[Chaturamnaya] Ramana Yoga Sutras (9)

[S Jayanarayanan]

(Continued from previous post)
 
http://www.arunachala.org/newsletters/2011/nov-dec
 
VIII. ““aham aham iti”” As ‘‘I-I’’
 
1. The direct experience that comes to a sadhaka as a
fruition of his endeavors is the experience of the Ultimate as
‘‘I-I’’. In the negative way, various descriptions have been
given of this experience, e. g., ““It is neither light nor darkness;
it gives light so it is called The Light. It is neither knowledge
nor ignorance; it gives knowledge, so it is Knowledge (chit).””
In modern language too: ““It is not being nor becoming, but
it exists; therefore it is called Sat, in contrast to all other
things that disappear.”” Bhagavan calls this experience the
‘‘I-experience’’. In that state one must have been there to
experience it; it must be devoid of any other experience,
then only can it be said to be the Self and nothing else.
 
2. Some have questioned: ‘‘There being only one
experience, why should Bhagavan have used two I’’s (‘‘I-I’’)
to describe it?’’ One explanation is, the second ‘‘‘I’’ does
not indicate a subsequent experience, but is used to
‘‘confirm’’ the experience. Others say, ““In nirvikalpa
samadhi, you get a similar experience, but it is not
continuous – like the flash of lightning, it appears and
disappears, –so two I’’s are used. Finally, the experience
becomes a continuous one.”
 
3. We may add that in this experience of yoga there is a
slight tinge of individuality and the mind can be said to exist
in a very, very rarified state called ‘‘visuddha sattva’’. But in
actual experience it makes no difference. The experience is
something like a throb. That is why it may be called ‘‘‘jnana
spanda’’ (a throb of knowledge).
 
IX. ‘‘brahma matram’’ Only Brahman
 
People knowledgeable of Sastras will question whether
the Atman experienced can be real because the experience
may be of only a short duration. They also say that in the
texts the Atman is said to be infinitesimally thin (thanvi), but
Bhagavan says It is big, too. How is this to be reconciled?
The texts themselves give the answer, which Bhagavan has
also repeated: ““Smaller than the smallest and bigger than
the biggest…” says the Upanishad.”
 
The Sruti says, ““Verily all this is Brahman”.” Then can
there be no difference between the Atman and the Brahman?
In the Atman there is the superimposition of the manifested
cosmos which alone is apparent to you and which prevents
your experiencing the Atman as Brahman. In the state of
knowledge, the superimposed mental knowledge
disappears, and, call It whatever you will, Atman or
Brahman, It alone remains, without a second. As the Sruti
says: ‘Ekameva’’ (only one), ‘‘Adviteedyam’’ (no second).
 
X. ‘‘kevalam’’ Only
 
Philosophy expounds three types of differences:
‘‘sajateeya’’, the difference between a horse and another
horse; ‘‘Vijateeya’’, the difference between a horse and a
cow; ‘‘Svagata’’, the difference between the hand and the
foot in one’s person. Bhagavan says that none of these
types of differences exist in Brahman. It is like an ocean –
all salt water, though not totally like an ocean because salt
exists there in a state of dissolution. There is nothing
dissolved in the Atman. It is pure.
 
This aphorism is necessary to controvert the position
that Brahman is saguna (with form). Otherwise, how
could a cosmos with various attributes come out of It?
Bhagavan says, ““No, It has no attributes; It is purna,
undefiled by any admixture.”” It is, in Sanskrit, ‘‘ghana’’,
not giving scope to any other thing. The Ultimate is
anandaghana, not anandamaya.
 
EPILOGUE
 
These aphorisms are the very words of Sri Bhagavan.
All but one of them have been taken from the first Sanskrit
verse he wrote in about the year 1913, the famous
““Hridaya Kuhara”” sloka found in Chapter II of Sri
Ramana Gita. Aphorism number four has been taken
from Ramana Gita itself (Chapter VI, v. 5). Bhagavan
himself gave several of the explanations. The rest has been
culled from other philosophical texts, so that the author
of this brochure makes no claim for originality. Nor does
he claim that Bhagavan’’s teaching, except in one point, is
original. So far as he is aware, Bhagavan’’’s teaching and
explanations are in tune with the best traditional Advaitic
thought and texts.
 
(Concluded)