The Maharshi

II. INTRODUCTION TO THE RAMANAGITA-PRAKASHA

The Lord of all the worlds, One is He, in the Heart abides.

He the Self, is also She the Supreme Gaze, other than That is nothing else.

Disunion She brooks not, of the Powerful the sole Power is She, the wakeful.

Of the countless worlds visible, the birth and the rest She holding shines.

Whom she has closely held as the she-cat her catling, He seeks her clinging as the baby monkey does the mother.

Victorious is he, the Bhagavan Ramana;
Victorious is the teacher Ganapati, master of speech;
Victorious, yea, his speech is Running close to Ramana’s import.

Now then, this Ramana-Gita of eighteen chapters is commented upon; and Ramana is the great sage dwelling in the holy place Arunachala. The Gita is the Shastra comprising his instructions.

(Here is a doubt) Let there be the instructions of the Maharshi, seer of Truth. Let the work hold sway as authentic over the hearts of those who have the faith. But why is it titled Gita? Is not the term Gita renowned as Lord Vasudeva’s instructions? Well, there are works which deal with Truth-instructions whose position is admittedly that of the Gita. For instance, there are the Gitas of Rama, Hanuman, Ganesha and others. Some call the narrative of Dharmavyadha as Vyadha Gita. Even so, Sri Ramana’s instructions devoted to spiritual knowledge occupy the position of a Gita and in this sense appropriate is the title which is suggestive also of the authenticity of the Shastra.

Authentic or not,—the question is not one to be decided by the mere title. It depends upon the instructor with competency to instruct. Hence it is that we see in the world authenticity recognised of utterances being trustworthy, of seers who have realised the Dharma—the truth and character and law of being.

Is it, then, that a statement is to be accepted as an authority, without deliberation on the ground that it is revelation or received text? Not so-one must think over and understand; but the range of critical thought has a limit. How far is the limit? In order to understand the sense of a received text, attempt must be made at a reasoned appreciation of the meanings of trustworthy statements by means of perception and inference (which include observation, reflection and deliberative scrutiny and reconciling of apparent contradictions) and not question the statement of the authentic text itself.

If this be the restriction on deliberative thought, very little is the use for perception and inference. No. Great is the use for them. For in the world the sense of any statement is determined only by perception and inference. Be it done so in the world; how can they-perception and inference—be of use in understanding trustworthy statements which refer to trans-sensuous objects?

We say: just as in the world, in the field of sense-objects, so in the trans-sensuous. How? We reply: in the world a person desirous of knowing a particular thing which he does not know understands as much of it as he can in the measure of his intelligence and general refinement or culture, and by so doing, he gains new impressions. Similarly, in the trans-sensuous realm also by grasping the trustworthy word, knowledge comes in the measure of the intellectual refinement. Such a refinement in the matter of understanding the trans-sensuous is a gain-useful in the inquiry into the subtle truths. Whoever has it ripens pure by such subtle inquiries.

If this be so, then belief alone is the refuge, and not perception and inference, in accepting the revealed text or trustworthy statement? Not so; where other means of knowledge is not or is not contradicted, there faith in the trustworthy utterance alone is the refuge. Just as a person who has not seen, but who is desirous of seeing, a particular object in a remote place, puts faith in the words of one who has seen it and in order to arrive at a defnite understanding makes an attempt to investigate the truth of the statements through reflection by means of perception and inference, and as the investigation proceeds new impressions are gained resulting in a newer refinement useful to the realisation of the object in view, so also here.

Moreover, this is a settled fact observed in the world. By experience developed from childhood onward there is an increasing gain of newer and newer impressions by which, in certain cases previous ones are removed, in certain others refined and modified, there is an anticipation of things which are to be seen but not seen, in certain other cases rejections of what is known or acceptance of it, spontaneous renouncing of certain things and acceptance of certain others. Thus it is seen from experience that perception and inference themselves reveal their limitations. And to a person getting to know things trans-sensuous the insufficiency of perception and inference is patent.

Therefore trustworthy statements are authoritative in understanding the trans-sensuous. To cherish the trans-sensuous as something worthy of attainment a certain culture is necessary which does not find place in one who is possessed of contrary culture. But a disposition to the necessary culture makes for competency (to enquire into the trans-sensuous).

Here some one objects: we do not doubt the authenticity of a trustworthy statement if by that is meant the Shruti, the revealed scripture. Further he makes the position clear.

However trustworthy and respectable great men may be, after all they, being human, how can their experiences and utterances based upon them be decided to be devoid of error or delusion? But Shruti, the scripture, is Veda, beginningless, is of no human origin, is exhalation of Parabrahman, the supreme truth of All-exsitence. While sentences in the Veda, as in the world, are intelligible to human understanding, how is it possible to hold that it is not of human origin or has no beginning? This doubt need not be entertained; it is beginningless because it is there from immemorial time, or nobody knows the author or the time.

This is extraordinary reasoning: it is beginningless because the author or the time is not known; and because it is beginningless it is not of human origin and because it is not of human origin it is authentic, free from error, delusion.

And more he says—the objector.

If it be said that the mantras which are truth-visions of Madhucchandas etc., make it clear that they are composed by human beings, we reply in the negative. For they by the power of askesis, tapas, visioned and not composed what was there self-existent in the supreme or causal Ether, akasa—the exhalation of Brahman. Having so seen they gave them out to the world for us; therefore they could not be the makers of mantras. Thus our position is well grounded. For we hold that the eternal Veda is the supreme authority that cannot be equalled.

Here we reply: a difference is to be admitted between what is self-existent in the supreme akasa and the same as transferred to the realm of speech through the seeings of the seer. If difference is not admitted, your argument falls down—the one that the human being, however great he may be, is not free from delusion. If difference is admitted, the argument you raised strengthens our position, for we hold that the great man in whom the inner sight is open need not be prone to error or delusion. Therefore it is that the mantras which are revealed to the seers who are face to face with Dharma, the state or character or law of being, occupy the place of authority.

And if delusion or error is likely even in the case of great souls, then .the mantras that are seen got and chanted cease to be authentic. As for the human element it is common to all seers whose greatness is of varying degrees, high and low.

Therefore, what is seen and got is authentic because it is revelation and not because it is beginningless or is of non-human origin. As for the statement that the Vedas are authentic because they have no beginning and are not man-made, that depends on the description of the character of the Mantras and the Brahmanas. In that matter there is a lot of confusion due to varying statements. We do not investigate it here as it is of little use for our present purpose.

Then, there is another objection: from time immemorial Shastras have been handed down to us beginning from the Rig Veda. There are the mantra revelations of the early seers beginning with Madhucchandas. By studying them, repeating them in low tones, or using them in rituals according to prescribed rules, the desired object is gained, or the state of union is realised with the Self of any or all the Gods. Similarly, there are explanatory utterances of Yajnavalkya and other Upanishadic seers which pertain to the realisation of the Self pointed to by many sadhanas or disciplines called Vidyas. Besides, there are smrtis of Dwaipayana Vyasa elucidating the sense of the authentic Shruti, revelation. Thus, the instructions of teachers ancient as well as of those of later times are there reigning supreme.

While there are thus so many Shastras being well understood, what is the use of this new one? For great are these seers whose words are quite sufficient and of supreme authority to us. If it be thus argued, we reply:

It is doubtless that the authenticity of the revealed texts is most respectable because they are the instructions of Truth-seers, coming down to us from a long past. Even though this is so, it must be remembered that Truth remains invariable, unaffected by place and time. Even as in the world the natural functions of the bodily senses etc. are unexceptionable, and the senses’ contacting with their objects does not vary with time and place, even as the sciences like mathematics etc. have their methods regulated and are verifiable, even so the spiritual truths are instructed as verifiable by experience irrespective of time and place).

And then, in the world, for instance, the sciences are imperfect and step by step develop and there is no fixity about them. But in the Science which deals with the supreme purpose of life, everything that has to be said has been already said by the ancients and it is not possible for any one to say what is left unsaid. Therefore, this work as an authority is of lesser importance and is of little use because of the absence of anything special about it. If this be the objection we reply:

It is not that Parashara and other seers did not sing in praise of Agni because the seer Madhucchandas sang. It is not that sages of the other branches of the Veda according to their school ceased to acclaim the discipline or sadhana that goes by the name of Pranavidya, because the Samavedins cited it. The enquiry into Brahman made by the Taittiriyakas is done by the Atharvanikas also and for that reason no wise man deems it to be futile or less authoritative. Indeed, even though all the teachings of the Upanishads find their harmony in the Brahman, yet it is a fact that the method of instructions varying according to the different schools in the matter of discipline and means of attainment has a use all its own.

Moreover, it is doubtful that the ancient teachers have exhausted all that is to be taught. There is no objection whatever to the view that the principle of the supreme truth was essentially seen and largely explained. Also, it is not wrong to hold that the character of the experience of the supreme truth is essentially one. But even though the experience of the nature of the Infinite Self is at all times and everywhere the same, and without difference, yet it is manyfaceted through individuals of different times realising it who differ in their explanation, understanding and exposition. And it is thus useful and necessary to the seekers of varying tastes and capacity of different ages.

Therefore, time after time, appear great souls and by the strength of their spiritual opulence, the Brahmavidya—the art of the knowledge of Brahman-continues without interruption among mankind.

In this Shastra, then, which goes after the name of Sri Ramana, the Maharshi is the instructor of whom and of whose teachings whatever has to be stated has been stated in the commentary on the Sat-Darsana and the Introduction thereof. Hence, it is not repeated here. But whatever is desired necessary for the present work, useful to the seekers, is mentioned in brief.

The fourfold object of man’s life is well known. (These are the four: Dharma, the true character or law or state of being; Artha, ordinarily “object, here the ’meaning or purpose’; Kama, desire; Moksha, release from bondage).

The realisation of the true nature of one’s own self is the supreme meaning or purpose of any one’s existence. But because of weakness and of the lack of ripeness in persons, Dharma, Artha and Kama (ordinarily morality, wealth and desire for enjoyment) are commonly called objects of life, and are found indispensable and have utility of their own. Therefore, even prior to the acquisition of ripeness, the person desirous of getting at the Good must direct his attempt at the threefold object (Dharma, Artha and Kama) in a such way that it becomes favourable to the attainment of the supreme object of life—Moksha or liberation. While Artha, wealth or possession, Kama, desire, and Dharma, the moral principle that exercises a restraining influence over these two are unavoidable in life until the attainment of the supreme Good, these (the three objects Dharma etc.) have to be so disciplined that they transform themselves into limbs of the Sadhana or discipline that leads to the achievement of the supreme purpose.

Therefore, if a person has faith in the Spiritual i.e. in the sphere of the Self or Spirit, even though he may be, for the time being, after Dharma, Artha and Kama, with non-attachment or dispassion not yet come upon him, even though his aspiration for knowledge is not yet quite keen, to such a one great will be the help of Sri Maharshi’s teachings. For persons who are yet after Dharma, Artha and Kama, of whatever caste or no caste, of whatever stage or no stage in the four recognised stages of life, men or women, could assume the spiritual attitude, getting on in life favourable to the spiritual discipline.

We stated that Sri Maharshi is the instructor in this Shastra; but the instructed are many who are the questioners. While questions were put and the answers given, or while the Maharshi of his own accord gave discourses (which are recorded here) the teacher Ganapati Muni, Vasishtha, foremost among his disciples, was present; by him this work in the form of questions and answers was composed then and there.

And then, whatever instruction the Maharshi gives, it is from personal experience or by seeing within to give the Word, and not by considering the Shastras for the purpose. Even though his words of reply to questions or his spontaneous utterances come independently of the Shastras, yet to the thoughtful mind it would be clear that the Shastraic principles fit in with his utterances. And wherever there is contrariety to convention or deviation from the Dharma Shastras that are in vogue for the time being, even there, it will be a priceless treasure to those who have for their aim the realisation of the supreme purpose of life. For here all the questions are considered from the point of view of spiritual truth. Therefore, here, in matters mundane or spiritual, it is the spiritual point of view that is instructed for adoption by all. Even though the questioners are many and their questions and competency differ, yet all the answers to the questions are shown to be harmonised in the spiritual view.

Hence, the subject matter of the work is, in main, enquiry into the attainment of one’s own true nature, of the self, as other subjects such as the social ones and the four stages in life, are affirmed as subsidiary to it. The connection is the relation between what is to be known and what causes the knowledge. He is competent who is endowed with faith in the spiritual life. The supreme purpose of human life is the use, the purpose.

The sole object, the meaning of man, is to be understood as the sole Supreme Truth. The other objects of life, Dharma and others, are in reality unified therein. And the knowers of Shastra say “That in which the principle of being is not destroyed is Bhava, being, Dharma, what holds firmly.” That being so,

As the Self abides in being as existence, to be settled in that is the supreme Dharma of man or law of his being.

As the meaning of Self is ’I’ whose character is Consciousness, to know that is the supreme

Artha, the meaning of man, the purpose of his life. As the self being blissful, is the dearest (to every one the love of it is the supreme

Kama, the desire of man.

Thus, Dharma, Artha and Kama appearing as three distinct objects of life have for their aim only one object, one import: that is the realisation of Brahman as the self shining in the heart, as the "l’eternal, pure, conscious and free in his nature; he is to be sought for, he is to be known by subtle enquiry. This is the heart of Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi’s teachings.

How this is the sense of all the teachings of Sri Ramana, will be shown clearly in this Gita of 300 verses.