[102]

Lilian Silburn writes about the Shaivite doctrine of the emanation of the world from Shiva. In the dance of Shiva, the sound vibrations from his drum give rise to the universe as they generate time and space. With his other hand, he holds the fire of resorption. This fire consumes the I. There is therefore both emanation and resorption. The creative emission takes place when the Goddess energy (shakti) is churned by Bhairava. This is the “gross aspect of vibration” in which Shiva differentiates himself from his energy in order to contemplate her. After this separation there is a return into unity. The yogi dwells at this junction of the twofold movement of emanation and resorption. The yogi is returned to the primordial oneness, the vibration of the universal heart. In this union, Shiva takes back the divided energy, turning it inward by a series of withdrawal to the initial vibration of the peaceful center (Silburn 1988, 5-9).              Ramana held that the world is no illusion. Only the ignorant one sees only the truth of the visible universe. The wise one goes behind to the Formless Truth that is the base and support of the visible universe (Shankaranarayanan, 63).

Ramana translates the Devikalottara, one of the minor Agamas, as saying, The mere consciousness of being as Awareness is itself Shakti and all this world is the projection of this Shakti. Recognition of the world as the manifestation of Shakti is worship of Shakti (Collected Works 173; Osborne 1997a, 112).

Another time Ramana was questioned whether Shankara was correct in his view that Brahman is real and that the world is illusion. He said that both are true, and that these refer to different stages of development: The aspirant starts with definition that the Real always exists, and then eliminates the world as unreal because it is changing and hence cannot be the Real. Ultimately he reaches the Self and there finds unity. Then that which was originally rejected as being unreal, is found to be part of the unity. Being absorbed in the Reality, the world is also real. Vedåntins say maya’s manifestation is the display of the cosmos on pure Consciousness like images in a mirror. Just as the images cannot remain in the absence of a mirror, so the world cannot have an independent existence (Conscious Immortality, 107). The Vedåntins do not say the world is unreal. That is a misunderstanding. If they did, what would be the meaning of the Vedantic text: “All this is Brahman”? They only mean that the world is unreal as world, but it is real as Self. If you regard the world as not-Self it is it not real. Everything, whether you call it world or maya or lila or sakti, must be within the Self and not apart from it. There can be no sakti apart from the sakta (Day by Day, 233; Cf. Teachings, 19) Shankara also said that this world is Brahman or the Self. What he objected to is one’s imagining that the Self is limited by the names and forms that constitute the world. He only said that the world has no reality apart from Brahman (Teachings, 16). Shankara has been criticized for his philosophy of Maya (illusion) without understanding his meaning. He made three statements: that Brahman is real, that the universe is unreal, and that Brahman is the universe. He did not stop with the second. The third statement explains the first two; it signifies that when the Universe is perceived apart from Brahman, that perception is false and illusory. What it amounts too is that phenomena are real when experienced as the Self and illusory when seen apart from the self (Teachings, 16).

Even the idea of illusion is itself illusory (Teachings, 17). Both of the following statements are true: “The world (jagat) is illusion” and “The world is reality.” The statements refer to different stages of development, and are spoken from different points of view (Talks, 41). Sometimes, Ramana’s view that the world is a manifestation of God’s power seems to be like panentheism: Iswara is immanent in every person and in every material object throughout the universe. The totality of all things and beings constitutes God. There is a power out of which a small fraction has become all this universe, and the remainder is in reserve. Both this reserve power, plus the manifested power as the material world, together constitute Iswara (Conscious Immortality 127).

And yet, although Ramana affirmed the Vivekacudamani in its view that the world has some reality, he sometimes inconsistently refers to the world as comparable to only a vision. He said had seen in Arunachala a great city with large buildings and streets and a big company of Sadhus chanting the Vedas. Someone said, but that is only a vision. He said “All this is only a vision too. That is just as real as this” (Chadwick, 57). d) The Heart Ramana frequently speaks of our heart centre. In 1917 he says, “That from which all thoughts of embodied beings spring is the Heart.” He refers to the “cave of the Heart.” The transcendental Being residing therein is the Lord of the Cave (Osborne 1997a 28). Our real Self is there in the heart behind the ego-self (Teachings, 128). There is in the Heart the infinite consciousness ‘I-I’, which is at the same time pure and constant; on eradicating the ego this manifests and leads to moksha (Collected Works 178; Osborne 1997a, 114).

The Self is the centre and is aware of itself as the Heart or Self-awareness (Teachings, 129). Analysis and synthesis are in the region of intellect. The Self transcends the intellect (Conscious Immortality, 50).   For Ramana, the Self is found in the Heart: If you ask, Who am I? the Deity or the Atma will be found shining (throbbing) as 'I' in the lotus of the heart. By practice of this kind of meditation one becomes unaware of oneself and what one is doing and one’s mind gets

absorbed in the Self. The subtle state in which even the pulsation subsides is the state of samadhi (Osborne 1997a, 35).[103]

Ramana claimed that this heart center is on the right side of our body: It is not denied that the physical organ is on the left, but the heart of which I speak is on the right. It is my experience. No authority is required. But still, you can find confirmation in the Sita Upanishad, where there is a mantra that says so. The whole cosmos is contained in one pinhole in the Heart. A tiny hole in the heart remains always closed and is opened by vichåra. The result is ‘I’I’ consciousness, the same as samadhi (Conscious Immortality, 166).

Ramana refers to a Western journal in support of his ideas. On October 11, 1941, Ramana referred to the location of the ‘heart’ as being in the middle of the chest. He referred to some tantric writings. But he also took out a book where he had copied out some sentences from an American Journal, the Journal of the Psychological Research Institute started in Philadelphia in 1872. Around November of 1931 there was an article[104] describing the “true heart” to be on the right side (where Ramana also said it was). This was confirmed by a 1934 article in the same journal. This heart was the deepest and the innermost psycho-physical and spiritual centre of man. Ramana had tried, but failed to get the whole article (Sastri, 51-52). Ramana’s idea of the heart as the centre seems itself to be related to tantric sources. One whole chapter (5) of the Ramana Gita is devoted to “the Science of the Heart.” The Heart has intuitive knowledge and direct immediate experience (see discussion below). e) Meditation Sometimes, Ramana refers positively to yoga and meditation. For example, he says that some verses that are suitable for meditation. This is related to tantra. Tantra Shastra has a method of invocation. Each deity has own particular name, form and characteristics, own lines of vibration. This is a dhyana shloka: a form of verse for meditation (Shankaranarayanan, 80). Ganapati Muni gives such a shloka in Ramana Gita: XVIII.13 In showering grace, he is like the moon, the friend of the blue water-lily. In the same way, in lustre he is like the sun, the kinsman of the lotus. In his Brahmic state, he reminds us of his Father abiding under the Banyan tree. Him, the moveless one we lovingly remember (Ramana Gita, 225-6).

The commentary says that this verse deserves to be the dhyana shloka [a verse to be meditated on in order to invoke Ramana’s presence]. The

reference is to Dakshinamurti seated under the Banyan tree. When this shloka is recited with devotional fervour, it is said that the Presence [sannidhya] of Ramana is felt as Peace. But as we have already seen, Ramana elsewhere refers to meditation as unnecessary. He says that Self-Enquiry is the direct path to realization, so why would one bother with Kundalini? Meditation is possible only if the ego is retained; there is the ego and the object mediated upon. This method is indirect. However if we seek the egosource, the ego disappears and what remains is the Self. This method is the direct one (Conscious Immortality, 59).

There are four states of consciousness: waking, sleep, deep sleep, and the fourth state, the turiya. Ramana interprets the turīya as beyond both the waking and sleeping states. He says that this fourth stage is really our natural [sahaja] state, the under-current in all the three states (Talks, 121). It is not a state of trance, since this sahaja state is the state of the jivanmukta who moves about and acts in the world. This point has not been emphasized enough by interpreters of Ramana’s experience. Ramana does not advocate achieving a trance state. He says that trance is the state of nirvikalpa samadhi, a lower state of realization than sahaja samadhi. Ramana distinguishes these levels of samadhi: (1) Holding on to Reality is samadhi. (2) Holding on to Reality with effort is savikalpa samadhi. He subdivides savikalpa samadhi into four kinds. All involve effort. (3) Merging in Reality and remaining unaware of the world is nirvikalpa samadhi. He subdivides these into two kinds. (4) Merging in Ignorance and remaining unaware of the world is sleep. In sleep, the mind is alive, but sunk into oblivion. (5) Remaining in the primal, pure natural state without effort is sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi (Teachings, 185; also Talks, 357-58; Cf. Collected Works 272-73; Osborne 1997a, 176-77.

In savikalpa samadhi, the mind jumps from one object to another. All kinds of thoughts rise up from the Reality within and “manifest themselves.” The distinction between Knower, Knowledge and Known is not lost. In nirvikalpa samadhi, which Ramana also calls kevala samadhi, the mind is alive, but “sunk in life,” “like a bucket with a rope left lying in the water in

the well to be drawn out.” The distinction between Knower, Knowledge and Known is lost (Collected Works 272; Osborne 1997a, 176). One can come out of the state. It is therefore temporary, a mere suppression (laya) of consciousness, a state of trance. For those who reach only this stage, everything appears different from themselves, unlike sahaja samadhi, where there is nothing different from themselves (Letters, 270). Ramana is ambivalent as to whether or not nirvikalpa samadhi is a necessary stage to attaining sahaja samadhi. He says that a scholar who has not had a firm experience of nirvikalpa samadhi, however learned he may be, will not be capable of destroying the ego (Collected Works 245, Osborne 1997a, 155). And he says in order not to fall back into samsara, one should practice nirvikalpa samadhi by concentration on Brahman, which is experienced in the heart as one’s own radiant Self, free from all limitations and as Being-consciousness-Bliss. This will destroy the individual consciousness, which is the cause of all error, and thus you can unravel the knot of the heart, which causes the ills of birth and death (Collected Works 252, Osborne 1997a, 161). Elsewhere he says, When we have tendencies that we are trying to give up, that is to say when we are still imperfect and have to make conscious efforts to keep the mind one-pointed or free from thought, the thoughtless state which we thus attain is nirvikalpa samadhi. When, through practice, we are always in that state, not going into samadhi and coming out again, that is the sahaja state. In sahaja one sees the only Self and sees the world as a form assumed by the Self (Teachings, 184)

Elsewhere, Ramana says that the trance of nirvikalpa samadhi is not necessary in order to achieve the sahaja state. The method that he recommends for enlightenment is that of Self-Enquiry. Ramana criticized meditation as often leading to the inflation of the ego of the meditator. Liberation can’t be attained through yoga or ritual (Collected Works 277; Osborne 1997a, 133). Ramana says that Shankara emphasized sahaja samadhi in preference to nirvikalpa samadhi (Reflections, 52). Now although it is true that Shankara did not emphasize the experience of trance, or nirvikalpa, it is unlikely that he advocated sahaja, which is more tantric. Ramana refers to the Vivekacudamani in support of the preference of sahaja samadhi to nirvikalpa samadhi (Talks, 59). Sahaja is in any event experiential, something that Shankara did not emphasize.

In sahaja samadhi, the mind is “dead,” “resolved into the self, like a river discharged into the ocean and its identity lost.” The mind has resolved itself into the Self and has been lost. Differences and obstructions mentioned above do not therefore exist here. The activities of such a being are like the feeding of a sleeping boy, perceptible to the onlooker (but not to the subject). Similarly the sahaja jnani remains unaware of his bodily activities because his mind is dead–having been resolved in the ecstasy of Chid Ananda (Self) (Talks, 154).

And yet, although the mind is dead, in sahaja samadhi one is able to continue to function in the world after enlightenment. Elsewhere Ramana says it does not matter whether the senses are active: Turiya [the fourth state] is mind in quiescence and aware of Self, with awareness that the mind has merged in its source. Whether the senses are active or inactive is immaterial. In nirvikalpa samadhi the senses are inactive (Conscious Immortality, 97).

The enlightened one lives as a jivanmukta. He is able to think and to reason. Ramana had thoughts when he was reading and when replying to questions. The realized sage sees the world, but his outlook differs. But in reality there is nothing but the self (Conscious Immortality, 142). Yet a realized person can have feelings; jnana is not inconsistent with the feeling of being slapped (Conscious Immortality, 143). And Narasimha says, A Master is perpetually in this state; in some incomprehensible way, he can use the mind, body, and intellect too, without falling back into the delusion of having separate consciousness (Narasimha 117).

Swami Siddeswarananda says that sahaja samadhi, even for Ramana, is seeing the true nature of the world. It is not a case of cessation of consciousness, or of pure consciousness. Although the realized person still sees the world, he sees it as being Brahman. He perceives Brahman in all things. To attain samadhi, it is helpful “to regard everything as Brahman.” The result will be that the frail tendencies of the ego will disappear like darkness before the sun.[105] The Self is like screen in movie theatre. The screen remains, but the pictures and appearances that are projected on it, come and go:

When the Realized Man sees the world he sees the Self that is the substratum of all that is seen (Teachings, 192).

In sahaja one sees only the Self, and one sees the world as a form assumed by the Self (Teachings, 184). The importance of regarding everything as Brahman seems to indicate that perception continues after one attains sahaja. The state is not just one of pure consciousness, but a state in which there is some content. There is also a hearing. Ramana refers to meditation on sound (nadayoga): One sound after another will come and this will lead to a state of laya. Remember to look at who it is that hears these sounds.…If you lose sight of the subject then you will go into laya [nirvikalpa] (Conscious Immortality, 37).

Thus, to avoid going into trance, we need to remember the Self, the hearer of the sounds, and not concentrate on the sounds alone. Sahaja, the highest state of consciousness is not withdrawal from the world or a cessation of activity. A person who has attained Realization may or may not withdraw from active life. Some realized persons carry on trade or business or rule a Kingdom like Rama as described in the Yoga Vasistha. Realization does not mean being inert like a stone or becoming nothing: Then how would it differ from deep sleep? Besides, it would be a state which, however exalted, comes and goes and would therefore not be the natural and normal state, so how could it represent the eternal presence of the Supreme Self, which persists through all states, and survives them? It is true that there is such a state and that in the case of some people it may be necessary to go through it. It may be a temporary phase of the quest or persist to the end of a man’s life, if it be the Divine Will or the man’s destiny, but in any case you cannot call it the highest state. If it were you would have to say that not only the Sages, but God Himself has not attained the highest state, since not only are the Realized Sages very active but the Personal God (Iùvara) himself is obviously not in this supremely inactive state, since he presides over the world and directs its activities (Teachings, 185).

And yet elsewhere Ramana says Are there thoughts in samadhi? R: only the feeling ’I am’ and no other thoughts. The egoless ‘I am’ is not a thought. (Conscious Immortality, 69).

and

In sahaja, however, there is no relapse into mental activity and no consequent loss of bliss. Happiness is unbroken and ever-enduring. The body, senses and mind may be operative, but the person is hardly conscious of the acts (Conscious Immortality, 73).

and In deep sleep we do not think whether we are or not; so in the waking state we can also live without thought (Conscious Immortality, 78).  

Ramana says that sahaja samadhi is preferable to nirvikalpa, because even if one is immersed in nirvikalpa samadhi for years, after emerging from it one will find oneself in one’s environment. One should be in spontaneous samadhi–in one’s pristine or natural state–in the midst of every environment.[106] In the natural state of sahaja we do not go into samadhi and out again. We no longer have to make conscious efforts to keep the mind one-pointed or free from thought (Teachings, 185). Ramana was asked which state of samadhi he was in. He said that if his eyes were closed, it was nirvikalpa; if open it was (though differentiated, still in absolute repose) savikalpa. He said that sahaja is the ever-present state, the “natural state” (Talks, 13, also Conscious Immortality 71). To a questioner who continued to ask about the importance of trance, Ramana replied, If you are so anxious for trance any narcotic will bring it about. Drug-habit will be the result and not liberation. There are vasanas in the latent state even in trance. The vasanas must be destroyed (Talks, 280).

Ramana’s rejection of trance is related to his acceptance of the idea of jivanmukti, or living liberation. If one can be liberated while still alive, then liberation cannot mean trance, at least not in the sense of a loss of consciousness.[107] Some kind of consciousness is necessary in order to function while alive. Ramana calls this kind of consciousness sahaja samadhi. It is the highest state of consciousness. Ramana expressly contrasts it with trance: In yoga the term [samadhi] is used to indicate some kind of trance and there are various kinds of samadhi. But the samadhi I speak to you about is different. It is sahaja samadhi. In this state you remain calm and composed during activity. You realize that you are moved by the deeper Real self within and are unaffected by what you do or say or think. You have no worries,

anxieties or cares, for you realize that there is nothing that belongs to you as ego and that everything is being done by something with which you are in conscious union (Teachings, 185).

This is an important passage for understanding Ramana. He expressly says that while in sahaja samadhi, we may participate in activity. The emphasis in sahaja samadhi is on remaining calm and composed during that activity. This is an emphasis that is found in the Yoga Vasistha. It describes the liberated being is detached and indifferent. The liberated person appears always the same: constant, equable, impartial and evenminded, calm in all states of awareness, unchanging in joy and despair, as one who has lost all desire and anger. These liberated beings wander the world with detached minds, whether they are rulers like Janaka or renouncers of the world. The reason for this detachment is to avoid any further karma accruing to one’s actions. Because the jivanmukta does not act out of desire, there is no action in the karmic sense–no action that brings fruit. Even while acting, the jivanmukta is not a doer. Unliberated people often do not recognize the jivanmukta as liberated, because of this apparent worldliness (See Fort, 87-88) In his description of sahaja samadhi Ramana also says that you realize that nothing belongs to you as ego (Teachings, 185). It is therefore a state beyond ego-consciousness. And on the same page, Ramana says that one realizes that everything is being done “by something with which you are in conscious union.” And yet, inconsistently, Ramana sometimes refers positively to meditation, and even to states of trance. For example, Narasimha reports that Ramana analyzes the concentration of the mind. He says that at the beginning, the antahkarana, often termed ‘the mind’ is used. It consists of manas, buddhi, chitta and ahankara (mind, intellect, desire and personality). The mind must be developed for concentration. The goal is to merge the personality of the meditator in the thought or the form concentrated on, like an arrowhead in its target (Mundaka Upanishad). Attention to breath may help, although Ramana says not to waste much time and effort on that. Anything will do as object of meditation, If a man has already started meditation on God Gaïapati, Subrahmanya, Kali, Siva, Rama, Jesus, Buddha Pranava, Sakti bijam, Panchakshari, Ashtakshari, a lamp’s flame, his mother or his guru, Maharshi tells him to go

on with that with full faith, as that will ultimately lead him to the goal. But to him who comes with what is practically a mental tabula rasa without any practice or predilections, he advises the adoption of his own method. Follow intently the quest “Who am I?” (Narasimha, 200).

Chadwick reports: Bhagavan told me that in the early stages a person who was regularly meditating would usually at first go into a trance which would probably last for some thirty minutes, and if he continued with this Tapas properly such Samadhi would become more frequent. So carried away by it would he be that he would be able to think of nothing but slipping away to some quiet corner to meditate undisturbed. He would lose all interest everything else until that time when he became established in the Self and no more meditation was necessary (Chadwick, 53).

Chadwick says that such a person had then attained Sahaja Samadhi or his natural state. Chadwick also says that for Ramana, manolaya [loss of consciousness] is just a blank mind. But this can be attained every night in sleep (Chadwick, 54). Chadwick also seems to be of the view that for Ramana, trance is not a necessary intermediate state before achieving sahaja. In savikalpa samadhi one knows that one is meditating and can consciously continue in one’s sadhana. This is distinguished from the state of nirvikalpa samadhi or trance. He says, “But Bhagavan attained Sahaja Samadhi directly without any intermediate state” (Chadwick, 55). Ramana also makes some ambivalent statements regarding the importance of regulation of the breath during meditation. He said that proximity to great ones helps one to attain breath regulation (Narasimha, 203). Some devotees of Ramana say they very quickly attained an inward vision near him. Some devotees chose Ramana as their object of contemplation. But Ramana said to put aside even this form of meditation. One must “throw away the ladder” (Narasimha, 205). Yet Osborne affirms that Ramana used breath control (pranayama) as an aid to concentration (Path of Self-Knowledge, 21). And Cohen reports Ramana as saying that if one is not temperamentally suited to vichåra, then one must develop bhakti [devotion]. This will decrease attachments to other things. In the absence of

vichåra and bhakti, control of breath (pranayama) may be tried. This is known as yoga marga (Reflections, 133). And in Talks, Ramana says, Breath control may be an aid but can never lead to the goal itself. The Ithought will sink along with the breath (Talks, 313).

Breath control is appropriate for those without a guru (Conscious Immortality, 36). A yogi uses breath control, but a jnani uses enquiry (Day by Day, 15). Sometimes, Ramana asked devotees to place his palm on his right breast, where they feel rhythm of the “heart” of which he speaks. Some devotees felt something like an electric shock (Narasimha, 206).   f) Kundalini Yoga (1) Positive statements about Kundalini

Kundalini yoga is also a tantric tradition. Ramana was certainly aware of Kundalini yoga, since he makes mention of it. He says, Different books and different schools have located the kundalini at different centres in the body. While the usual centre with which it is associated is mūlådhåra, there are books which locate it in the heart, and other books which locate it in the brain (Day by Day, 143; March 6/46R).

Chadwick once saw Ramana giving instruction in yoga to a North Indian who was practising some form of Kundalini Yoga. The man complained that he could only bring force up to a certain chakra, where he got stuck. Ramana explained yoga in detail (Chadwick 56-57). He says that the Yoga Vasistha says that Kundalini is composed of 101 nadis or paths (Talks, 378). Sometimes Ramana says that kundalini is useful. Kundalini must be roused before realization (Talks, 358). Kundalini Sakti is another name for the ‘I-I,’ which also goes by the names of God, Self, Consciousness, Yoga, Bhakti, and Jnana (Talks, 161). When the mind is traced to its source it is Kundalini (Talks, 80). Ramana speaks about “Tantrik sadhana,” and says that Kundalini brings about Self-Realisation (Talks 240).

And Ramana says that everyone has the energy of Kundalini: Ramana: Who does not have Kundalini Sakti? When the real nature of that Sakti is known, it is called Akhandakara Vritti (Plenary consciousness) or

Aham Sphurana (effulgence of ‘I’, ‘I’). Kundalini Sakti is there for all people whatever path they follow. It is only a difference in name (Letters, p. 373, Jan 18/49).

Stirring up the kundalini energy has the same effect as realization. The yogi may be definitely aiming at rousing the kundalini and sending it up the sushumna. The jnani may not be having this as his object. But both achieve the same result, that of sending up the Life-force up the sushumna and severing the chit-jada granthi. Kundalini is only another name for atma or Self or sakti. We talk of it as being inside the body, because we conceive ourselves as limited by this body. But it is in reality both inside and outside, being no other than Self or the sakti of Self (Day by Day, 14). (2) Negative statements about Kundalini

In other places, he advises against kundalini yoga, or claims not to know much about it. He also said, “What do I know about those paths? Please ask those who know them well” (Letters, 373-374). All meditation, even meditation on the great sayings or mahåvåkyas requires an object to meditate on, whereas in self-enquiry there is only the subject and no object. [108] The chakras are merely mental pictures and are meant for beginners in yoga (Osborne 1997a, 29). The chakras are for concentration purposes and are interpreted symbolically. The current of kundalini is ourselves (Conscious Immortality, 39).[109] He translated one of the agamas, which says not to waste time meditating on chakras, nadis, padmas or mantras of deities, or their forms (Collected Works 173; Osborne 1997a, 112). Ramana differentiates between the locations of the chakras and the seat of the self. The head, the place between the eyebrows, is not the seat of the Self (Maharshi’s Gospel, 74). The undifferentiated consciousness of pure being is the heart or hridayam, our true self, as signified by the word itself (Hrit + Ayam= Heart am I). But the anahata chakra lies behind the heart (Talks, 392). Ramana told Nambiar that if heart center were really in the anahata chakra, why not go directly to it instead of to the other centers. Why meditate on the base of spine (mūlådhåra) or the tip of the nose or the space between the eyebrows? If you want to go to Tiruvannamalai from Madras, why go to Benares first? (Nambiar, 53). He says this elsewhere, too: The yogis think that after purifying 12,000 nadis in the body, sushumna is entered and the mind passes up to the sahasrara chakra, where nectar

flows. These are all mental concepts…The purpose of all these is to rid one of concepts–to make one remain as the pure Self, i.e. Absolute Consciousness, bereft of thoughts. Why not go straight to it? Why add new encumbrances to the ones that exist already? (Conscious Immortality, 34).

Ramana therefore distinguishes between his idea of the heart, and the idea of heart in kundalini, which is called anahata. He tells Brunton: The heart chakra of the yogis, called anahata, is not the same as this Heart. If it were, why would they progress further onto sahasrara? […] Atman is the Heart itself. Manifestation is in the brain. “Yogis say the current rises up to the sahasrara and ends there. That experience is not complete. For jnana they must come to the Heart. The Heart is the alpha and the omega (Conscious Immortality, 38).[110]

The heart is the seat of meditation. You see the body in the Heart, and the world in it (Talks 378). It is not sufficient to concentrate on the highest chakra, the sahasrara. If only the sahasrara is concentrated on, there is samadhi, but it is not permanent. The sushumna is a curve; it starts from solar plexus, rises through the spinal cord to the brain and from there it bends down and ends in the heart. When the yogi has reached the heart, the samadhi becomes permanent. Thus we see that the heart is the final centre (Teachings, 155). The sushumna with its source kundalini is included in the Heart (Talks, 262). So this is an unusual teaching about kundalini yoga: there is not only an ascent that exits from the topmost chakra, but there is an ascent and then a descent back to the heart center (which is distinguished from the anahata heart chakra). The final step (after attaining the sahasrara chakra) is to come down to the Heart (Talks, 450). He says that when the real nature of Kundalini Sakti is known, it is called Akhandardara Vritti (Plenary consciousness) or Aham Spuhurana (effulgence of the ‘I”. It is there for all people to realize, whatever path they follow (Letters, 373). In other words, Ramana believes that his idea of the heart-centre is more central and more encompassing than the idea in Kundalini yoga. The entire universe is in the body and the whole body is in the Heart. Hence the universe is contained within the Heart (Ramana Gita, 39, 54). In fact, the symbols of kundalini yoga are just for purposes of concentration: Kundalini is just one name given for what is encountered by other paths:

Both the yogi and the jnani achieve the same result of sending the life-force up the sushumna nadi severing the chit-jada granthi. Kundalini is only another name for atman or Self or sakti. We talk of it as being inside the body, because we conceive ourselves as limited by this body. But it is in reality both inside and outside, being no other than Self or the sakti of Self (Day by Day, 14, Aug 14/45).[111]

The seeker’s aim must be to drain away the vasanas from the heart. This is done by the search for the origin of the ego and by diving into the heart. It is the direct method for Self-Realisation; you don’t have to worry about Kundalini (Talks, 576). The light of consciousness flows from the Heart through sushumna channel to sahasrara (Ramana Gita, 50). The blaze of light that is experienced is when the mental predispositions have not yet been destroyed. Mere yogic ecstasy is not enough (Talks, 167).

It is not the experience of the sahasrara that is the key experience, but rather the experience is in the Heart. The path of the energy of shakti is up the pathway of the sushumna and then down again to the heart. In the Heart the aim is to drain away the vasanas. It is by “diving into the heart” that one searches for the origin of the ego. This is the direct method of selfenquiry (vichara) for Self-Realization; you do not have to worry about attaining the kundalini experience.[112] The method of Self-inquiry is sufficient. It opens a tiny hole in the Heart, with the result that I-I consciousness shines forth (Talks, 201). In this experience of the Heart, one experiences the true relation between the Self and the body or the mind. One must give up one’s mistaken identity with the changeful body or the mind. The body and the mind obtain their existence from the unchanging Self. Ramana compares the relation between the Self and the body or the mind to that of a clear crystal and its background. If the crystal is placed against a red flower, it shines red; if placed against a green leaf it shines green, and so on. When one’s mistaken identity is given up, the ever-shining Self will be seen to be the single non-dual Reality (Talks, 576). The emphasis in this experience of the Heart is therefore on seeing the Self or Brahman within everything. It is a kind of perception. Seeing Brahman means that it has content and is therefore different from Pure Consciousness or the state reached by yoga. Yoga is only preliminary to the real awakening the experience of the heart.

g) The samadhi for Ramana’s mother Sastri says that the idea behind the samadhi of Ramana’s mother was that it was to be a centre of Spiritual Force. The Maharshi said as much and would not have come down the hill and stayed where he has been staying and did not intend it to be so. That is why he took such keen interest in the construction of the temple and in the Sri Chakra, which he specially asked me to see when I had been there in 1941… (Sastri, 84).

It was believed that the principle of female Energy, shakti, was required to extend and spread Ramana’s influence and that this energy was supplied by his mother after her samadhi (Sastri 30). Sastri says she took the place of the Madonna in the ashram where the Lingam Matrbhuteswara (the Lord who has taken her into Himself) is offered daily worship. In 1941, Ramana’s brother, the sarvadhikari of the ashram, took Sastri to his office, where he took out a solid gold plate, a few inches square, with a diagram of a Sri Chakra. There were two other plates, one with letters inscribed in the diagram; Subrahmanya Yantra. He took Sastri to another hut where he was shown meru in solid rock (sila) (Sastri 49). Ramana took a personal interest in the cutting of the granite Sri Chakra Meru that was installed in the completed temple for his mother. It is about one and a half feet square and about the same height. Ramana personally superintended the installation in the inner shrine of his mother’s samadhi. Although it was very hot that night, Ramana sat there for about an hour and a half, instructing the workmen. Chadwick reports on the final ceremony of installation of the chakra: On the last night of the function he went in procession, opening the doors of the new Hall and temple and passing straight up into the Inner Shrine, where he stood for some five minutes with both hands laid on the Sri Chakra in blessing. I happened that night to be at his side the whole time; this was unusual as I deliberately avoided taking prominent part in such things, preferring to watch from the back. Strangely, something made me keep by him on this occasion and on account of this I was able to understand his deep interest in the Temple especially in the Sri Chakra. It was because of this knowledge that I was instrumental after Bhagavan's passing, in persuading the Ashram authorities to institute the Sri Chakra Poojas six times a month (Chadwick, 60).

Years later, in 1949, Ramana was performing puja before the chakra when his brother called Ramana to join the meal (the others could not eat until Ramana came). Ramana was angry at being called away (Nambiar, 56). h) Siddhis or occult powers Tantra emphasizes the gaining of special powers or siddhis. Ramana himself was reputed to have some of these powers, such as the ability to manifest himself at a distance. Or the ability of ashtavadhana, giving attention to a number of different things at the same time (Osborne, Path of Self-Knowledge, 94). And yet Ramana repeatedly insisted that the siddhis were not worth attaining, and that they were in fact a distraction from realization of the Self. He said that sights (photisms) and sounds are not that important. They are subjective like other phenomena, even if more glorious. They can hinder the pursuit of the Self. Siddhi experiences are unreal, and fan the ego. The only true siddhi is Self-abidance. We should not have a craving for siddhis (More Talks, 68). …meditation on the Self is the straight, short and direct path, which does not concern itself with planes and degrees (Conscious Immortality, 45) Jnanis who had siddhis before jnana preserve them after merging with the Absolute. Siddhis are acquired by prarabdha karma and are not a hindrance in Mukti. They are a hindrance on the way to Mukti (Cohen, Guru Ramana, 99). Miracles, clairvoyance, clairaudience are sidetracks (Conscious Immortality, 39).

When asked whether Vasishta and Valmiki possessed siddhis, he replied, That might have been their fate. But don’t aim at that which is not essential but apt to prove a hindrance to wisdom (Talks, 36).

Ramana was not at all interested in these powers, and made statements like, “To have powers there must be others to whom to display them; therefore the wise man does not give them a thought,” or: “Even if powers come spontaneously they should be rejected. They are like ropes to tether a beast; sooner or later they drag a man back from his pursuit of Moksha (Liberation).” i) Beyond thought

There is an inconsistency in Ramana as to whether or not we can continue thinking after liberation. On the one hand, he says there is an annihilation of mind, a state of nomind where one is not aware of any others (Talks, 552). This acosmic state is related to a monistic view of reality. In this viewpoint, the world of maya is not given much (if any) reality. Ramana sometimes says that the phenomenal world is nothing but thought. When the world recedes from one’s view–that is, when one is free from thought–the mind enjoys the Bliss of the Self. Conversely, when the world appears–that is, when thought occurs–the mind experiences pain and anguish (Osborne 1997a, 46). This idealist, acosmic, and monistic view appears to be related to an emphasis on the state of “Pure Consciousness.” From this perspective, thinking is the original sin (Erase the Ego, 32). The emanating ray converges in the self. Then there is no mind at all (Shankaranarayanan, 51).   Already in 1908, V. Ramaswamy Iyer reported that Ramana said that the most important way to improve the brain is to stop thinking (Narasimha, 99). Ramana said the mind was like a monkey, never still for one second. But “make an effort to be without effort” (Chadwick 63). And sometimes, Ramana takes a Buddhist view. He says, “Nirvana is perfection, neither subject nor object; nothing to see, feel, know” (Talks, 381). But elsewhere, Ramana rejects the idea of “killing the mind.” And Ramana seems to speak not of ceasing thought, but of going beyond it. Chadwick reports the importance of going beyond thought: Bhagavan once told me that thought comes in flashes, no thought was continuous. It was like the cycle of an alternating current, but was so rapid that it seemed continuous as does the light given off by an electric bulb. If one could concentrate on the intervals between thoughts rather than on the thoughts themselves that would be Self-realization. […] “The mind is nothing but a lot of thoughts. Upad. Saram V.18 (Chadwick, 43).

Ramana says that, although other people see the jivanmukta acting in the world, the jivanmukta is not conscious of this: Like a passenger asleep in a carriage, a jnani in sahaja samadhi is unaware of the happening, waking, dream and deep sleep. In kevala samadhi, the activities (vital and mental), waking, dream and sleep, are only merged, ready to emerge after regaining the state other than samadhi. In sahaja

samadhi the activities, vital and mental, and the three states are destroyed, never to reappear. However, others notice the jnani active e.g. eating, talking, moving etc. He is not himself aware of these activities, whereas others are aware of his activities. They pertain to his body and not to his Real Self, swarupa. For himself, he is like the sleeping passenger–or like a child interrupted from sound sleep and fed, being unaware of it (Talks, 84).  

Sahaja samadhi is like being asleep in the waking state (jagrat sushupti) (Talks, 339). In sahaja, the mind has resolved itself into the Self and has been lost. Differences and obstructions therefore do not exist. The activities of such a being are like the feeding of a boy who has just been awakened, perceptible to the onlooker, but the boy is unaware of being fed. Similarly the sahaja jnani remains unaware of his bodily activities because his mind is dead–having been resolved in the ecstasy of Chid Ananda (Self). This explanation of jivanmukti tends towards a monistic view of Self. It devalues the world and the nondual perception of that world. An extreme example of this is Ramana’s statement that there is no such thing as the physical world apart from thought (Osborne 1997a 40). But was Ramana truly unaware of objects in the world? He certainly seemed to be aware of those people who asked him questions. He also participated in some activities, such as preparing food in the kitchen, and reading newspapers and correspondence. One early disciple commented on the fact that the exterior world was in fact of interest to Ramana. Ramana was the most normal person he had ever found. He was able to think and to reason in response to questions. Even when he sat seemingly utterly absorbed in Self, he would become alert if someone nearby mispronounced a word in reciting a verse. He listened and corrected errors, and sometimes he explained the meaning of books like the Ribhu Gita. He read for two or more hours, sometimes a whole night. He said, “These readings from Ribhu Gita are as good as samadhi” (Narasimha, 207-208). It therefore cannot be said that Ramana’s mind was dead in the sense of “pure consciousness.” His mind was functioning, but as a jivanmukta, “as one who is wholly awake but at the same time free of characteristics of the state of wakening, and free of all desire and of a sense of separate ego” [Vivekacudamani v. 429].[113]

Abhishiktananda comments on the difficulty of understanding what Ramana’s consciousness as a jivanmukta was like: They say that for him who is no longer aware of ùariram [the body], all is clear. But what exactly does that mean? Ramana for example, took his meals, was interested in food, its preparation, etc. I am afraid that the idea that we make for ourselves of this (experience of) non-awareness is false. (…) it is only ignorance that sees a difference between the jivan-mukta and the other. I think that this duality which we assert between advaita and dvaita is precisely our mistake.[114]

This viewpoint, of being able to participate in the world as a jivanmukta, but participating from a standpoint beyond ego, relies on tantric ideas of the relative reality of the world. “The world is not real apart from the reality which underlies it.” (Reflections, 63). And this is also found in Ramana’s translation of the Atma Sakshatkara (verse 11): Whatever is seen or heard of in the Universe, both within and without, is permeated by me (Osborne 1997a, 107; Cf. Collected Works 161).

3. Ramana and Christianity We have seen that the first biography of Ramana, by Narasimha Swami, contained many Biblical quotations and comparisons of Ramana to Christ. The Western and specifically Christian influence here is obvious. Lakshmana Sarma also refers to many Christian sources in his book Maha Yoga: Jesus told his disciples: Be ye perfect even as thy Father in Heaven is perfect (Maha Yoga, 3).

Sarma says that this refers to being a sage, not a saint. He refers to Jesus’ saying, “Ask, and it shall be given; knock and It shall be opened” (Maha Yoga, 6). And to the saying “know the Truth and let it make you free” (Maha Yoga 22, fn). And we have also seen how some people like Abhishiktananda have interpreted Ramana in Christian terms. But it is not only these people who have used Biblical references in relation to Ramana. Ramana himself quoted the Bible. Ramana went to a Christian school as a boy, so that is where he learned about Christianity. He interpreted his pivotal experience at the age of 16 in terms of his “Father in Heaven.” Humphreys reported in 1911 that Ramana was “well acquainted

with Christian History and Bible Times” (Glimpses, 28). In his discussions, Ramana makes frequent quotations and ideas from the Bible, especially the following: a) “I am that I am” Be still, do not think, and know that I AM (Conscious Immortality, 49). Know the Self, and God is known. Of all the definitions of God, none is so well put as the Biblical “I am that I AM’ in the book of Exodus. (Conscious Immortality, 159) God says “I AM before Abraham.” He does not say “I was” but “I Am’ (Talks, 408). Your duty is TO BE and not, to be this or that. “I AM THAT I AM” sums up the whole truth: the method is summarized in ‘BE STILL’ (Maharshi’s Gospel, 33) The Christ also declared that He was even before Abraham (Talks, 127, para. 145; said to Brunton). The Hebrew Jehovah=I am expresses God correctly (Talks, 106). TO BE is to realise–hence I AM THAT I AM, I AM is Siva (Reflections, 101). The Cosmic Mind, being not limited by the ego, has nothing separate from itself and is therefore only aware. This is what the Bible means by ‘I am that I am’ (Reflections, 111). Christ also said that he was before Abraham (Teachings, 28). “I am that I AM” and “Be still and know that I am God.” (Talks, 307). Of all the definitions of “God, none is indeed so well put as the Biblical statement” I AM THAT I AM in Exodus (Cap. 3). There are other statements, such as Brahmaivaham, Aham Brahmasmi and Soham. But none is so direct as the name JEHOVAH=I AM. The Absolute Being is what is–It is the Self. It is God. Knowing the Self, God is known. In fact God is none other than the Self.” (Talks. 103) The ‘I’ thought is the ego and that is lost. The real ‘I’ is ‘I am that I am.’ (Teachings, 58; Talks, 164). TO BE is to realise hence I AM THAT I AM, I AM is Siva (Reflections, 101). The Cosmic Mind, being not limited by the ego, has nothing separate from itself and is therefore only aware. This is what the Bible means by 'I am that I am' (Reflections, 111). Of all the definitions of God, none is so well put as the Biblical ‘I am that I AM’ in the book of Exodus (Conscious Immortality, 159).

An entire article on “I Am” has since appeared in the journal for Ramana’s ashram, The Mountain Path.[115] It collects all the ‘I am’ statements of Jesus. The article specifically refers to Abhishiktananda, and cites some of his letters. Ramana had a discussion with the sage Yogananda about the nature of the Self. It is interesting that Ramana refers to the Self as one’s Being, and then refers to the Biblical definition of God in Exodus: “I am that I am.” Ramana also says that if we search for the source of the ego, then Bliss is revealed (Talks 102). Ramana compares the name of Yahweh to the advaitic experience. He says that the Hebrew ‘Jehovah’ is equivalent to ‘I am’, and that it expresses God correctly.[116] Lakshmana Sarma (one of Ramana’s early disciples) refers to Ramana’s statements about I AM THAT I AM.[117] He also uses Jesus’ statement “My father and I are One” to describe Ramana’s own enlightenment. He says that Ramana became a “perfect sage” when he realized that he and Arunachala, whom he called his Father, were one.[118] We find similar emphases on the ‘I am’ experience in other writers dealing with comparative mysticism. Rudolf Otto comments on Eckhart’s use of the verse “I am that I am”, and compares this to Shankara (Otto 1970, 27). D.T. Suzuki says that all our religious or spiritual experiences start from the name of God given to Moses, “I am that I am.” He says this is the same as Christ’s saying, “I am” (Suzuki 1971, 126). b) “Be still and know that I am God.” A certain Christian asked Ramana for advice. Ramana told him to follow his words and practice: Be still. Be without the disturbance of your mind. Mind only disturbs your natural stillness. Stillness is your nature. (More Talks p. 77 (18.12.44) “Be still and know that I am God.” Here stillness is total surrender without a vestige of individuality. Stillness will prevail and there will be no agitation of mind. […] “I am that I am.” “I am” is god–not thinking, “I am God.” Realise “I am” and do not think I am. “Know I am God”–it is said, and not “Think I am God” (Talks 322-23). The experience of ‘I am’ is to Be Still (Talks, 187). The whole Vedantais contained in the two Biblical statements: “I am that I AM” and “Be still and know that I am God” (Talks, 307).

All that is required to realize the Self is to “Be Still” (Talks, 345). Be still and know that I AM GOD. “Stillness” here means “Being free from thoughts” (Talks, 458). The only permanent thing is Reality; and that is the Self. You say, “I am,” “I am going,” “I am speaking,” “I am working,” etc. Hyphenate “I am” in all of them. Thus I–AM, That is the abiding and fundamental Reality. This truth was taught by God to Moses: “I AM that I-AM.” “Be still and know that I–AM God.” So “I–AM” is God (Talks, 487). We learn that the thoughts in the waking state form the obstacle to gaining the stillness of sleep. “Be still and know that I AM God” (Talks, 563). Be still and know that I am God (Erase the Ego, 24). The Bible says, “Be Still and Know that I am God” (Reflections, 168). Be still, do not think, and know that I AM” (Conscious Immortality, 49). The Bible says, Be still and Know that I am God. (Reflections, 168).

G.V. Subbaramayya reports that at Christmas, 1936, he attended Sri Bhagavan's Jayanti celebration for the first time. Many Western visitors had come. One of them, Mr. Maurice Frydman, a Polish Jew of subtle intellect, plied Sri Bhagavan with ingenious pleas for practical guidance for Self-realization. Sri Bhagavan followed his arguments with keen interest but kept silent all the time. When pressed to say something, Sri Bhagavan only quoted from the Bible, “Be still and know that I am God,” and added “The Lord said ‘know’ and not, ‘think’ that I am God.” We understood Sri Bhagavan as meaning that all these arguments were spun by the intellect, the stilling of which was the only way to Realisation. [119]

c) “The Kingdom of God is within you.” Ramana frequently refers to this saying of Christ: The Kingdom of God is within you (Chadwick, 70). The Kingdom of Heaven is within you (Reflections, 82). The Kingdom of Heaven is within you (Conscious Immortality, 122). Christ told the simple truth: “The Kingdom of Heaven is within you” (Talks, 92).

Sarma refers to the saying in several places, too. He says that the reference to the kingdom within you is the egoless state, the heart (Maha Yoga, 114 fn and 129).

d) Sons of God Ramana understood the meaning of the phrase ‘Son of God’ as that Jesus rose after being crucified and went to heaven: The body is the cross; the sense of its self-hood is named Jesus; his attainment of the State of the Real Self by the extinction of that sense is the resurrection (Guru-Ramana-Vachana-Mala, 18).

He says that all who have won this state are Sons of God. e) Christ Ramana had considerable knowledge of the teachings of Christ. But Ramana interprets Christ’s sayings in Hindu terms and experience. For example, he interprets Christ as referring to reincarnation and previous births.[120] He refers to Christ’s saying that he was before Abraham (Teachings, 28). Ramana makes a similar reference in Talks, 127. Christ also declared he was before Abraham. Ramana sees this in terms of Christ having many incarnations. He compares this to Krishna conforming to the outlook of Arjuna. Jesus says he had taught the truth to Abraham. Ramana sees this as evidence that there is no contradiction between not having a selfhood, and having previous births (Conscious Immortality, 53). For Ramana, Christ-consciousness and Self-Realisation are all the same. The body is the cross. Jesus, the son of man, is the ego or 'I-am-the-body'idea. When the son of man is crucified on the cross, the ego perishes, and what survives is the Absolute Being. It is the resurrection of the Glorious Self, of the Christ, the Son of God (Maharshi’s Gospel, 29).

Ramana was asked, “But how is crucifixion justified? Is not killing a terrible crime?” His response was, Everyone is committing suicide. The eternal, blissful, natural State has been smothered by this ignorant life. In this way the present life is due to the killing of the eternal, positive Existence. Is it not really a case of suicide? So, why worry about killing, etc.? (Maharshi’s Gospel 29)

The first question that Major Chadwick asked Ramana was why Jesus called out ‘My God, My God” while being crucified. Ramana’s answer was, It might have been an intercession on behalf of the two thieves who were crucified with Him (Chadwick, 21).

Similarly, he gives the “inner meaning” of the Biblical narrative that Jesus rose up after being crucified and went to heaven:

The body is the cross; the sense of its self-hood is named Jesus; his attainment of the State of the Real Self by the extinction of that sense is the resurrection. All those men that have won this State are (alike) Sons of God, since they have overcome maya; they are worthy of being adored.” (Sarma, Guru Ramana, 18).

And Ramana says that if the ego is killed the eternal Self is revealed in all its glory: Jesus the Son of Man is the ego, or the ‘I am the body’ idea. When he is crucified he is resurrected, a glorious Self, Jesus, the Son of God!” “Give up this life if thou wouldst live.” Matt. 10:39 (Conscious Immortality, 88). Christ is the ego. The Cross is the Body. When the ego is crucified, and it perishes, what survives is the Absolute Being (God), (cf. “I and my Father are one”) and this glorious survival is called Resurrection (Talks, 86).

Many of those who sought advice from Ramana also had knowledge of Christ. In 1908, V. Ramaswamy Iyer: his question to Ramana was, “Sir, Jesus and other great souls came into the world to redeem sinners. Is there no hope for me?” Ramana replied in English that there was hope (Narasimha, 96). He was asked regarding the “lost soul” spoken of by Jesus. Ramana replied, “There is nothing to be lost except that which is acquired. The Self can never be lost” (Talks, 18). Evans-Wentz asked Ramana whether Jesus was a Perfect Being possessing occult powers (siddhis). Ramana replied that Jesus could not have been aware of his powers. Ramana relates a strange story (not found in the Bible), of a man cured of his blindness by Jesus. Jesus later met him and asked him why he had become wicked. The man said that when he was blind, he could not commit sin, but since Jesus had cured him, he grew wicked and Jesus was responsible for his wickedness (Talks, 17)   f) Is God personal? One of Brunton’s criticisms of Ramana was that Ramana did not believe in a personal God. And yet there are statements where Ramana says the opposite. Ramana responds to the question, “Is God personal?” as follows:

[Ramana] Yes, He is always the first person, the 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 the I, the Self (Maharshi’s Gospel, 55).

But other statements indicate a God far removed from our personal concerns: God has no purpose. He is not bound by any action. The world’s activities cannot affect him. (Osborne, Path of Self-Knowledge, 87, in answer to question is not this world the result of God’s will?)

g) Other statements by Ramana about Christianity Ramana criticized some Christians for clinging to the idea of a permanently real and separate ego. He says that the greatest mystics did not do so (Path of Self-Knowledge, 46). With respect to the mystics, he responds to a question about the Christian mystic St. Theresa (Conscious Immortality, 43). Ramana also refers to St. Paul. He said that Paul was always thinking about Christ and the Christians, so when he returned to self-consciousness after his experience, he identified his realization with this predominant thought. Ramana referred to Ravana as an example. He hated Rama, and never ceased to think of him, but in dying, Rama was the uppermost thought in his mind and so he realized God. “Not a question of love or hate, just what is in the mind.” (Chadwick 24).   Ramana refers to the Christian idea of prayer. He says that Western thinkers pray to God and finish with “Thy Will be done!” He comments that it is better to remain silent: If His Will be done why do they pray at all? It is true that the Divine Will prevails at all times and under all circumstances. The individuals cannot act of their own accord. Recognise the force of the Divine Will and keep quiet (Talks, 546).

Even Ramana’s words to his disciples are similar to what is recorded of Jesus’ words to his disciples, “Lo I am with you always” (Matt. 28:20): Bhagavan is always with you, in you and you are yourself Bhagavån.[121]

Chapter 7: Influence of Ganapati Muni We will now look in more detail at the important influence of Ramana’s first disciple, Ganapati Muni, and Ganapati Muni’s own disciple T.V.K. Kapili.

1. Ganapati Muni (1878-1936) Ganapati Muni is also known as Ganapati Sastri. He is also sometimes known by his title Kavya Kantha (Narasimha, 86). I will refer to him as ‘Ganapati Muni’ or ‘Muni’ so that we may distinguish him from his own disciple, T.V. Kapali Sastri. Muni was enormously influential for the development of Ramana’s ideas. Narasimha says that Ramana always consulted him on matters of importance (Narasimha 93). And Narasimhayya says that Muni’s teaching did not differ from Ramana’s (Glimpses p. 9). That may be so, but Muni’s teaching was obviously influenced by tantra, by neo-Hinduism, and by Blavatsky’s theosophical ideas. If his teaching did not differ from Ramana’s, that raises the question to what extent Ramana’s own teaching bears the same influences. a) Ganapati Muni and Ramana Like the biographies of Ramana, much of what is said about Ganapati Muni is hagiographic. Again, I summarize this information from the sources indicated. In 1903, Ganapati Muni stayed for a year in Tiruvannamalai. He visited Ramana twice that year; Ramana was then known as ‘Brahmanswami.’ Ganapati Muni applied a famous verse (a stotra originally applied to Vinayaka) to Ramana, portraying Ramana as all-pervading, like Divinity. He stated that Ramana could remove obstacles from the devotee’s path (Shankaranarayanan, 3). He composed a thousand verses to Siva and read them in the temple at the Kartikai festival in 1904. Then he left Tiruvannamalai to teach school in Vellore. Ganapati Muni believed that he and his students could develop shakti (spiritual energy) by reciting mantras. In November 1907, Ganapati Muni returned to see Ramana. Ramana remembered the previous visit and Ganapati Muni’s application of the verse to him. Ganapati Muni grasped Ramana’s right foot with his right hand and left foot with his left hand. By that time, Ganapati Muni had made a dozen trips to various parts of India, performing tapas or austerities. He hoped in

this way to make Siva appear before him and grant him favours. Ganapati Muni told Ramana that he had read everything there was to read, that he had performed japa, and that he had not understood what tapas was. Ramana replied that if one observes the source where the notion ‘I’ arises, and the source where the mantra is produced, and if the mind is absorbed into that source, that is tapas. Thus, it is sufficient to seek the Self; mantras are not needed. Ganapati Muni should throw his burden on the Lord (Iùvara). After receiving Ramana’s answer, Ganapati Muni immediately composed five verses in praise of Ramana, shortening Venkataraman’s name to Ramana; this had also been what Ramana had been called as a boy. The next day, Ganapati Muni wrote a letter to his disciples, mentioning this instruction (upadesa) and saying that Ramana must from then on be known as ‘Maharshi.’ Ganapati Muni considered that Ramana’s instruction had been the result of Mother Sakti’s grace (anugraha). So we already see the influence of Muni’s tantra. Muni composed a poem of one thousand stanzas in praise of Mother Sakti. He called it Umasahasra. It was completed in three weeks, and was dictated to four people simultaneously. I discuss this poem in more detail below. From January to March, Ramana and Ganapati Muni spent three months at Pachaiamman Koil with many others. Muni says that at one time he saw a sparkling light come down and touch the forehead of Ramana six times. He realized that Ramana was an incarnation of Lord Subrahmanya. He referred to Ramana as “the Guha residing in the hôdaya, or guha, the heart-cavern of all beings” (Shankaranarayanan 13). Thus, Ramana’s very important idea of the cave of the heart appears to have first been emphasized by Ganapati Muni. It is also found in the Yoga Vasistha. Ganapati Muni was aware of the Yoga Vasistha, since he had intensively studied the writings of Vyasa and Valmiki (Shankaranarayanan 89). Later, in 1915, Ramana’s first verse in Sanskrit referred to the heart, “hrdaya kuharamadhye.” This was considered the nutshell, the essence of Ramana’s teaching.[122] It therefore seems that Ganapati Muni was influential in how Ramana formulated his teaching. Ganapati Muni also composed some verses in praise of Ramana.[123] There was also some praise for himself in this. Ganapati Muni referred to

himself and to Ramana as being “Sons of God.” Shankaranarayanan gives the following hagiographic commentary: All the discerning devotees realized that the Muni and the Maharshi were the emanations of Ganapati and Skanda, the sons of God who had appeared on earth to restore back the children of Man to their Eternal Father. The two Sons of God who came down from the Celestial regions for the same purpose–how different they looked in outward activity! The maharshi was silent, indrawn most of the time, a waveless ocean of deep bliss. The Muni, on the other hand, was all expression sparkling with an ethereal splendour, a diamond reflecting the myriad colours that fuse into the white Radiance. The maharshi would stay still, but the Muni had to wander from place to place (Shankaranarayanan 13),

Ganapati Muni and his disciples then went to the temple dedicated to the Goddess Tripurasundarī, in Tiruvottyur. It was here that Ganapati Muni met for the first time his own disciple T.V. Kapali Sastri (see below). While meditating in the temple, Muni had a vision of Ramana. And Shankaranarayanan says that Ramana, while sitting in the cave at Virupaksha, travelled to meet Ganapati Muni in Tiruvottiyur: He [Ramana] experienced that from his heart a ray of light rose and darted though his head outside. Along with it the maharshi went up the sky and was travelling on the path of the luminaries. He heard from somewhere the word Tiruvottiyur and came down. He walked up the road in front of him, saw the Ganesha temple and entered it (Shankaranarayanan 15).

Ganapati Muni’s disciples clearly believed that there was a very close connection between Ramana and Muni. Ganapati Muni visited Ramana frequently. In 1913 and 1917 he asked Ramana various questions. He put these questions and answers in verse form in the Ramana Gita. It was modeled on the Bhagavad Gita, with 18 chapters (see below). To what extent was Ganapati Muni influencing the teachings of Ramana by re-writing them in this way? Thirteen years after his first meeting with Ramana, Ganapati Muni visited him again. This was around the time that Ramana’s mother died. Ramana was living at the Skanda ashram at the foot of the mountain Arunachala. Ganapati Muni described his own turbulent inner state at the time. He told his own disciples that kundalini Sakti had become active in him. Ramana told him not to worry, and advised him to anoint the crown of his head with

castor oil before his bath and to apply almond oil after his bath. It is said that smoke was seen coming from the crown of Ganapati Muni’s head, and that the kundalini caused an aperture at the top of his skull. A sound was heard. His wife and daughter saw the whole event. A devotee had to hold Ganapati Muni’s body to keep him from falling. Smoke or vapour was seen coming from his head for 10 days. After that, Ganapati Muni never shaved his head, and he lived for 14 more years (Shankaranarayanan 20-21). Muni lived at Tiruvannamalai from 1922 to 1929. He was therefore in close proximity to Ramana . In a letter to Ramana dated April 14, 1931 (Tamil New Year’s Day), Ganapati Muni refers to the casting aside of ego and the becoming permanent of “the natural inborn state, sahaja stithi.” We must ask to what extent this idea of sahaja, so important to Ramana, can be attributed to the influence of Ganapati Muni. Of course it is also found in tantric scriptures, but it may very well have been Muni who first emphasized this to Ramana. Ganapati Muni considered that he himself was a manifestation of the God Gaïapati. Normally, that God is considered senior to the God Skanda. But Muni regarded Ramana as the God Skanda. In a letter dated April 21, 1931, he wrote Ramana: Salutations to thee, my Lord the Junior. Thou livest in the guha cave and art Guha thyself. Thou slumbereth in the bodies of worldly and manifesteth in the bodies of Yogins. This inner manifestation is spoken of as the second birth of men (Shankaranarayanan 15).

In another letter dated March 24, 1931, Ganapati Muni begged Ramana for a thought emanating from him, “capable of bringing about in me a realization wherein I shall see everything as the Self.” He asked why God cannot create realization directly in himself but rather only in Ramana’s mind. The answer was that God acts only through his avatar on earth. Shankaranarayanan (Shankaranarayanan 23) says “The Maharshi’s grace manifested to the world through the Muni.” So again we see the emphasis that God’s grace is given to Ramana, and then Ramana acts through Ganapati Muni to the world. On June 9, 1931, Ganapati Muni wrote Ramana, calling him “Lord at play as man” (Shankaranarayanan 26). Ramana acted through Ganapati Muni, and Muni derived the sakti, the force for his activities, from the profound shånti [peace] of the Maharshi (Shankaranarayanan 28).

In another letter dated 10-3-31, Ganapati Muni referred to his experience of the self in the heart cavern as quite clearly separate from the body, “on the gnostic plane.” (Shankaranarayanan 29). Ganapati Muni signed the letter, “A servitor of Bhagavan, vasishta Gaïapati.” In this letter, the reference to Gnosticism is another Western interpretation of the Hindu experience. It should be noted that this correspondence between Ganapati Muni and Ramana is from 1931, the very year that Brunton first visited Ramana. Even at that time, the influence of Ganapati Muni on Ramana is still apparent. And Ganapati Muni’s biographer claims that Ganapati Muni’s writings are necessary in order to understand Ramana: It is no exaggeration to say that those who want to understand the message of the Maharshi in its pristine purity have to drink deep at the fountain sources of the Muni’s writings on the Maharshi (Shankaranarayanan 36).

It is said that Ramana’s mother, once liberated, became the sakti and provided the pītha for the Maharshi and his teachings. Shankaranarayanan comments: The yoga of both [Ramana and Muni] which began as the search for the essential unity in diversity found its fulfillment in seeing the unity manifested as diversity (Shankaranarayanan, 26)

As we shall see, the influence of Ganapati Muni on Ramana included his emphasis on tantra, his view of the importance of women, his views of meditation, and of kundalini. b) Ganapati Muni’s knowledge of Sanskrit Muni was a scholar who was very skilled in Sanskrit; he was known for making impromptu Sanskrit verses. It seems possible that much of what Ramana is reputed to have written was in fact written by Muni. Ganapati Muni probably helped with Ramana’s Sanskrit (Narasimha 93-95). Although he helped with the writing, Muni is reported to have given Ramana the credit for what was written: What Sastriar [Muni] himself always says is: “It is not I but the Maharshi who does these things.” He evidently regards himself as the Maharshi’s instrument, as the wielder of the power generated by this greatest of living Mahatmas (Glimpses 29).

c) Ganapati Muni and Blavatsky’s theosophy

As a young man, Ganapati Muni had a vision of a white man ‘Bhadaka’ who told him to perform tapas; he later claimed to recognize this person as Colonel Henry Steel Olcott, one of the founders of the Theosophical Society. He said this after Olcott’s death in 1907. In 1911, Humphreys met Ganapati Muni in Vellore, where Muni was on his way to attend a theosophical society conference in Tiruvannamalai. It should be recalled that Humphreys himself was interested in theosophy, and wrote the first biography of Ramana. Humphreys obtained his information about Ramana’s enlightenment from “a disciple” of Ramana. We know that Humphreys met Muni, and that Muni was the first to call Ramana ‘Bhagavan.’ It seems likely that Ganapati Muni was the source for Humphreys’ biography of Ramana. Thus, Ganapati Muni’s influence may extend even to the most basic information we have about Ramana and his enlightenment. Balaram Reddy indicates that Ramana was familiar with the work of Annie Besant, who, together with Col. Olcott, led the Theosophical Society in India: The next day, as soon as I walked into the hall and sat down, Bhagavan looked at me and began saying, "In Kumbhakonam there was one yogi, C. V. V. Rao, who was proclaiming to all his doctrine of the immortality of the body. He was even so bold as to declare that Dr. Annie Besant (a distinguished public and spiritual personality in India) would have to come to him to learn how to make her body immortal. But, before he had a chance to meet Dr. Annie Besant, he died." This brief story clearly illustrated his point.[124]

d) The Vedas and Indian politics Ganapati Muni used his knowledge of Sanskrit to try to revive the original Vedic knowledge. According to Muni, worship was prescribed by the Discipline of Sandilya (a teacher in satapatha brahmana). All this is Brahman. Everything is born from it and merges into it. Thus worship in quiescence.

The worship of God has eight forms: the five elements, the sun, moon and the embodied soul are eight special forms of the Godhead: As all this universe is pervaded by all these forms, serving the universe becomes the worship of the Divine in his eight forms. This, of course, is integral worship (Shankaranarayanan, 45).

But Ganapati Muni wanted to use this Vedic knowledge in a practical way to achieve the resurgence and independence of India. Prema Nandakumar compares this to the political action of Aurobindo, who was writing at about the same time (1903) with respect to how English education had reduced Indians from being a heroic race to being merely glorified clerks, or small shopkeepers and big middlemen who would help British trade (Nandakumar 1988, 16-17). Ganapati Muni supported the emancipation of the untouchables, and he wanted to change the place of women in Indian society. So although he emphasized the authority of the Vedas, Muni used the Vedas in a neoHindu way, like Aurobindo. e) Ganapati Muni and tantra Nandakumar says that Ganapati Muni wanted to combine “the best of earthly life with the search for spiritual realization.” And Nandakumar expressly relates Muni’s practical emphasis to tantra: Ganapati Muni’s philosophy and spirituality were firmly attuned to Tantra. […] His philosophy was one of action, constantly putting to test received traditions and his own intentions regarding the presence of deities, the interaction of the human and the divine, and the possibility of the human achieving a divine transformation (Nandakumar, 16).

Many scholars view the tantras as inferior to the Vedas, and as representing a decline. But Nandakumar says that Aurobindo saw no decline after the Upanishads. The Puranas and the Tantras completed “the diffusion of the philosophical intelligence” of the Vedas and Upanishads (Nandakumar 63).

2. T.V. Kapali Sastri (1886-1953) a) The influence of Ganapati Muni and Aurobindo T.V. Kapali Sastri was a disciple of Ganapati Muni. As discussed, he met Ganapati Muni at the Tripurasundarī temple, after Muni had met Ramana in 1907. He watched Muni perform mantra-japa and devotion to the Mother [Sakti]. Sastri called Muni ‘Nåyana,’ which means “beloved father.” Kapali Sastri also became a scholar of the Vedas and of Sanskrit. Nandakumar compares Sastri’s ideas about language to those of the British philosopher Owen Barfield.[125] Sastri thought that Sanskrit as a

language is less fixed than English. It is fluid and vague, and the parent and former of ideas (Nandakumar, 47). Although he considered Ramana as one of his teachers, Kapali Sastri eventually chose to follow Aurobindo and the Mother[126] in Pondicherry. We have already noted Nandakumar’s comparisons of Muni to Aurobindo, so Kapali Sastri’s choice in following Aurobindo is not that surprising. Nandakumar says, But he found Ramana’s teaching too direct. There were no steps in between the starting point and the goal. But he could not have gone to Aurobindo without his faith being awakened by Ramana (Nandakumar 77).    

Sastri said of Ramana The very first day wrought a remarkable change in my being and no amount of tapas or japa would have given me the indubitable knowledge of spiritual consciousness and correct appreciation of spiritual life that the Maharshi gave me (Cited by Nandakumar, 77).

Kapali Sastri was introduced to the ideas of Aurobindo in 1914. In 1917, he visited Aurobindo in Pondicherry. He asked another poet there, Sujbramania Bharati, about the Vedic concept describing the Godhead as “the Flame in the heart-cave of man.”[127] The poet told him that he had been studying the Ôgveda with Aurobindo. Kapali Sastri asked to see Aurobindo, and was allowed to do so, even though Aurobindo was not receiving visitors at that time. Kapali Sastri later wrote that he had found God in Aurobindo. He met Aurobindo again in 1923. When Ganapati Muni came to Pondicherry in 1928, Muni told Kapali Sastri that Aurobindo and the Mother were divine beings. In 1929, Kapali Sastri joined the Pondicherry ashram and became a disciple of Aurobindo. He and his family lived at the ashram, where he wrote about Aurobindo’s philosophy (Nandakumar, 9-10). Kapali’s own collected works were edited by his disciple, M.P. Pandit. But Kapali Sastri continued to visit Ramana, and to translate and to comment on Ramana’s works. He first visited Ramana in 1911, and again in 1930, and also in 1941, when he gave Ramana his commentary on Sastri’s Ramana Gita.

Kapali Sastri asked Ramana whether a disciple could go to more than one guru. Ramana said that he could, provided the teaching was the same (Narasimha, 204). In fact, there is evidence that Ramana was himself interested in Aurobindo. Balarama Reddy recalls Ramana reading a book review of Aurobindo’s book Lights on Yoga. The reviewer was Kapali Sastri, and the editor of the newspaper was a devotee of Ramana, S.M. Kamath. Reddy reports: Bhagavan seemed to take great interest in the review and would occasionally stop reading and comment on what he had just read to those sitting around him. When he had concluded reading it, someone who was aware that I had that very book with me, said to Bhagavan, “This man has come from the Aurobindo Ashram and he has that book with him.” Bhagavan turned to me and said, “Oh, is that so? Let me have a look at it.”

And Reddy says that Ramana “thoroughly understood Aurobindo’s philosophy.” When I came into the hall the next day he began discussing the book with me, telling me that a certain term used in the book might look like something new, but it is actually the equivalent of this other term used in such and such ancient text, etc. Like this, he went on discussing and comparing Aurobindo's philosophy for some time. So Bhagavan thoroughly understood Aurobindo's philosophy both intellectually and also from the standpoint of experience. […] One evening I said to Bhagavan that the major attraction of Aurobindo's teachings is that it professes that immortality of the body can be achieved. Bhagavan made no comment.[128]

b) Sastri’s opinion of Ramana: Kapali Sastri comments on Ramana’s experience at 16: Such was the flash of illumination which contained within it a superb ratiocinative exercise. This was his sådhanå which he taught his disciples. Pursue the enquiry, “Who am I?” (Nandakumar 4)

It is interesting that he calls it a ‘ratiocinative exercise.’ That seems quite different from a meditative exercise. This raises the issue discussed at the outset of this book, to what extent Ramana’s method of Self-Enquiry was like Descartes’ method. But Sastri says that Ramana’s realization took place suddenly, not gradually in Tiruvannamalai. The silence that Ramana later observed was required to “normalise and stabilise the realisation under all conditions” (Sastri, 85).

And yet Kapali Sastri seems to have concluded that Ramana’s method of Self-Enquiry was without ethical consequences for the transformation of the world. Kapali Sastri was more interested in tantric powers, at least as taught by Aurobindo. These tantric powers are used to transform our own being; we then use our transformed being “as a divine centre in the world” to help the rest of humanity. Then even time is no longer an obstacle but an instrument to achieve transformation to our Supernature (Nandakumar, 2728). Man is midway between pure self-existent conscious Being and inert inconscient matter. Man can see fascinating and tempting colours but also the supra-mental planes of consciousness (Nandakumar, 53). Nandakumar says, What man has to renounce is the sense of separateness from the rest of creation. When he does this and affirms his identity with Brahman, he ceases to be a jiva bound to earth-nature, but becomes verily the carrier of the supreme who has voluntarily encased himself in mind and life for the sake of the cosmic manifestation (Nandakumar, 54).

Man then “becomes a universal soul without losing his grip on earth”: His living is a source of joy and power to the living of others, to the general progress of the world, of all beings, and of the human kind in particular that is closer to his level. Whether the others in the outer world know it or not, he radiates the rays of wisdom, throws out waves of life-giving strength, emanates the concrete influence spontaneously exercised for the onward march of the soul’s progress in others. Therefore other souls feel joyous and satisfied when they are drawn to him (Nandakumar, 55).

In this way, the world has a relative reality. Nandakumar says that this view …reconciles Absolute Idealism with relative Realism of world-existence in which an all-embracing dualism is the dominant note (Nandakumar, 58).

The relative reality of the world is due to the fact that it is a manifestation of the divine. Kapali Sastri’s own disciple M.P. Pandit said that for Kapali Sastri, “the choice of his being was to participate in the divine manifestation, not to withdraw from it” (Nandakumar, 86). Did Kapali Sastri regard Ramana as having withdrawn from the divine manifestation? He found Ramana to be aloof, withdrawn into himself (Nandakumar, 53). And yet Nandakumar also says that Kapali Sastri saw the compassion of Ramana in feeding the people who came to him, and in Ramana’s regard for his mother. He says that Ramana saw the divine as embodiment of

maternal love; he refers to the lingam of Matrbhutesvara (The Lord who has taken Her into Himself) as the presiding deity of Ramana’s ashram (Nandakumar, 75). In addition to his commentaries on Ramana’s works, Kapali Sastri wrote The Maharshi.[129] Most of the book had previously appeared as articles written for the Sunday Times. The first article, “The Maharshi and his central teaching.” was written in 1936. We should note that this was after the publication of Brunton’s book about Ramana in 1934 (see above). Kapali Sastri says that all his commentaries were submitted to Ramana for approval, and were accepted by him (Sastri, 2). This is in spite of the fact that these commentaries were written after Kapali Sastri accepted Aurobindo’s philosophy. But other people saw a difference between Kapali Sastri’s commentaries and Ramana’s teaching. For example, Abhishiktananda was surprised by the differences of interpretation in these commentaries. He thought that Kapali Sastri’s commentary on Ramana’s Forty Verses [Ulladu Nårpadu] was rather forced in making Ramana’s thought to conform with Aurobindo.[130] Kapali Sastri says that for Ramana, liberation or mukti consists in the loss of the ego. A jivanmukta lives and acts from the depths of the Truth, the Heart, and is guided by the Lord of All, the Self behind all selves (Sastri, 23). The ego is the radical knot of the heart; it is cut off only by direct perception of the supreme (Nandakumar, 51). Kapali Sastri says that Ramana’s instruction was from his own experience and not by considering the Shastras (Scriptures), although the Shastras fit with what Ramana says (Sastri, 70). This is in line with Aurobindo’s own neo-Hindu view of the Scriptures as a record of experience. The Upanishads conceptualize experience (Nandakumar, Kapali Sastri thought that Aurobindo’s Hymns to the Mystic Fire were the “ignition point” to understand the entire Scriptures. He was opposed to Radhakrishnan’s criticism of the intuitive approach to Scripture (Nandakumar 50). Pages 77 to 91 of The Maharshi are excerpts from Kapali Sastri’s diary from 1948 to 1951, where he compares Ramana and Aurobindo. He says, In the Maharshi’s teaching, as indeed in all yogas of ancient India, the problem to be solved is the problem of the individual. In Sri Aurobindo’s teaching, it is the problem of man in his total being and the meaning of his

existence on the earth that is sought to be discovered and worked out. The problems are different and so are the solutions. The Maharshi’s position is simply this: the Divine is, indeed, everywhere. But, you must first find your own self, your own centre in the Divine who is everywhere. Once you find it, you are no longer yourself in the usual sense; you are in His hands. What you call yourself is nothing, does not count; it is that, the Self, the Real ’I’ that matters. There is no longer any problem for you; your problems are His ‘problems’ (Sastri 77-78).

Kapali Sastri refers to Buddha and Jesus: Jesus was actually the Son of God. When he spoke of the “Kingdom of Heaven within” he spoke of a direct personal experience. Christ had that consciousness. As the Maharshi used to say, Christ moved and acted as he did because of his direct realization, såkúåt anubhūti (Sastri 79, written 19-11949).

Kapali Sastri records a remark by a devotee of Ramana that rays of light emanate from Ramana and do their work on the devotee. Ramana corrected this to say “He emanates and directs the rays” –Ramana wanted the active and not the passive voice (Sastri, 81). Kapali Sastri says that Ramana lived for more than 50 years after realization, and that this has no parallel in history. Even the Buddha lived for only 50 years. He attributes Ramana’s cancer to the accumulated sins of his visitors (Sastri, 83, 87). 3. Ganapati Muni’s writings about Ramana, with Commentary by Kapali Sastri a) Gurugita

Ganapati Muni wrote the Gurugita “Hymn to the Guru.” He refers to Ramana as Brahman in the guru’s form (Sastri, 35, 37). Some of the verses, with their reference to the Heart, and to the cosmos show tantric influence, not regarding the world as illusion but as manifestation of Brahman. For example, see the following verses: 1. The Unmanifest from which all this manifestation takes birth, which sustains it, into which it resolves itself–That the Eternal is: 2. In which support, in which matchless Strength, this cosmos (this Brahma’s Egg) with its myriads of globes firmly abides”

7. Its abode is in the Heart’s lotus; (yet) it flows (upwards) for the lotus of the head, and from behind for the energy of the senses: 8. With the outward eye it makes for the body’s illusion, with the eye inward for the experience of the Self’s oneness b) The Umasahasra

This is a poem that Ganapati Muni composed in praise of Ramana, and in gratitude to the great Goddess Uma for giving Maharshi to Muni as his master (Shankaranarayanan, 120). Ganapati Muni therefore called the poem the Umasahasra. It refers to Ramana as well as to tantric works. The Ôgveda and the Kenopanisad speak of Umå Haimåvatī as the Source-ofAll. It consists of one thousand stanzas, in 40 cantos, each with 25 verses. The forms of the Vedic and Tantric deities are seen as a way to gain divine grace by meditating on them. The second canto deals with the importance of a guru to envision Uma’s secret splendour (Sastri, 93). The fourth canto regards Uma as the kundalini force moving in man’s body. Sastri interprets this as a poetic record of Ganapati Muni’s experiences gained with Ramana. Ganapati Muni wrote the poem in 1903, and revised it in 1907. He refers to Ramana as well as to Vedic and tantric deities, and he discusses ways to meditate on them. Kapali Sastri wrote a commentary on the poem. He says that the first verse refers to the unfailing grace of Umå while the second indicates he need for ceaseless aspiration of the devotee (Nandakumar 92). The 20th canto refers to the Mother as the indwelling universal in all creation, the essence of all that we know and experience: In Vedic mantra, Thou art present as sense, In Tantric mantra, as force of sound In Ùåbara mantra, as ritual power, In constant mantra, as essence Thou art (cited, Nandakumar 95).

Ganapati Muni’s nationalism is also apparent in the poem. He calls on the Supreme Mother to infuse India with might and light. There are passages that invoke Umå’s grace for the freeing of India from foreign domination. British spies said his poem contained revolutionary material (Nandakumar, 96). c) The Ramana Gita and Commentary

Ganapati Muni wrote the Ramana Gita, and Kapali Sastri wrote the commentary on it.[131] This commentary was also written after Kapali Sastri had accepted Aurobindo’s philosophy. Sastri’s commentary was written in 1941, 10 years after Paul Brunton’s visit. There is a reference to Brunton: Ramana explained to Paul Brunton the advantage of self-enquiry: Mental quiet is easier to attain and earlier, but the goal is mental destruction. Most paths lead to the first. Whereas self-enquiry leads to it quickly and then to the second (Ramana Gita, 76).

The Ramana Gita is modelled on the Bhagavad Gita, with 18 chapters. The only verse of the Ramana Gita that was composed by Ramana is 2:2: In the centre of the Heart-cave, Brahman shines alone. It is the form of Self experienced directly as ‘I’I’. Enter the Heart, through self-enquiry or merging or by breath-control and become rooted as That.

Even with respect to this verse, the first three words, hridaye kuhara madhye, were written in 1915 by a devotee of Ramana, Jagadiswara Sastri. The devotee left the words with Ramana, who it is said then completed the verse (Ramana Gita, 22). Although Ramana did not write most of the Ramana Gita, it is clear that he approved of it. Kapali Sastri gives details of his discussions with Ramana regarding the commentary to the Ramana Gita; Ramana even pointed out variances in the text (Sastri, 54). He records an interesting discussion with reference to the proper term to be used to refer to the heart. Ramana referred to the use of the term hôdayam for heart in the Upanishads, and the Appar and Tamil saints referring to the heart centre anåhata in the middle of the chest. Ramana was familiar with its use by tantrics and yogins. He also referred to a manuscript of Muni that spoke of the heart. And Ramana also referred to articles in 1931 and 1934 in the American Journal of the Psychological Research Institute describing the true heart to be on the right side of the chest. The articles described the heart as “the deepest and the innermost psycho-physical and spiritual center of man.” Ramana had excerpts of the article but wanted to obtain the whole article to see the means by which the experiment was carried out (Sastri 50-51). Ramana found confirmation that the spiritual heart is on the right side from a Malayalam Ayurvedic book and in the Sita Upanishad. In his genuine near-death experience (discussed above, where he was in the company of

Muni), Ramana felt that the muscle had ceased, but he was aware of the Heart center on the right continuing to work (Ramana Gita, 52). For Ramana, the terms ‘heart,’ ‘Brahman,’ ‘atman’ and ‘self’ are interchangeable (Ramana Gita 20). The Ramana Gita uses ideas from Kundalini yoga to describe the heart. It says that the light of consciousness flows from the Heart through Sushumna channel to sahasråra (Ramana Gita, 50, verse 6). But the Anåhata chakra is not the Heart center; it is the chakra lying behind the Heart (Talks. 367). From the sahasråra, consciousness spreads all over the body and then the experience of the world arises (p. 52, verse 7). Sastri comments that “The ego, individuality is the link, the knot, which has to be cut.” The ‘knot’ is the link between the self and the body (Chapter IX, v. 3). Ramana Gita’s self-enquiry separates the ‘I’-thought from other thoughts, by a churning process. Kapali Sastri compares this to the churning of the sea of milk in the Puranas; this churning produced the drink of immortality. We then stay in the channel linking sahasråra with the Heart (p. 107 IX, 13). The one whose knot is cut can never again become bound (p. 111 IX, 22). But is not this idea of cutting the link with the body inconsistent with living as a jivanmukta? It is different from a later comment that emphasizes the relative reality of the body: when we regard ourselves as only the body, we are separated from others (Ramana Gita, 106; IX, 11). The fact that Ramana approved of the Ramana Gita raises some interesting problems, since Ganapati Muni wrote it from an obvious tantric perspective. There are many indications of this tantric influence in the text. Chapter 11 is entitled “On the Compatibility of Jnana and Siddhis.” And as already noted, Chapter 14 concerns jivanmukti. There are also references to sahaja samadhi, an idea that Ramana was to emphasize. Chapter 3 says that the purpose of spiritual practice is to discover our natural state. It says that in sahaja samadhi, activity and object awareness do not distract one from Self-rootedness (Chapter 10, verse 7A). And it contrasts sahaja from nirvikalpa samadhi. The state in which awareness is firm, even when objects are sensed, is called the natural state. In ‘Nirvikalpa Samadhi’ there is no objective perception (p. 53 verse 10).

In nirvikalpa samadhi, the mind is in ‘sahasråra’ according to yogic texts. In sahaja state there is awareness of objects and activity but it does not

disturb Self-attention. And the tantric idea of the relative reality of the world is also there. “The jnani does not think of the universe as ‘Unreal’ nor does he see it as apart from himself” (Ramana Gita, 11 verse 11). And it says that society is like the body and individuals like the limbs (Ramana Gita, 117): “an individual prospers by working for the good of the society like a limb being useful for the body.” And verse 5 says, “One should serve the interests of society through body, speech and mind and enthuse his circle to do likewise.” In his commentary, Sastri also says, “the creator and His power being one the entire creation is the manifestation of His own power since nothing exists outside the one, the Supreme. Everything, stability and movement, can only be aspects of it.” (Ramana Gita, 153). Even more fascinating is the reference to political involvement: peace is required for an individual; power for a society, to maintain order. “Society should be raised through power and then peace should be established” (Ramana Gita, 117; X, 8). And “Brotherhood based on equality is the supreme goal of human society” (Ramana Gita, 118; X, v. 10). Verse 11 says that this will result in peace and amity, and “the world will flourish like a single household.” These are clearly Ganapati Muni’s ideas, and they conflict with Ramana’s avoidance of social involvement. We can see that Sastri has difficulty with this conflict. For some of Ramana’s sayings indicate we need not do anything: “Failure to perform prescribed action is not sinful for the wise.” The commentary on this verse indicates that if we are inactive, there is no sin (Ramana Gita, 84, verse 19). The following verse 20 says that there are two categories of the wise: those who renounce action for solitary communion, and those engaged in action for the welfare of others. But if we do engage in such action, there no sense of doership because there is no body consciousness (Ramana Gita, 110; IX 20). The jnani has no sankalpa, no specific desire to help or to intervene in the course of events, as soon as a matter is brought to his notice ‘automatic divine activity’ flows from him (Ramana Gita, 135 commentary). One who exercises powers deludes not only others, but himself (Ramana Gita, 136 commentary, referring to Sat Darshanam, 35). With respect to the relative reality of the world, Sastri’s commentary says that the world, too is permeated by consciousness and cannot therefore be unreal. And Sastri refers to the 40 Verses [see below], where Ramana says

it is futile to debate whether the world is real or unreal; instead we should abide in the state where neither individual nor world is seen to exist separately (Sat darshanam v 3). The ignorant foist an independent reality on the world (Sat darshanam 18). And yet Sastri is inconsistent. See for example his comment that that maya’s veil is in reality only the veil of thought itself Ramana Gita, 152). And it is said (Ramana Gita, 15) that the absence of ‘others’ makes for a natural and universal love. And in his commentary on the Darshana Bhashya, p. xxix, Sastri says that Ramana explained to him the “equality for all creation”: The very term equality implies the existence of differences. It is a unity which the wise one perceives in all differences, which I call equality. Equality does not mean ignorance of distinction, when you have realisation you can see that these differences are very formal. They are not substantial or permanent and what is essential in all these appearances I the one ‘Truth’ the ‘Real’.

The relative reality of the world is also affirmed by those passages that affirm that the Self is endowed with Shakti or Power. There is a relation between the Self as unmoving substratum of all change, and the expression of power in movement (Ramana Gita, 149 XII, 7). The allpowerful God is the ground, the unmoving principle is also the movement, the manifestation”(Ramana Gita, 150, commentary). Static and dynamic are non-separate. Like fire and its power to burn. “movement seen apart form the reality, the substratum, is illusory.” “The seer, the seen, the screen on which it is projected, the light, are all only the one” (Sat Darshanam 3, referred to at Ramana Gita 151 commentary). Activity comes under two categories, manifestation and “subsidence.” The Vedic text “When all this has become the Self” refers to subsidence [evolution and involution] (Ramana Gita, 154; XII:17). Ramana Gita XII:20 “Power has two aspects–activity and ground.” See also verse 22. The commentary to the Ramana Gita emphasizes the importance of direct experience. The introduction says that Ramana’s teachings were based on direct experience of the Self (Intro, p. 20). The mahåvåkya ‘I am Brahman’ is merely conceptual (Ramana Gita, 40). The Scriptures do not provide direct experience (Ramana Gita, 77 v. 4 and Ramana Gita, 189). “Truth is apprehended in two ways, by indication and in reality. By indication it is

spoken of as Real and it is experienced as Reality” (Ramana Gita, 158; XII:29). We should not dwell on words in sacred texts, but listen to the heart. Self-enquiry is the only contemplation of the Self (Ramana Gita, 187). Only direct experience provides knowledge. We have intuitive knowledge of the heart, direct immediate experience (Ramana Gita chapter 5, The Science of the Heart). The entire universe is in the body and the whole body is in the heart. Hence the universe is contained within the heart (Ramana Gita, 54). The mind of the knower, abiding in the heart, is merged in the consciousness of the heart like the moonlight in daylight You remain calm and composed even while you are active. You realize you are moved by the deeper real Self within. You have no worries, no anxieties, no cares. For, here you come to realize that there is nothing belonging to you, the ego. Everything is done by something with which you get into conscious union (Ramana Gita, 56 Verse 17).

The mind only reflects the consciousness of the heart, and has no independent existence. Therefore, concentrating on finding the mind’s source will take you to the heart. The heart lights up the body like the sun. “The Self is the electricity, dynamic, the mind is the contact switchboard, while the body is the bulb” (Ramana Gita, 105). But if this heart consciousness is absent, we see only the mind, just like we see the moon at night when the sun is gone. In swoon or sleep, the mind goes back to heart (Ramana Gita, 56, v. 20). But that is unconscious merger. Sahaja is conscious. For those abiding in the Heart the perception is unitary, one (Ramana Gita, 57 verse 19). And yet there is an inconsistency. Sastri’s other commentaries indicate that one can continue thinking. … pure mind measures the immeasurable, Self. It means that the Self makes itself felt in the pure mind so that even when you are in the midst of thoughts you feel the presence.” (Ramana Gita 42, citing Bhasya, xii).

Muni asked Ramana about his state “in which the entire visible world is seen as shadows” (Ramana Gita, 128; XI, 5). The commentary on p. 131 says that the mind is to be used to pay attention to the root ‘I’ thought. In the end the mind gets destroyed, like a stick used to stir the funeral pyre [or like throwing away the ladder]. There is a conflict here between ceasing all

thoughts and continuing to think and to perceive after liberation. Sastri obviously wrestles with this in his commentary. He says To the onlooker the state of the wise would appear inert, when all thought movements cease. Hence it is explained that it is not so for one is pure consciousness in that state. Intelligence is then sharp like the tip of kusa grass for it is unhampered by attachments (Ramana Gita, 132)

And there is a conflict whether the subject-object relation continues after liberation. The commentary says that the object of meditation merges in the end in the great fire of the Self. Commentary; no subject-object relationship (Ramana Gita, 86, Verse 25). But later it says, Though objects are near they are not seen as separate. Commentary: consciousness is seen everywhere “Is there objective awareness for the wise? Yes. But it does not distract their awareness of the throb of the Heart” (Ramana Gita, 108; IX, 15).

and the separate perceiver, the ‘I’, the individual is not there. “the subject, the individual consciousness and the objects are seen as movements arising from the Self and subsiding in it, as one integral whole (Ramana Gita, 148; XII:4, commentary).

and Even in the difference, the essential unity is perceived by the wise. The ignorant caught up in variety considers himself as separate” (Ramana Gita, 149; XII: 6)

Sastri’s commentary on sahaja says that there is no loss of body consciousness; one cognizes the world (Ramana Gita 147). The ego is limited, separative and particular (p. 21). ‘I’-‘I’ is limitless expanse of consciousness. Sastri asked how you feel this in the body. Ramana said …the whole body becomes a mere power, a force current: Life becomes a needle drawn to a huge mass of magnet and as you go deeper and deeper you become a mere centre and then not even that for you become mere consciousness. (Bhasya xxi)

There are also some inconsistencies with Ramana’s other teachings about the best way to enlightenment. It is said (Ramana Gita, 21) that there are three alternatives: self-enquiry, merging and breath control. Self-enquiry and breath control are “two branches of the same tree” (Ramana Gita, 22).

But the text goes on to say breath control is only a temporary aid for selfenquiry; a brake to thoughts; temporary stillness leaves thought of ego or separateness, untackled. The Ramana Gita also comments on the issue of siddhis or powers. In one place it is said that it is only by their karma that some seers exhibit powers (Ramana Gita, 133; XI, 20). Elsewhere it is said that powers arise naturally for the Jnani whether openly or by his very presence (Ramana Gita, 136 XI, 24). But Ramana says it is not important whether one can become invisible or intangible. Continuing in the body or becoming invisible are immaterial (Ramana Gita, 176-77). Self-enquiry alone gives liberation. Other practices may give siddhis (Ramana Gita, 79, Verse 7). Finally, it is surprising that the Ramana Gita says that supreme Reality may be referred to in personal terms: The one supreme Reality is termed as ‘Shakti’ by some, as ‘Self’ by other learned ones and by yet others as a ‘Person.’ (Ramana Gita, 158; XII). d) Commentary on the 40 Verses

Ganapati Muni translated Ramana’s Forty Verses on Existence (Uììådu Nåôpadu) into Sanskrit. He called it Sat-darùanam. Kapali Sastri wrote a commentary on this Sanskrit work. In his introduction, Kapali Sastri says that all of creation is one existence, Brahman, the Puruúa, but it is seen in manifold forms: Conditioned in space, which is full, intense and immobile, in the Self as extension, there arise and endure the endless distinctions among perceptible objects. The endless distinctions among internal processes, ceaselessly arising in the one continuous flow of activity, the phenomena of remembrance and expectation, and all the differences in condition everywhere, even outside, these exist conditioned in time, which like an intangible void, is only the self as eternal change and ceaseless movement. (Sastri’s Coll Works II, 264, cited in Nandakumar 19).

In Sastri’s introduction to the work, he says that Brahman is the allpervading existence-consciousness (sat-cit) whose gaze or ëkúå …brings into existence all these beings or rather becomings, in a variety of species, with striking differences in the nature of their embodiments such as physical, vital and mental and with remarkable variations in their capacity to develop the organs of vital, mental and spiritual or divine functions (Nandakumar, 98, citing III, 289).

Sastri notes that unlike Shankara, Ramana does not say that creatures are mere illusions. We must realize the Self in the heart (Nandakumar 98). And in his commentary to the Ramana Gita, Sastri says Since nothing is seen as apart from himself, the world too is seen as permeated by consciousness and cannot therefore be ‘Unreal.” (Ramana Gita, 12).

Kapili Sastri also says, As there is nothing that is really unreal, a fact that is often stressed by Sri Maharshi, this system may be appropriately called ‘Truth Realism’ or ‘Ideal Realism’ (Introduction to Sat-darùanam, Muni’s Sanskrit translation of the Forty Verses).

This may be more a reference to Aurobindo’s ideas than to Ramana’s. What is especially interesting is that Kapali Sastri says that Ramana’s teachings, including the Forty Verses, cannot be considered as Advaitic, or within any other traditional Hindu philosophy. The writings arise from Ramana’s experience and are an “independent utterance” in philosophy (Nandakumar 19). In the Forty Verses, Ramana says Get at the Heart within by search.

The ego bows its head and falls.

Then flashes forth another “I”,

Not the ego that, but the Self, Supreme, Perfect

(cited Nandakumar 20).

Sastri’s comment on this is that is not a destruction but a transformation of the ego: Does this mean that the ego-self is lost for ever? No, the ego is lost, but only to make way for its original, the real Self, to come up to the surface by either using the regenerate ego-self as an instrument or by transforming it to a true reflection so as to make its presence felt on the surface, the effect of which is an experience a feeling in the ego-self that it is one with its deeper and real Self and that it is this deeper being that has assumed the form of the apparent self in the phenomenal existence. (Sastri, Coll. Works III, 355, cited Nandakumar 20).

The heart-based life is integral, whole and perfect. It is existence in all its fullness (Sat Darshanam, v. 30)

Sastri says that worship by means of forms is indeed fruitful, but the worshipped Lord is not confined to the particular form in which he is worshipped. The supreme state is sat-darùana, real perception of the truth. e) Commentary on the Five Verses

Sastri also wrote a commentary on Ramana’s Five verses on Arunachala (Ùrë Arunåcala-pañcaratna) (Nandakumar 99). It is said that Ramana wrote these verses in Sanskrit (Nandakumar 19). But was that writing with Ganapati Muni’s help as the “instrument” of Ramana? The Five Verses refers to the hill of Arunachala as the one Real. The verses begin with a prayer for divine grace. Self-enquiry cannot be taken without grace. Nandakumar quotes Ramana’s advice to a disciple, But the very fact you are possessed of the quest of the self is a manifestation of the divine grace, aruì. It is effulgent in the heart, the inner being, the real Self. It draws you from within to get in. You have to attempt to get in from without. Your attempt is vicåra, the deep inner movement is grace, aruì. That is why I say there is no real vicåra without grace, nor is there grace active for him who is without vicåra. Both are necessary.[132]

Kapali Sastri refers to these verses as the nutshell of Ramana’s teaching. In his commentary to the fifth verse, Kapali Sastri says that the mukta’s eye sees everywhere the infinite form of the supreme Self. Within or without, he, directly perceiving the self serves the Self, sporting in the Self and reigns supreme, immersed in the form of infinite bliss (Nandakumar 99).

Can this idea–that the liberated person sees the infinite form of the Self both “within or without”–be reconciled with traditional Vedānta? Or does it reflect tantric and yogic teachings that Ramana obtained from Ganapati Muni and other sources? What about the idea that Vicåra (self-inquiry) requires “grace”? To whom is grace being bestowed if Brahman is one without a second? Should “grace” be interpreted in terms of Hindu devotion or bahkti? To what extent is this idea of “grace” an idea of Western, and even Christian origin? Ganapati Muni was one of Ramana’s earliest disciples. He seems to be the source of even the most basic information that we have about Ramana. He helped Ramana write some of his early works, and may even have written more than has been acknowledged, since he he claimed to be acting as Ramana’s “instrument.” Both Ganapati Muni and his interpreter Kapili Sastri

were deeply influenced by theosophical ideas, western neo-Hindu traditions, as well as by tantric and yogic sources. Ramana’s teachings, as well as the interpretations of his experience of enlightenment, are inconsistent. The teachings and the interpretations come from many different sources.





Conclusion The story of Ramana’s enlightenment is not as simple as has been supposed. His story depends entirely on the idea of living liberation or jivanmukti. The emphasis on his experience, and even the very idea of enlightenment while still alive are not traditional Hindu doctrines. They come from later tantric and yogic works like the Yoga Vasistha and the Vivekacudamani. If that is so, then Ramana should not be interpreted in terms of classical advaita. Even those interpreters who are aware of the sources of the idea of jivanmukti often do not want to acknowledge its conflict with other traditions within Hinduism. A close reading of the traditional account of Ramana’s enlightenment at the age of 16 raises many questions. The actual experience was a “thought experiment.” He “enacted” the state of death, and “concluded” that the Self continues to exist even after death. As a thought experiment, it may in some ways be compared with the Meditations of Descartes. This thought experiment was certainly not something totally spontaneous. Ramana had previous knowledge of meditation. Prior to this experience, he had models of a sannyasi in his uncle, as well as in his father, who practiced meditation. Ramana had even tried meditation at the age of 12. Nor did Ramana’s enlightenment event occur without written sources that inspired him to seek this kind of enlightenment. Ramana also did not have the certainty of union with the Self that is so emphasized by his biographers. He expressed doubts after his teenage experience. Ramana left home in order to become a sannyasi. In doing so, he was following the example of others. For many months he seemed to be in a trance state, oblivious to pain and discomfort, and had to be looked after by others. These attendants believed that Ramana’s state was evidence of enlightenment. But that may be questioned, for the biographers emphasize that even as a young child, Ramana was prone to fainting fits. Later, when Ramana had moved to the caves to meditate, he had a genuine near-death experience. But he dismissed it as one of the fits that he sometimes had. Furthermore, although Ramana’s disciples emphasize the trance nature of Ramana’s enlightenment, he himself rejected trance. Ramana’s own words

emphasize the importance of the sahaja experience of the jivanmukta over any trance experience. He contrasts trance with his own method of SelfEnquiry, and he contrasts nirvikalpa samadhi with sahaja samadhi. He did not even recommend meditation, but rather the direct method of Self-Enquiry. If trance is not necessary, then it seems that Ramana’s disciples have over-emphasized the importance of his experience as a teenager. While mediating in the caves of Arunachala, attendants brought many books to Ramana. These books included the Yoga Vasistha and the Vivekacudamani. These books set out the ideas that Ramana would later use in his own writings, such as Self-Enquiry. Even if Ramana had a genuine enlightenment experience as a teenager, he used these books in order to interpret and to teach the significance of that experience to others. Ramana was also strongly influenced by one of his first disciples, Ganapati Muni. It is even likely that Ganapati Muni wrote some of the works that were later attributed to Ramana, particularly those that required a knowledge of Sanskrit. And it seems that Ganapati Muni is responsible for transmitting the story of Ramana’s enlightenment in the form that it was used by later biographers. It is remarkable that Ganapati Muni, as well as Ramana’s earliest biographers Frank H. Humphreys and B.V. Narasimha Iyer, had all been influenced by the Western ideas of Madame Blavatzky’s theosophy. They used those ideas, and other Western ideas (even Christian ideas) to describe Ramana’s experiences. Furthermore, Ganapati Muni, Humphreys and Narasimha all left Ramana’s ashram in search of another guru. If Ramana was the realized person that his disciples claim him to be, why did these important early disciples leave him? The same questions arise with respect to Paul Brunton. Brunton is the one who is most responsible for introducing Ramana Maharshi's ideas to the English-speaking world. But a review of Brunton's writings raises serious issues about his account of Ramana. Brunton says that he used Ramana as a “peg” on which to hang his own ideas. Like the other early biographers, Brunton’s own ideas are linked to Madame Blavatsky’s theosophy. Throughout the time that he wrote about Ramana, Brunton had an interest in occult powers or siddhis. These occult powers included telepathy, and the supposed silent radiating power of self-realized persons.

Furthermore, Brunton’s idea of the Overself, and his mentalistic interpretation of it, is also related to this kind of theosophy. These ideas appear to have influenced how Brunton reported his experiences with Ramana. Brunton’s ideas also influenced Ramana, who read many of Brunton’s books, including A Search in Secret India, The Secret Path, A Search in Secret Egypt, and A Hermit in the Himalayas: The Journey of a Lonely Exile. Ramana recommended these books for others to read, and he seems to have used Brunton’s ideas to interpret his own teachings. Ramana’s disciples were also influenced by Brunton’s ideas. Many of them came to see Ramana only because they first read about Ramana in Brunton’s books. And Brunton’s ideas (like that of the Overself) also appear in these disciples’ writings. Like other early biographers, Brunton also became disillusioned and left Ramana. There is evidence that he was in fact driven away from the ashram. Brunton's works as a whole show how his initial idealization of Ramana was tempered by his subsequent experience. Brunton became very critical of Ramana. This was based largely on the ideas he learned from his subsequent guru, V. Subrahmanya Iyer. Iyer's philosophy was not based on traditional Hinduism, but on neo-Hinduism–Hinduism that has been influenced by western philosophy. Devotees of Ramana need to ask whether Ramana’s ethical stance is beyond criticism. Brunton's reliance on Madame Blavatsky's occult theosophy is problematic. Nor do I agree with Brunton's attempted synthesis between western idealistic mentalism and Hindu advaita. Brunton's solution alternates between a dualism and a mentalistic monism. Brunton’s own philosophy is not nondual. And his emphasis on seeking occult powers is not in accord with either nondualism or with Ramana’s own ideas. We have looked at many other interpretations of Ramana. Most of these interpreters are also from the West, such as Lanza Del Vasto, Jean Herbert, Olivier Lacombe, Heinrich Zimmer, Abhishiktānanda, and Jules Monchanin. Although C.G. Jung is often represented as supportive of Ramana, this is due to a selective reading of Jung. He was in fact very critical of Ramana and his teachings. Jung did not visit Ramana in India, even though he had

the opportunity to do so. His avoidance of Ramana may be due to conversations that he had with Brunton after Brunton’s disillusionment. Many of Ramana’s disciples who wrote about him were also from the West, such as S.S. Cohen and Arthur Osborne. But we have also looked at some Hindu interpretations, such as those included in Herbert’s Études, as well as the interpretation by Mahadevan. In these various interpretations and criticisms, some of the same issues keep recurring: What is the value of trance or meditation? What is Ramana’s view of the reality of the world? What does Ramana believe to be the relation between the Self and the Absolute? How does the liberated person relate to the world? How does the liberated person perceive the world? Are there ethical obligations for a liberated person?

When we examine Ramana’s writings, and consider how he has been interpreted, we find inconsistent answers to these questions. This is in part due to the many different influences on Ramana: 1. There is the Christian influence. For Ramana, the advaitic experience is an experience of Being and he relates it to many Biblical statements, such as “I am that I am.” And Ramana’s first biographers make many comparisons between Ramana and Jesus. 2. Neo-Hinduism. Ramana was reading Vivekånanda from at least as early as 1901. This neo-Hindu influence on Ramana was also brought about by Ganapati Muni and Kapali Sastri, both of whom had been influenced by Aurobindo’s form of neo-Hinduism. Ganapati Muni, was the first of Ramana’s disciples to call him ‘Maharshi.’ The influence of Ganapati Muni on Ramana was so strong, and over such a long period of time, that it is difficult to determine whether certain works were written by Ramana or whether they were ghost-written by Ganapati Muni as Ramana’s selfproclaimed “instrument.” 3. Tantric influences. The very idea of jivanmukti or living liberation is not traditional advaita. Ideas of God’s power or shakti are also non-traditional, as is the idea of the relative reality of the world. 4. Traditional Hindu influences. These are probably the least important influence. Ramana was criticized by traditionalists. And his interpretation of

Shankara–that the world has some reality–is hardly traditional. 5. Ramana was influenced by western philosophy and by Blavatsky’s theosophy. Some of this was as early as his meetings with Ganapati Muni and with Humphreys. Ramana also read some works of Western psychology, and he was also influenced by the ideas of Paul Brunton, who interpreted Ramana according to his own fixed ideas. It is important to try to disentangle all of these different influences from each other: traditional Hinduism and Vedanta, neo-Hinduism, tantra, yoga, Christianity, and other western influences. This will help us to better understand Ramana’s advaitic experience, and his interpretation of that experience. It will also help us to better relate Ramana’s teachings to the teachings of mystics in the Western Christian tradition. Some of the inconsistences in Ramana’s interpretations of the jivanmukta’s experience are: 1. Whether the world has reality. Can we speak of an external world at all, and what is Ramana’s view of the advaitic doctrine of maya? Some passages, especially those where he relies on the Vivekacudamani and on tantric works, emphasize the relative reality of the world. In other places, he puts forward a much more monistic view of reality, denying that there are any others at all. 2. How the liberated person relates to and perceives the world. Sometimes Ramana says that the subject-object relation, and all thinking is gone. At other times, he acknowledges that the liberated person continues to act, think and perceive in the world. 3. Ramana emphasizes the importance of experience. In this, he seems to be following neo-Hindu views more than traditional Hindu thought or the teachings of Shankara. But tantric sources also emphasize the importance of direct experience, so it would be a mistake to regard this emphasis on experience as totally due to Western influence. 4. How the realized person or jivanmukta is supposed to relate to the external world. This is a problem that bothered many of Ramana’s followers. Some, like Brunton, rejected Ramana’s teachings in favour of another guru whose neo-Hinduism emphasized social and ethical obligations. Can Ramana’s ethical behaviour be criticized? Or is a jivanmukta beyond ethics? The conflict here is partly the issue as to whether the external world has reality. For if, as Ramana sometimes says,

there are no others to help, then of course we have no ethical obligations. It is possible that neo-Hindu ideas, which emphasize ethical obligations, are more influenced by Western traditions, or by Buddhist traditions of the bodhisattva. Such traditions regard liberation as a state where the ego is transcended, and there is a sense of inter-relatedness with others and the world, and of seeing Brahman everywhere. But tantra accords a relative reality to the world. And neo-Hindu ideas say that the jivanmukta is involved in doing good. Aurobindo gives a more consistent view of jivanmukti. Fort says that Aurobindo’s perspective is more world-affirming than Shankara’s or Ramana’s: Since Aurobindo holds that existence, from grossest Matter to highest Spirit, is an integral unity, the deluded individuated self (jiva) is real and can evolve back to its Spiritual basis (Supermind). Put another way, for Aurobindo Brahman includes maya, and maya is dynamic (shakti), including its derivations of mind and body. True (integral) liberation is not separation from saîsåra, but realization of the Divine (Brahman) in the Divine (Fort 1998, 150).

For Aurobindo there is therefore no problem in remaining embodied after liberation. This view of the world is also evident in T.V. Kapali Sastri’s interpretation and commentaries on Ramana’s state of sahaja liberation. From this point of view, Sastri gives what I consider one of the best summaries of Ramana’s teaching: The Maharshi’s position is simply this: the Divine is, indeed, everywhere. But, you must first find your own self, your own centre in the Divine who is everywhere. Once you find it, you are no longer yourself in the usual sense; you are in His hands. What you call yourself is nothing, does not count; it is that, the Self, the Real ‘I’ that matters. There is no longer any problem for you; your problems are His ‘problems’ (Sastri, The Maharshi, 78).

Perhaps that is a neo-Hindu interpretation of Ramana. It is in any event an interpretation that is influenced by Aurobindo’s synthesis of tantra and traditional Hinduism. And this interpretation, which acknowledges the relative reality of the world, and the importance of finding one’s true Self, is an interpretation that is probably most fruitful for those who want to make comparisons of Ramana with Western mystics. We may, for example compare this finding our own self, and placing ourselves in God’s hands, with Meister Eckhart’s idea of ‘Gelassenheit’ (‘Gelatenheid’ in low German).

When interpreted in a nondual way, Eckhart’s mysticism, like neoHinduism, does not lead to a passive acosmism, but to greater action in the world (Roloff, 1934). Or we may compare the ideas of Christian theosophy (not to be confused with Blavatsky’s theosophy), which seeks God’s Wisdom as expressed within the world and seeks to use it to help redeem the world (Friesen 2015a). I am aware that my analysis of Ramana’s experience will not please some of his followers. They wish to praise him as an example of a realized advaitin, and they want to dismiss any critical thinking. Even Western writers who are skeptical of traditions within Christianity often fail to apply these same methods of reasoning when they are confronted with the claims about Ramana. And yet my analysis should not be viewed merely as a skeptical deconstruction of these claims. Ramana did have an experience of the reality of the Self. His emphasis on enlightenment as something that can occur in life is to be welcomed. So is the idea that the experience is beyond conceptualization, and that if we really want to know, we must also have the same experience. But what is that “same experience”? As soon as we ask this, we return to thought and to ideas. And if, as Ramana did, we want to talk about and teach that experience, it is necessary to return to conceptual language. We then will ask how this experience compares to other religious experience. What difference is there from Buddhist satori, which emphasizes the lack of self (anātman). How does it compare to Jung’s idea of experience of the Self? Is trance necessary or does it hinder enlightenment in life? What are the ethical implications of the enlightenment that we seek? Does it empower us to help others and to return to the world? Or does it view the return to the world as continuing karma without any significance and deny the reality of others? What is the difference between denying dualism and asserting monism? This book has shown various influences on Ramana, and the interpretations by both Hindus and non-Hindus of his enlightenment. I hope that it will assist in understanding his experience, and in understanding in what ways Ramana can continue be a model for us for enlightenment in this life.

Bibliography Primary Sources: Brunton, Paul (under the name Raphael Meriden) (1919): “Along the mystic Road,” Occult Review, November. Brunton, Paul (1921): “The Occult Value of the Scientific Attitude,” Occult Review, November. Brunton, Paul (1922): “The Two Faces of Man,” Occult Review, May. Brunton, Paul (under the name Raphael Delmonte) (1928): “Beyond the Cup of Youth,” Occult Review, March. Brunton, Paul (under the name Brunton Paul) (1932a): "With a Southern Indian Tantrist," Occult Review 56, July. Brunton, Paul (1932b): “Crowley’s Magick,” Occult Review, November. Brunton, Paul (1934): A Search in Secret India (London: Rider & Co.). Brunton, Paul (1935a): A Search in Secret Egypt, (London: Rider & Co.). Brunton, Paul (1935b): The Secret Path (London: Rider & Co.). Brunton, Paul (1936): A Message from Arunachala ((London: Rider & Co.). Brunton, Paul (1937): A Hermit in the Himalayas: The Journey of a Lonely Exile (London: Rider & Co.). Brunton, Paul (1969): The Hidden Teaching Beyond Yoga (London: Rider & Co., 1969, first published 1941), [‘Hidden Teaching’]. Brunton, Paul (1984-88): The Notebooks of Paul Brunton (16 volumes) (Burdett, N.Y., Larson, 1984-1988). Brunton, Paul (2002): The Maharshi and his Message: A Selection from A Search in Secret India, 13th ed. (Tiruvannamalai: Sri Ramanasramam, 2002, no date of original publication). Chadwick, A.W. (Sadhu Arunachala) (1994): A Sadhu’s Reminiscences of Ramana Maharshi (Tiruvannamalai: Sri Ramanasramam, 1994, first published 1961). Cohen, S.S. (1990): Reflections on Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi (Tiruvannamalai: Sri Ramanasramam, 1990, first published 1959) [‘Reflections’]. Cohen, S.S. (1993): Guru Ramana: Memories and Notes, (Tiruvannamalai: Sri Ramanasramam, 1993, first published 1952). Del Vasto, Lanza (1971): Return to the Source, tr. Jean Sidgwick (Simon and Schuster, 1971, first published in France in 1943 under the title of Le Pèlerinage aux Sources).

Ganesan, V.: Ramana Periya Puranam: Inner Journey of 75 Old Devotees (online at [https://muddypractice.files.wordpress.com/

2014/01/ramana-periya-puraanam-inner-journey-of-75-old-devotees.pdf]. Godman, David (2000): The Power of the Presence, 2 vols., (New Leaf Distributing Company). Herbert, Jean (1937): Quelques grands penseurs de l’Inde (Paris: Les Trois Lotus). Herbert, Jean (1972a): Spiritualité hindoue (Paris: Albin Michel, 1972, first published 1947). Herbert, Jean (1972b): Études sur Ramana Maharshi (Dervy-Livres, 1972, first published 1940). Herbert, Jean (1972c): L’Enseignement de Ramana Maharshi (Albin Michel). Humphreys, Frank H. (1999): Glimpses of the Life and Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi (Tiruvannamalai) [‘Glimpses’]. The book is based on articles that Humphreys first published in The International Psychic Gazette, May 1913, 295 ff; June 1913, 327ff and July 1913, 357ff. Mudaliar, A. Devaraja (1995): Day by Day with Bhagavan (Tiruvannamalai: Sri Ramanasramam) [‘Day by Day’] The book is online at [http://www.ramanamaharshi.org/books.htm]. Muni, Ganapati (Sastri, Ganapati) (1994): Ramana Gita: Dialogues with Sri Ramana Maharshi, tr. A.R. Natarajan (Bangalore: Ramana Maharshi Centre for Learning). Muni, Ganapati (Sastri, Ganapati): Forty Verses in Praise of Sri Ramana. Nagamma, Suri (1970): Letters from Sri Ramanasramam, tr. D.S. (Tiruvannamalai: Sri Ramanasramam, 1985, first published) [‘Letters’].

Sastri

Nambiar, K.K. (1997): The Guiding Presence of Sri Ramana Maharshi (Tiruvannamalai: Sri Ramanasramam, 1997, first published 1984) [‘Nambiar’]. Narasimha Swami, B.V. (1993): Self Realization: The Life and Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi (Tiruvannamalai, 1993, first published 1931). [‘Narasimha’]. Osborne, Arthur (ed.) (1978): The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi, (Samuel Weiser, 1978, first published 1962), [‘Teachings’]. Osborne, Arthur (ed.) (1997a): The Collected Works of Ramana Maharshi, ed. Arthur Osborne (New York: Samuel Weiser, 1997). Osborne, Arthur (1997b): Ramana Maharshi and the Path of Self-Knowledge (Samuel Weiser, 1997, first published 1970) [‘Path of Self-Knowledge’].

Rajan, N.N. (1996): More Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, ed. A.R. Natarajan (Bangalore: Ramana Maharshi Centre for Learning, 1996, first published 1993) [‘More Talks’]. Ramana Maharshi (1939): Maharshi’s Gospel (Tiruvannamalai: Sri Ramanasramam, 1939). Ramana Maharshi (1997): The Collected Works of Sri Ramana Maharshi, ed. Arthur Osborne (York Beach, Maine: Samuel Weiser, 1997, first published 1972) [‘Osborne 1997a’]. Ramana Maharshi (2001): The Collected Works of Sri Ramana Maharshi, 7th ed. with revised translations (Tiruvannamalai: Sri Ramanasramam, 2001) [‘Collected Works’]. Ramana Maharshi (1988): The Spiritual Teachings of Ramana Maharshi, with an introduction by C.G. Jung (Boston: Shambhala). Ramana Maharshi (1996): Conscious Immortality (Tiruvannamalai: Sri Ramanasramam, 1996, first published 1984) [‘Conscious Immortality’]. Ramana Maharshi (1996): Erase the Ego, ed. Swami Rajeshwarananda (Mumbai: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan,). Ramana Maharshi (1955): Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, ed. Sri Munagala S. Venkataramiah (Swami Ramanananda Saraswati), (Tiruvannamalai: Sri Ramanasramam, 1994, first published 1955). Ramana Maharshi (1946): Golden Jubilee Souvenir (Tiruvannamalai). Ramana Maharshi (1992): Be as You are: The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi, ed. David Godman (New Delhi: Penguin, 1992, first published 1985). Ramana Maharshi (1988): The Spiritual Teachings of Ramana Maharshi (Boston: Shambhala). Ramana Maharshi: Website for Bhagavan [http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/].

Sri

Ramana

Maharshi

Reddy, Balaram (1995), “Recollections of N. Balaram Reddy,” The Maharshi, Mar/Apr 1995, Vol. 5, No. 2. Sarma, Lakshmana [“Who”] (1961): Maha Yoga or The Upanishadic Lore in the Light of the Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana (Tiruvannamalai: Sri Ramanasramam, 1961, first published 1937) [‘Maha Yoga’]. Sarma, Lakshmana (Lakshman, Sarma K.) (1972a): “La Récherche,” Études sur Ramana Maharshi, ed. Jean Herbert, (Paris: Dervy-Livres, 1972).

Sarma, Lakshmana (Lakshman, Sarma K.) (1972b): “Le Sage d’Arunachala,” in Études sur Ramana Maharshi. Sarma, Lakshmana (1998): Guru Ramana-Vachana-Målå, (Tiruvannamalai: Sri Ramanasramam, first published 1960). Sastri, (Sastry) T.V. Kapali (1996): The Maharshi, ed. M.P. Pandit (Ramanasramam, 1996, first published 1955) Shankaranarayanan, S. (1997): Bhagavan Ramansramam, first published 1983).

and

Nayana

(Tiruvannamalai:

Sri

Siddheswarananda, Swami (1972): “Étude par le Swami Siddheswarananda,” in Études sur Ramana Maharshi, ed. Jean Herbert (Dervy). Swarnagiri, Ramanananda (1972): “Conversations rapportées,” in Herbert, Jean: Études sur Ramana Maharshi (Dervy-Livres, 1972, first published 1940). Swarnagiri, Ramanananda (1995): Crumbs from his Table (Tiruvannamalai: Sri Ramanasramam, 1995).

Secondary Sources: Abhishiktananda (Le Saux, Henri): Guhåntara: au sein du fond (written 1952-53; only extracts published so far). Part of Chapter 3 published in Initiation (I.A.14). Parts of Chapters 4 to 7 published in (I.A.19). Abhishiktananda (Le Saux, Henri): Guhaja (or Guhåntara II) (unpublished, in Abhishiktananda Archives, Delhi). Abhishiktananda (Le Saux, Henri) (1957): An Indian Benedictine Ashram (In collaboration with Abbé J. Monchanin (Shantivanam: Tannirpalli, 1951, reprinted, Times Press, 1964). Translated and revised as Ermites du Saccidånanda: un essai d’intégration chrétienne de la tradition monastique de l’Inde, (Tournai/Paris: Casterman). Abhishiktananda (Le Saux, Henri) (1965): Sagesse hindoue mystique chrétienne: du Védanta à la Trinité (Paris, Centurion, 1965). Revised as Saccidånanda: a Christian Approach to Advaitic Experience (Delhi: ISPCK, 1974, 2nd revised edition 1984). Abhishiktananda (Le Saux, Henri) (1974): Guru and Disciple (containing A Sage from the East–Sri Gnånånanda and The Mountain of the Lord), (ISPCK, London). Abhishiktananda (Le Saux, Henri) (1978): Souvenirs d’Arunachala: récit d’un ermite chrétien en terre hindoue (Paris: Epi SA, 1978), translated as The Secret of Arunachala, (Delhi: ISPCK, 1979, revised 1998).

Abhishiktananda (Le Saux, Henri) (1979a): “Jusqu’à la Source, l’expérience de nondualité,” Initiation à la spiritualité des Upanishads: Vers l’autre rive (Sisteron: Présence) Abhishiktananda (Le Saux, Henri) (1979b): “Sannyasa”, The Further Shore (Delhi: ISPCK, 1975; reprinted with additions in 1984); revised and expanded in Initiation à la spiritualité des Upanishads: Vers l’autre rive (Sisteron: Présence). Abhishiktananda (Le Saux, Henri) (1986): La montée au fond du coeur: le journal intime du moine chrétien–sannyasi hindou 1984-1973, introduction et notes de R. Panikkar (Paris: OEIL, 1986); translated as Ascent to the Depth of the Heart, tr. David Fleming and James Stuart (Delhi: ISPCK, 1998). Abhishiktananda (Le Saux, Henri) (1995): Swami Abhishiktananda: His life told through his letters, ed. James Stuart (Delhi: ISPCK). Abhishiktananda (1999): Lettres d’un sannyasi chrétien à Joseph Lemarié (Paris: Cerf, 1999). Aleaz, K.P., ed. (1996): “The Pioneering Contributions of Brahmabandhav Upadhyaya,” in Christian Thought through Advaita Vedanta(Delhi: ISPCK). Aurobindo (1995): The Synthesis of Yoga (1955). Barnard, G. William (1997): Exploring Unseen Worlds: William James and the Philosophy of Mysticism (Albany: State University of New York). Bennet, Allan: “Buddhist Gratitude to Henry Steel Olcott,”  Theosophical Review  42, (June, 1908). Bennet, Allan (Ananda Metteya):  The Religion of Burma  (Madras: Theosophical Publishing House, 1923). Bennet, Allan (Ananda Metteya):  The Wisdom of the Aryas  (London: Kegan Paul, 1923). Besant, Annie and Leadbeater, C.W. (1947): Talks on the Path of Occultism: Vol. II, A Commentary on “The Voice of the Silence,” (Adyar, Madras: The Theosophical Publishing House). Bettina Bäumer (ed.) (1997): Mysticism in Shaivism and Christianity, (Abhishiktananda Society). Blavatsky, Madame H.P. (1888): The Secret Doctrine (London: Theosophical Publishing Co.).  Bucke, Richard Maurice (1969): Cosmic Consciousness (New York: E.P. Dutton, 1969, first published 1901). Cahkravart, H.N. (1997): “Divine Recognition: Pratyabhijñå”, Mysticism in Shaivism and Christianity, ed. Bettina Bäumer (Abhishiktananda Society, 1997).

Cahn Fung, Annie (1992): “Paul Brunton: A Bridge Between India and the West,” Doctoral thesis, Sorbonne, 1992). Online at [http://www.paulbrunton.org/files/PBThesisPt1.pdf], accessed October 20, 2015. Cox, Harvey (1977): Turning East (Simon and Schuster). De Andia, Ysabel (1997): “Jules Monchanin, La Mystique Apophatique et l’Inde”, Jules Monchanin: Regards croisés d’Occident et d’Orient (Lyon: Profac-Credic). Deutsch, Eliot (1969): Advaita Vedanta: A Philosophical Reconstruction (Honolulu). Eckhart, Meister (1934): Meister Eckeharts Schriften zur Gesellschaftsphilosophie, ed. Ilse Roloff (Jena: Gustav Fischer). Feuerstein, Georg (2003): The Deeper Dimensions of Yoga (Boston: Shambhala). Fletcher, F.: A review of The Sixth Sense: Psychic Origin, Rationale & Development in Theosophical Review 41 (February 1980). Forman, K.C. (ed.) (1990): The Problem of Pure Consciousness: Mysticism and Philosophy (Oxford, 1990). Fort, Andrew O. and Patricia Y. Mumme (eds.) (1996): Living Liberation in Hindu Thought Albany: State University of New York Press). Fort, Andrew O (1998): Jivanmukti in Transformation, (Albany: State University of New York Press). Friesen, J. Glenn (2015a): Neo-Calvinism and Christian Theosophy: Franz von Baader, Abraham Kuyper, Herman Dooyeweerd (Calgary: Aevum Books). Friesen, J. Glenn (2015b): Abhishiktānanda: Christian Nondualism and Hindu Advaita (Calgary: Aevum Books). Feuerstein. Georg (2003): The Deeper Dimensions of Yoga (Boston: Shambhala). Gadille, Jacques (1997): “Jules Monchanin: Prophète dans la Culture et dans l’Église de son Temps,” in Jules Monchanin: Regards croisés d’Occident et d’Orient (Lyon: Profac-Credic). Godman, David (1992): “I AM–the First Name of God,” The Mountain Path 1992 29/3-4, pp. 126-142. Guénon, Rene (2000): Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines, tr. Marco Pallis (New Delhi, 2000, originally published 1921) Guénon, Rene (2004): Crisis of the Modern World, tr. Arthur Osborne (Sophia Perennis, 2004, first published 1927). Hacker, Paul (1995): Philology and Confrontation: Paul Hacker on Traditional and Modern Vedanta, ed. Wilhelm Halbfass (State University of New York Press).

Halbfass, Wilhelm (1988): India and Europe: An Essay in Understanding (State University of New York). Hurst, Kenneth Thurston (1989): Paul Brunton: A Personal View (Larson Publications). yer, V. Subrahmanya (1955): “Shankara and Our Own Times,” reprinted in his book, The Philosophy of Truth (Salem: Sudharma). yer, V. Subrahmanya:  The Meaning of Life  (self-published from 'Mysore Lodge', Madanapalli, A. P.). Janssens, Jean Hermann (1818): Hermeneutica sacra seu Introductio in omnes et singulos Libros Sacros Veteris ac novi Foederis (Liège) Jung, C.G. (1944): “The Holy Men of India,” introduction to Heinrich Zimmer, Der Web Zum Selbst: Lehre und Leben des Indischen Heiligen Shri Ramana Maharshi aus Tiruvannamalai (Zurich, Rashcer Verlag). Jung, C.G. (1953): Letters, ed. G. Adler & A. Jaffe, (Princeton). Jung, C.G. (1954-79): Collected Works, ed. Sir Herbert Read, Michael Fordham, and Gerhard Adler (Princeton). Jung, C.G. (1961): Memories, Dreams, Reflections (Random House). Jung, C.G. (1996): The Psychology of Kundalini Yoga, ed. Sonu Shamdasini (Princeton). Juste, Michael (1924): “Escape and Other Verse,” Occult Review, Vol. 40, August, p. 120ff. Juste, Michael (1927a): The White Brother: An Occult Biography (London: Rider & Co. Paternoster House). Juste, Michael (1927b): “The Power of the Prophet,” Vol. 45, February. Juste, Michael (1928): “Thoughts on the Two Paths,” Vol. 48, Sept. Juste, Michael (1933): “A Neww Yoga System,” Vol. 58, August. Kapali, T. V. (1977-90): Collected Works (Pondicherry: Dipti Publications, Sri Aurobindo Ashram). Kaviraj,

Gopinath: “The Philosophy of Tripura [http://www.hubcom.com/magee/tantra/philtan.htm].

Tantra”.

Online

at

Krishnamurti, U.G.: the mystique of Englightenment: The unrational ideas of a man called U.G. See [http://www.realization.org/

page/namedoc0/moe/moe_1.htm], accdessed October 20, 2015. Knight, George I.E. (1930):  Intimate Glimpses of Mysterious Tibet and Neighbouring Countries (Asian Educational). Krüger, J.S. (1995): Along Edges (University of South Africa).

Lacombe, Olivier (1937a): “Sur le Yoga indien,” Études Carmélitaines, October, 1937, pp. 163-176. Lacombe, Olivier (1937b): L’Absolu selon le Vedanta(Paris). Lacombe, Olivier (1938): “Un Exemple de Mystique Naturelle: L’Inde,” Études Carmélitaine, 1938. David: Nonduality (New Jersey: Humanities Press, 1988). Lyall,

Graeme: “Buddhism and the Future of Humanity,” online [http://www.purifymind.com/BuddhismFuture.htm], accessed Aug. 7, 2015.

Mahadevan, T.M.P. (1977): Ramana Maharshi: The sage of Aruïåcala (London: George Allen & Unwin). Mahadevan, T.M.P. (1974): Invitation to Indian Philosophy (New Delhi). Maritain, Jacques (1938): “L’Expérience Mystique Naturelle et le Vide,” Études Carmélitaine, 1938. Masson, Jeffrey Moussaieff (1993): My Father’s Guru: A Journey through Spirituality and Disillusion (New York: Addison-Wesley). Mehta, J.L. (1990): Philosophy and Revelation, Essays in Interpretation (Delhi). Monchanin, Jules and Le Saux, Henri (Abhishiktananda) (1957): Ermites du Saccidånanda: un essai d’intégration chrétienne de la tradition monastique de l’Inde, (Tournai/Paris: Casterman). Monchanin, Jules (1974): Jules Monchanin: Mystique de l’Inde, mystère chretien, ed. Suzanne Siauve (Paris: Fayard). Monchanin, Jules (1995): Abbé Monchanin: Lettres au Père Le Saux, ed. Françoise Jacquin (Paris: Cerf). Muller-Ortega (1989): The Triadic Heart of Shiva (Albany: State University of New York). Nandakumar, Prema (1998): T.V. Kapali Sastri (New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers). Osborne, Lucia (1970): “Arthur Osborne,” The Mountain Path, v. 7:4 (October 1970). Paulus, Heinrich Eberhard Gottlob (1804): Philologisch-Kritisch und Historischer Kommentar über das neue Testament , 2nd revised edition (Lübeck, first published 1800). Panikkar, R. (1997): “Le Project Monastique de Monchanin,” Jules Monchanin: Regards croisés d’Occident et d’Orient (Lyon: Profac-Credic). Purucker, Gottfried de (1932): Fundamentals of the Esoteric Philosophy  (Pasadena: Theosophical University Press). Otto, Rudolf (1970): Mysticism East and West (Macmillan, 1970, first published 1932),

Radhakrishnan, S. (1970): “Introduction to Indian Philosophy I”, in Selected Writings on Philosophy, Religion, and Culture, ed. Robert A. McDermott, New York: Dutton, 1970). Rambachan, Anantanand (1991): Accomplishing the Accomplished: The Vedas as a Source of Valid Knowledge in Sankara (Honolulu: University of Hawaii). Rambachan, Anantanand (1994): The Limits of Scripture: Reinterpretation of the Vedas (University of Hawaii Press)

Vivekånanda's

Rodhe, Sten (1993): Jules Monchanin: Pioneer in Christian-Hindu Dialogue (Delhi: ISPCK). Rodhe, Sten (1997): “De la vision inclusive de Jules Monchanin à la vision complémentaire de Bede Griffiths,” in Jules Monchanin: Regards croisés d’Occident et d’Orient (Lyon: Profac-Credic). Roloff, Ilse (ed.) (1934): Meister Eckeharts Schriften zur Gesellschaftsphilosophie, (Jena: Gustav Fischer, 1934). Sarada, Kumari (1998): Ramana Thatha: Grand Father Ramana (Bangalore: Ramana Maharshi Centre for Learning). Scholem, Gershom (1961): Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York: Schocken). Silburn, Lilian (1955): Instant et Cause: Le discontinu dans la pensée philosophique de l’Inde (Paris). Silburn, Lilian (1988): Kundalini: energy of the depths: A Comprehensive Study Based on the Scriptures of Nondualistic Kashmir Shaivism (State University of New York). Smart, Ninian (1968): The Yogi and the Devotee: the Interplay between the Upanishads and Catholic Theology (London: George Allen & Unwin). Spalding, Baird Thomas (1996): Life and Teaching of the Masters of the Far East, 6 volumes (DeVorss & Co., 1996, first published 1924). Subbaramayya, G.V. (1997): In The Maharshi, Sept/Oct 1997, Vol. 7, NO. 5 Suzuki, D.T. (1971): Mysticism, Christian and Buddhism (Harper). Thurstan, F.W. (1890): “the Visit of Apollonius to the Mahatmas of India,” The Theosophist, Vol. 11, February, p. 257ff. Thurstan, F.W. (1895): “Ordeals and mysteries of Ancient Egypt,” the Theosophist, Vol. 16, July, p. 617ff. Thurstan, F.W. (1897): “Hints for Developing Mental Power,” The Theosophist, Vol. 18, April, p. 426ff.

Thurstan, Frederic [F.W.] (1917): “Umbrae, Larvae, Lemures,” Occult Review, Vol. 26, July. Thurstan, Frederic [F.W.] (1918): “The Rishi’s Morning Prayer,” Occult Review, Voo. 27, January, p. 36ff. Thurston, ___ [‘M’]: The Lord God of Truth Within (Los Angeles: Phoenix Press, 1942). Thurston, ___ [‘M’] (1970): The Dayspring of Youth (New York: Samuel Weiser, first published 1930?). The Mountain Path, online at [http://www.ramana-maharshi.org/

m_path/m_path.htm]. Vivekånanda, Swami (1978): Practical Vedanta(Calcutta: Ananda Press, 1978, first published 1896). Villars, Nicholas Pierre Henri de Montfaucon (1922): Le Comte de Gabalis (London: William Rider & Son, first published 1670 anonymously). Von Brück, Michael (1991): The Unity of Reality (New York: Paulist Press). Wilber, Ken (1998): The Eye of Spirit: An Integral Vision for a World Gone Slightly Mad, Boston: Shambhala). Wilber, Ken (1999): One Taste (Boston: Shambhala). Yagi, Seiichi (1987): “I in the Words of Jesus,” The Myth of Christian Uniqueness: Toward a Pluralistic Theology of Religions, ed. John Hick and Paul F. Knitter (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1987). Zimmer, Heinrich (1944): Der Web Zum Selbst: Lehre und Leben des Indischen Heiligen Shri Ramana Maharshi aus Tiruvannamalai (Zurich, Rascher Verlag, 1944). Some works referred to by Ramana: Ashtavakra Gita, Tr. John Richards, online at [http://realization.org/p/ashtavakragita/richards.ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita.html]. The Bible Patanjali: Yoga-Sutra. Peria Puranam, Condensed English Version, ed. G. Vanmikanathan (Chennai: Sri Ramakrishna Math, 1985). Ribhu Gita, tr. Dr. H. Ramamoorthy, (Society for Abidance in Truth, 1994). Tayumanavar, tr. by Himalayan Academy, [www.magna.com.au/~prfbrown/thayumanavar/].

online

at

Tripura Rahasya: The Mystery Beyond the Trinity, tr. Swami Sri Ramanananda Saraswathi (Tiruvannamalai: Sri Ramanasramam, 1989). Vivekacudamaïi. See Ramana’s translation in Collected Works. Also The Crest Jewel of Wisdom, tr. John H. Richards, online at [http://realization.org/page/namedoc0/vc/vc_0.htm]. See also Vivekacudamani of Sri Ùankaracarya, tr. Swami Madhavananda, 9th ed. (Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1974). Yoga Våsistham: The Concise Yoga Vasistha, ed. Christopher Chapple, tr. Swami Venkatesananda (State University of New York, 1984).

 



Glossary advaita: not-two; non-duality aham: I ahamkara: the “I” notion aja: unborn anirvacaniya: indeterminable as either real or unreal atman: self Brahman: ultimate reality buddhi: the mind darshan: a beholding darshana: a philosophical school in Hinduism dvaita: duality dvandva: dualism guha: cave (of the heart) Ishvara: Lord, the manifest Brahman jivanmukta: one who is liberated in this life jivanmukti: the doctrine of liberation in life jnana: knowledge jnani: an enlightened person, one who knows maya: illusory reality moksha: liberation from sa msa ra namarupa: names and forms nirguna Brahman: Brahman without qualities nirvana: Buddhist enlightenment nirvikalpa perception: perception unassociated with a name nirvikalpa samadhi: experience of merging with the One prapancopashama: Buddhist doctrine of “the repose of all things” prarabdhakarma: continuing effects of karma from prior to enlightenment saguna Brahman: Brahman with qualities sahaja samadhi: ‘natural’ enlightenment, returning to the world sadhakai: one who follows a particular spiritual practice or sādhana sa msa ra: the repeating cycle of birth, life, death (reincarnation)

sannyasīi One of the four stages of Hindu life: student, householder, hermit or forestdweller, and sannyasin (complete renunciation). satori: Buddhist enlightenment savikalpa perception: well-defined shloka: verse turiya: the fourth state of consciousness, beyond waking, sleep and deep sleep vasanas: latent ideas and forms of the mind vicara: discernment, self-inquiry vrttis: modifications of the mind (buddhi)

   



ABOUT THE AUTHOR     Dr. J. Glenn Friesen lives in Calgary, Canada. He has an MA (philosophy), LLB (law) and a DLitt et Phil (Religious Studies).  Dr. Friesen has a strong interest in Christian-Hindu dialogue and in explorations and comparisons of spiritual experience. His doctoral dissertation was entitled “Abhishiktānanda’s non-monistic advaitic experience.” Abhishiktānanda was a French Benedictine priest who went to India, and tried to emulate Ramana Maharshi’s advaitic experience. Dr. Friesen has taught comparative mysticism, and has lectured at the C.G. Jung Institute in Switzerland. Dr. Friesen has long been interested in India. At the age of 20, he travelled throughout India for 3 months, after reaching the subcontinent overland from London. He has since made other visits for research purposes. He has stayed at Ramana’s ashram in Tiruvannamalai, Abhishiktānanda’s ashram Shantivanam, Aurobindo’s ashram at Pondicherry, and other centers of spirituality.   Other books by Dr. Friesen: Abhishiktananda (Henri Le Saux): Christian Nondualism and Hindu Advaita (Calgary: Aevum Books, 2015). Neo-Calvinism and Christian Theosophy: Franz von Baader, Abraham Kuyper, Herman Dooyeweerd (Calgary: Aevum Books, 2015). Christian Nondualism in Jewish Historical Context (Calgary: Aevum Books, 2021).  

  [1]Notes for Introduction

  The word ‘annamalai’ is the Tamil form of Arunåchala, the holy mountain. ‘Tiru’ is prefixed to show that it is a holy place. See Sarma 1961, 10 fn. [2] Cover photo © Smejnaya, Dreamstime.com, Holy Indian Mountain Arunachala

Photo [3] “Sri Ramanasramam,” [http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/]. [4] V. Ganesan: Ramana Periya Puranam: Inner Journey of 75 Old Devotees, online at

[https://muddypractice.files.wordpress.com/

2014/01/ramana-periya-puraanam-inner-journey-of-75-old-devotees.pdf]. [5] Ramaïa Maharshi: “Forty Verses,” Collected Works 119 verse 29. [6]Notes for Chapter 1

A sannyasiis one who has entered the fourth stage of life in Hinduism. [7] The same event is referred to in Conscious Immortality, 167. [8] Collected Works, 131. Osborne’s earlier edition (Osborne 1997a) gives a different

translation. [9] The question is recorded in Ramana Gita (see below). [10]Notes for Chapter 2

Narasimha, 24. Also Teachings, 11. [11] Self-Enquiry, pp. 17-38; Collected Works 3-35; Osborne 1997a, 17-47. [12] Talks, 280, para. 317. In this passage, Ramaïa distinguishes between two kinds of

våsanås–those that cause bondage (bandha hetuh) and those that give enjoyment for the wise (bhoga hetuh). The latter do not obstruct realisation. Thus, in his view, not all vasanas need be destroyed. [13]Notes for Chapter 3

 The International Psychic Gazette, May 1913, 295ff; June 1913, 327ff; and July 1913, 357ff. [14] Although Humphreys and Brunton were clearly interested in Madame Blavatsky’s

type of theosophy, not all theosophy is of that type. Gershom Scholem says that ‘theosophy’ should not be understood in the sense of Madame Blavatsky’s later movement of that name:

Theosophy postulates a kind of divine emanation whereby God, abandoning his self-contained repose, awakens to mysterious life; further, it maintains that the mysteries of creation reflect the pulsation of this divine life (Scholem 1961, 206). I have written about the Christian theosophy of Franz von Baader (2015a). Although Christian theosophers believe that creation is an expression of God’s Wisdom or Sophia, they do not regard creation in a pantheistic identification with God. Creation reflects and images the dynamic movement out of the Godhead, but it is also distinct from it. [15] Path of Self-Knowledge, 106. [16]

Information based on “B.V. Narasimha Swamiji,” compiled by Bondada Janardhana Rao, at [http://bonjanrao.blogspot.ca/

2012/08/b-v-narasimhaswamiji.html], accessed May 12, 2015. [17]Notes for Chapter 4

It is unclear whether Blavatsky uses the word 'Overself,' but she uses 'Oversoul', and she makes references to Emerson. [18] Excerpt from an article in The London Forum, ca. 1930, cited by Cahn Fung, I, 15. [19]

Graeme Lyall: “Buddhism and the Future of Humanity,” [http://www.purifymind.com/BuddhismFuture.htm], accessed Aug. 7, 2015. [20]   F. Fletcher wrote a review of  The Sixth Sense: Psychic Origin, Rationale &

Development  in  Theosophical Review  41 (February 1980), 574. Bennet, under the name of Bikkhu Ananda Metteya wrote an article linking Buddhism and theosophy: “Buddhist Gratitude to Henry Steel Olcott.” [21] George I.E. Knight:  Intimate Glimpses of Mysterious Tibet and Neighbouring

Countries (1930). The publicity for the book says: While riding on a bus in London in 1921, the author came upon the following paragraph in a discarded magazine: "What a splendid opportunity now exists for securing the first motion pictures of Lhasa, the Forbidden City of Tibet." 

This chance occurrence inspired a merry little jaunt for five friends to visit Tibet. Not for a moment did they consider the many political and physical obstacles that stood in their way. Their view was: “If the Governments of India and Tibet refused to grant us permission to proceed to Lhasa in a gentlemanly way, there was an alternative course of action.” [22] T.V. Kapali Sastri, Collected Works I, 215. Cited Nandakumar, 1998, 55.

[23] U.G. Krishnamurti: The mystique of Englightenment: The unrational ideas of a

man called U.G. Online at [http://www.realization.org/

page/namedoc0/moe/moe_1.htm], accessed Aug. 7/15. [24] Both statements are cited in a review of T.V. Kapali Sastri’s The Way of Light, in

the Mountain Path 1 (January, 1964), 55. [25]Notes for Chapter 5

Herbert 1937, 25. Abhishiktånanda also frequently refers to this verse from the Gospel of John; Abhishiktånanda 1995, 42 (5.6.52). [26] Herbert 1972a, first published 1947. Jules Monchanin (see below) referred

Abhishiktånanda to this book in his letter dated August 13, 1949. See Monchanin 1995, 62. [27] This may be a reference to Brunton’s dispute with the ashram. Herbert’s emphasis

on Ramaïa’s teaching in silence also seems to owe much to Brunton’s account. [28] Herbert 1972b, first published 1940. Herbert does not mention any prose works by

Ramaïa. Nor do the authors of the works he cites make any reference to Vicharasangraham or Self-Enquiry. [29] This is a French translation, with revisions, of Maha Yoga or the Upanishadic Lore

by “Who” (Tiruvannamalai, 1961). [30] Siddeswarånanda was a member of the Ramakrishna Mission in Paris. On

February 26, 1950, Siddeswarånanda participated in a seminar on yoga at the Sorbonne. [31] Olivier Lacombe: “Sur le Yoga indien,” Études Carmélitaines, October, 1937, pp.

163-176. The next year the same Journal (October, 1938) published another article by him, “Un Exemple de Mystique Naturelle: L’Inde” and one by Jacques Maritain: “L’Experience Mystique Naturelle et le Vide.” Maritain recommends that Catholics should study the experience of the Self where all religious implications are absent. The 1938 volume of Études Carmélitaines contains a full page photograph of Ramaïa Maharshi. In 1954 Abhishiktånanda referred Fr. Lemarié to these articles (Abhishiktānanda 1999, 103; 17.3.54). [32] In a letter to Abhishiktånanda dated November 1953, Monchanin refers to

Lacombe’s 1951 article and its idea of “l’enstase de l’acte de connaître dans l’acte d’exister” (the enstasis of the act of knowing within the act of existing). [33]

S.S. Cohen: Guru Ramaïa: Memories and Notes (Tiruvannamalai: Sri Ramanasramam, 1993, first published 1952) and Reflections on Talks with Sri Ramaïa Maharshi (Tiruvannamalai: Sri Ramanasramam, 1996, first published 1959).

[34] Abhishiktånanda: Souvenirs d’Arunåchala: récit d’un ermite chrétien en terre

hindoue (Paris: Epi SA, 1978), translated as The Secret of Arunåchala (Delhi: ISPCK, 1979, revised 1987), 38. [35] Arthur Osborne: Ramaïa Maharshi and the Path of Self-Knowledge (Samuel

Weiser, 1997, first published 1970). [36] The Mountain Path, Vol. 1 - JANUARY 1964 - No. 1, online at [http://www.ramana-

maharshi.org/m_path/m_path.htm]. [37] The Collected Works of Ramaïa Maharshi, ed. by Arthur Osborne, (New York:

Samuel Weiser, 1997). [38] Lucia Osborne: “Arthur Osborne,” The Mountain Path, v. 7:4 (October 1970). [39] Guhåja (or Guhåntara II) (unpublished, in Abhishiktånanda Archives, Delhi), 86,

87. [40] Letter dated March 6, 1950, cited in Monchanin 1995, 72. See also Monchanin

1974, 293. [41] Monchanin 1995, Letter May 1, 1950, 77. [42] Ibid. Letters dated November, 1953 and February 24, 1954 (pp. 119 and 134).

Monchanin’s views should be contrasted with those of P. de Lubac, who insisted on the distinction between nature and supernature. [43] Ibid., Letter Nov. 1949, p. 67. [44] Monchanin 1974, April 12, 1950, p. 293. Although he found Ramaïa’s actions to

be consistent with his thought, that does not mean that Ramaïa was a model he personally accepted. [45] Ysabel de Andia: “Jules Monchanin, La Mystique Apophatique et l’Inde,” in

Monchanin 1997, 111. Monchanin writes about Parmenides’ hypothesis of a pure One that is-not. He says that this hypothesis leads to apophaticism. (The quotation is from the French translation of Plato’s Parmenides: “d’un pur qui n’est pas”). Another contribution was called “Comparative Mysticism”; it compared the Greek Plotinus and the Buddhist Asaïga, the Moslem Al-Hallaj, and St. John of the Cross. See Sten Rodhe: Jules Monchanin: Pioneer in Christian-Hindu Dialogue (Delhi: ISPCK, 1993), 9. [46] Monchanin 1995, 72. [47] R. Panikkar: “Le Project Monastique de Monchanin,” in Monchanin 1997, 232:

“l’équivalent homéomorphique.”

[48] See “The Pioneering Contributions of Brahmabandhav Upadhyaya” in K.P. Aleaz:

Christian Thought through Advaita Vedånta (Delhi: ISPCK, 1996). [49] Abhishiktånanda 1964, “Note C”, p. 182. [50] Ysabel de Andia: “Jules Monchanin, La Mystique Apophatique et l’Inde,” in

Monchanin 1997, 116. See also Monchanin 1974, 134. [51] Ysabel de Andia: “Jules Monchanin, La Mystique Apophatique et l’Inde,”” in

Monchanin 1997, 125-128. [52] Ibid., pp. 133-135. Harvey Cox makes the same point. Love presupposes

genuinely different selves. God and the world are both real, but different, and the relation between them is love. Harvey Cox: Turning East (Simon and Schuster, 1977), 85, 86. [53] Jacques Gadille: “Jules Monchanin: Prophète dans la Culture et dans l’Église de

son Temps,” in Monchanin 1997,  39, 43. [54]

Sten Rodhe: “De la vision inclusive de Jules Monchanin à la vision complémentaire de Bede Griffiths,” in Monchanin 1997, 224. [55] Letter from C.G. Jung to V. Subrahamanya Iyer, Sept 16, 1937 (Jung 1973, Vol 1,

236, fn2). [56] Jung 1961, 256, 274. [57] Jung 1978b, 179, para. 955. [58] The Spiritual Teachings of Ramaïa Maharshi, with an introduction by C.G. Jung

(Boston: Shambhala, 1988). [59] Jung Collected Works 11, 104, para. 167. [60] Letter from C.G. Jung to Gualthernus H. Mees, in English, Sept. 15, 1947 (Jung

1973, Vol 1, 477). Jung had met Mees in India. [61] Wilber 1999, 201. For Wilber’s quadrants, the x-axis is Interior/Exterior and the y-

axis is Individual/Collective. All quadrants can be lived on many levels such as physical, emotional, mental, soul and spirit. Wilber 1998, 64. [62]Notes for Chapter 6

T.M.P. Mahadevan: Ramaïa Maharshi: The sage of Aruïåcala (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1977). It is interesting that Mahadevan does not emphasize other sources of Ramaïa’s ideas. [63] Teachings, 15. Also Talks, 155, May 19, 1936. This answer was given in response

to a question by Olivier Lacombe (Ramaïa 1946, 99).

[64] Wilhelm Halbfass, “The Concept of Experience in the Encounter Between India

and the West,” India and Europe: An Essay in Understanding (State University of New York, 1988), 384 [65] Halbfass 1998, 379. Halbfass refers to Gadamer’s statement that the concept of

experience is among the least clarified concepts which we have. This applies not only to ‘Erlebnis,’ which has subjective and emotional connotations, but also to the wider word for experience, ‘Erfahrung.’ [66] See also Anantanand Rambachan: The Limits of Scripture: Vivekånanda's

Reinterpretation of the Vedas (University of Hawaii Press, 1994). [67] Even if some neo-Hindu ideas of direct experience derive from William James, this

does not mean that neo-Hinduism is irrational and subjectivistic. Gadamer’s criticism of direct experience may not apply to James, at least not in the same way that it applies to the Romantics. James does not just invert the priority between rational concept and intuitive experience; he sets out a new epistemology of ‘pure perception.’ And he insists that there is a ‘noetic’ element in immediate experience–it is experienced as a kind of knowing. The criticism of subjectivity may also not apply to James. His theory allows for an experience that is prior to any subject/object division. Furthermore, James’s view of the self is not individualistic, but extends outwards to the world. It is connected with other human beings and the surrounding environment (Barnard 1997, 150-52). Ken Wilber defends the idea of immediate experience, using James’s ideas of pure experience (Wilber 1998, 5-6). [68] See also Anantanand Rambachan: Accomplishing the Accomplished: The Vedas

as a Source of Valid Knowledge in Sankara (Honolulu: University of Hawaii, 1991). [69] A.B. Purani, Evening Talks, First Series, p. 127, cited by Prema Nandakumar: T.V.

Kapali Sastri (New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1988), 31. [70] Halbfass 1998, 386. Halbfass questions whether these non-European sources are

sufficient to support the claims of neo-Hinduism. [71] Vivekacuçåmaïi The Crest Jewel of Wisdom, tr. John H. Richards. (Calcutta:

Advaita Ashrama, 1974). [72] Halbfass 1998, 386. Halbfass says that this is so particularly for the Pratyabbhijñå

school in Kashmir Ùaivism. See H.N. Cahkravart: “Divine Recognition: Pratyabhijñå”, in Bäumer 1997, 179. [73] Swami Vivekånanda: Practical Vedånta (Calcutta: Ananda Press, 1978, first

published 1896). [74] Maharshi’s Gospel (Tiruvannamalai: Sri Ramanasramam, 1939), 33.

[75] Fort 1998, 145 citing Teachings 102-103. Fort also cites, “The jëvanmukta lives

only for the good of the world” (Talks, 423). [76] Reflections, 59. [77] Aurobindo: The Synthesis of Yoga (1955), 48, cited by Nandakumar 26. The

reciprocity of rest and action suggests to me a parallel with Franz von Baader’s views of the reciprocity between our self as heart and its expression in its temporal nature. [78] Abhishiktånanda 1974, 87. [79] Abhishiktånanda 1998, 385 (8.7.73). [80] Humphreys says the same in the first biography of Ramaïa :

Jesus, the man, was utterly unconscious when He worked His miracles, and spoke His wonderful words. It was the White Light, the Life, Who is the cause and the effect, acting in perfect concert. “My Father and I are One.” Give up the idea of “I” and “Mine.” Can the body possess anything? can the mind possess anything? Lifeless tools are both, unless the Light of God be shining through. These things which we see and sense are only the split-up colours of the One illimitable Spirit (Humphreys, 25). [81] Talks, 103. Another version of this dialogue is given in the Maharshi, May/June 97,

Vol. 7. [82] Sampurnamma, The Maharshi, Sept./Oct 1992 Vol. 2, No. 5. [83] T.M.P. Mahadevan: Invitation to Indian Philosophy (New Delhi, 1974), 367f, cited

by Michael von Brück: The Unity of Reality (New York: Paulist Press, 1991), 17. [84] See also Reflections, 144; Teachings, 52. [85] T.V. Kapali Sastry: The Maharshi, ed. M.P. Pandit (Ramaïasramam, 1996, first

published 1955), 29. This book must be distinguished from the newsletter of the same name. [86] Brunton says that someone published a statement that he had started a lawsuit

against Ramaïa. He felt compelled to deny the allegation (Notebooks, vol. 10: 2:462). But we know that Brunton was opposed to the way that the ashram was being run. [87] Note: Chetty had written the introduction to Narasimha Swami’s biography of

Ramaïa. [88] Excerpts from the will appear in The Maharshi, May/June 93, Vol. 3, No. 3.

Chadwick also describes some of the circumstances of the signing (Chadwick, 99102). The book is excerpted at [http://www.beezone.com/Ramana/ramanas_will.html]. Chadwick wonders whether Ramaïa was duped into signing the will “by a management that feared loss of its executive powers after his demise.”

[89] See Christopher Chapple, Introduction to The Concise Yoga Vasistha, tr. Swami

Venkatesananda (State University of New York, 1984), xii. Quotations are from this edition of the work. [90] Christopher Chapple finds a relation to the Yogacara idea of “mind-only” from the

Lankavatara Sutra. It speaks of a reciprocity between what is perceived and the means of perception. “The notions of agent, action and result, seer, sight, seen and so forth are all only thought (III: 103:18). Introduction to The Concise Yoga Vaiw (State University of New York Press, 1984), xiii, fn. 10. [91] Christopher Chapple, Introduction to The Concise Yoga Vasistha xiii. [92] Yoga Vasistha, 400. Part of this realization is also that the world is unreal.

Whatever the self contemplates is materialized on account of the inherent power in consciousness. That materialized thought then shines as if it is independent. Whether this view of unreality is consistent with the view that Brahman permeates everything is open to debate. [93] Ribhu Gita, tr. Dr. H. Ramamoorthy, (Society for Abidance in Truth, 1994). [94] Tripura Rahasya: The Mystery Beyond the Trinity, tr. Swami Sri Ramaïananda

Saraswathi (Tiruvannamalai: Sri Ramaïasramam, 1989). It is attributed to Dattatreya, the guru of Patañjali. [95]

See Gopinath Kaviraj: “The Philosophy of Tripura Tantra.” Online at [http://www.shivashakti.com/philtan.htm], accessed October 20, 2015. [96] Tripura Rahasya Chapter XI, verse 85 says, “That which shines as ‘Is’ is Her

Majesty the Absolute Consciousness. Thus the universe is only the Self–the One and one only.” [97]

Canto 2. Online translation of the Tayumånavar at [https://www.himalayanacademy.com/view/the-songs-of-tayumanavar], published by Himalayan Academy. [98] Balaram Reddy, “Recollections of N. Balaram Reddy,” The Maharshi, Mar/Apr

1995, Vol. 5, No. 2. [99] Ibid., Part III, Vol. 5, No. 4. [100] Paul Hacker: “Distinctive Features of the Doctrine and Terminology,” Philology

and Confrontation, 83, referring to Brh. Up I, 4,7. [101] Nonduality, 270. Loy refers to the idea of emanation as “a weaker kind of

monism.” On this view, instead of there being only a monistic One, there is only one type of thing (such as Mind) of which the many particulars are manifestations. It is unclear why he still refers to it as monism, since both the One and its manifestations

are real. Why not just refer to it as nondualism? It appears that Loy’s reluctance to refer to emanation as nondualism is that he regards it as a reification of the Buddhist idea of emptiness. [102] Preface to The Concise Yoga Vasistha (State University of New York, 1984), v. [103] See also Collected Works, 10; Erase the Ego, 12. [104] I have not been able to locate this journal. [105] Translation of Vivekacudamani, Collected Works 242, Osborne 1997a, 153. [106] Talks, 59. Ramaïa refers to the Vivekacudamani to support this priority of sahaja

samadhi. It appears that he is referring to the Vivekacudamani’s emphasis on the jivanmukta. [107] Brunton reports that Ramaïa says, “When mind subsides an unconscious ‘blank’

state is produced, a swoon or trance-like state. Although that is the natural state, a person who has not controlled the mind is dazed and merged in it” (Conscious Immortality 35). [108] The Teachings of Ramaïa Maharshi, p. 112. As we have seen, Ramaïa was

influenced in these ideas by the Yoga Vasistha. [109] A view later expressed by C.G. Jung: The Psychology of Kundalini Yoga, ed.

Sonu Shamdasini (Princeton, 1996). [110] The use of the phrase “Alpha and Omega” is of course a Christian reference from

the Bible (Rev. 22:13). [111] See also Day by Day, 32, Nov. 11/45. [112] Talks, 576. Loy says that Shankara was also of the view that there is no

necessity for yogic practice except for those of “inferior intellect.” See Nonduality, 239. [113] Swami Siddheswarananda in Herbert, 1972 Études, 181-2. [114] Abhishiktånanda 1995, 293 (MC 12.4.73). [115] David Godman: “I AM–the First Name of God”, The Mountain Path 1992 29/3-4,

pp. 126-142. For another recent article on this topic see Seiichi Yagi, “I in the Words of Jesus,” in Hick 1987, 117ff. [116] Talks 102, 106, 110, 140, 155, 323, 401, 424, 487, and 556. [117] Sarma K. Lakshman: “La Récherche,” Herbert, 1972 Études, 120. This is K.

Lakshmana Sarma, who wrote Maha Yoga,. [118] Sarma K. Lakshman, “Le Sage d’Arunåchala,” Herbert 1972, Études 43-4. [119] G.V. Subbaramayya: In The Maharshi, Sept/Oct 1997, Vol. 7, NO. 5.

[120] Ramaïa ’s own idea of reincarnation seems to be that the real Self is continuous

and unaffected. The reincarnating ego belongs to a lower plane, that of thought. It is transcended by self-realization (Teachings, 31). This seems to be opposed to the Buddhist view that there is no continuous entity answering to the idea of the individual soul. [121] Cited by Ramaïanda Swarnagiri in Herbert 1972, Etudes, 213. [122]Notes for Chapter 7

It is found in Chapter 2 of Ramaïa Gītå. [123] These 8 verses were later included in Forty Verses in praise of Sri Ramaïa

(Shankaranarayanan 13 fn1). [124] Balaram Reddy: “The Recollections of N. Balaram Reddy,” The Maharshi,

(May/June, 1995. Vol. 5 No. 3, Part II). [125] See Owen Barfield, Saving the Appearances: A Study in Idolatry (New York:

Harcourt Brace, 1965). This is another of those startling comparisons with Western ideas that we find in neo-Hindu thought. [126] This reference to the Mother is to the French woman Mirra Alfassa (1878-1973).

She was interested in occultism, and went to Algeria in 1905 to study with the adept Max Theon. She met Aurobindo in Pondicherry in 1914, and in 1920 moved there to join him. In 1926, the ashram was founded, and the Mother was placed in charge; this continued until her death in 1973. Her own Collected Works number 17 volumes. She is venerated as a yogin, and Aurobindo himself considered her to be the divine Conscious Force dominating all existence. [127] Nandakumar explains this as Agni, the flame in the cave of our heart. We can

ascend to heaven without our leaving the waking state, or ‘Earth.’ Agni becomes Skandha (Nandakumar, 40). [128] Balaram Reddy: The Recollections of N. Balaram Reddy, The Maharshi,

(May/June, 1995. Vol. 5 No. 3, Part II). [129] T.V. Kapali Sastry: The Maharshi, ed. M.P. Pandit (Ramaïasramam, 1996, first

published 1955). This book must be distinguished from the newsletter of the same name. [130] Abhishiktånanda 1998: Secret, p. 41. Over time, Abhishiktånanda had an

increasing appreciation for Aurobindo. [131] Gaïapati Muni: Ramaïa Gita: Dialogues with Sri Ramaïa Maharshi, tr. A.R.

Natarajan (Bangalore: Ramaïa Maharshi Centre for Learning, 1994). Sastri’s commentary on Ramaïa Gita, entitled Prakåùa was read to Ramaïa and received his

blessing. In the introduction he says that some traditional scholars may find deviations from received ideas. Secular activities, dharma, artha and kåma are means to attain the knowledge of the self. Tantra gives us mukti (liberation as well as bhukti (cosmic enjoyment). Integral yoga is transforming the human into the divine by harnessing nature to the way of Truth (Nandakumar, 96). [132] Nandakumar 19, citing Kapali Sastri’s Collected Works III, 264.