Ramana Maharshi Says Unless The Realization Is Eternal It Cannot Be Much Helpful

Q: Many visitors here tell me that they get visions or thought-currents from you. I have been here for the last month and a half and still I have not the slightest experience of any kind. Is it because I am unworthy of your grace?

A: Visions and thought-currents are had according to the state of mind. It depends on the individuals and not upon the universal presence. Moreover, they are immaterial. What matters is peace of mind.What is realization? Is it to see God with four hands, bearing a conch, a wheel and a club? Even if God should appear in that form, how is the disciple's ignorance wiped out ? The truth must eternal realization. The direct perception is ever-present experience.

God himself is known when he is directly perceived. It does not mean that he appears before the devotee in some particular form. Unless the realization is eternal it cannot serve any useful purpose. Can the appearance of God with four hands be eternal realization? It is phenomenal and illusory.

There must be a seer. The seer alone is real and eternal.Let God appear as the light of a million suns. Is it pratyaksha [direct experience]? To see a vision of God the eyes and the mind are necessary. It is indirect knowledge, whereas the seer is direct experience. The seer alone is pratyaksha.

Source: Be as you are – The teachings of Sri Ramana Maharishi By David Godman

My Friend Subramanian.R wants to add few more points

Some devotee asked Bhagavan: "Bhagavan! What will you do if Arunachaleswara comes before you? What will you ask Him or say?"

Bhagavan smiled and said: "I would say, O Arunachala! Do not keep this business of coming and going before me. Please stay put in my Heart."

Read More

Ramana Maharshi Says Mukti Has To Be Gained In Full Awareness (Waking State)

15th April, 1937

A frequent visitor to the Ashram is cogitating over the problem of Maya and its relation to the waking and dream states.

V. Is there any genuine difference between the experience of jagrat and that of dreams?

Bh. None, except that jagrat appears to be more enduring than the other to the person who is in jagrat, though not so to the dreamer himself. The person in jagrat
relates his dream to have sometimes covered hundreds of years, hence he calls it transitory, whereas actually there is not the slightest difference between the nature
of the two states.

V. There is this difference: each time we return to jagrat, we come to the same place, same people, same activities and interests, which is not the case with going to the svapna state.

Bh. This is because things move very rapidly in dreams, as they appear now to you in jagrat. But each time you go to the dream world do you feel being a stranger in it? Do you not feel thoroughly at home with the people and places as you do here? Don’t you sometimes dream of being a minister, or meeting your father who had died in jagrat long ago, or seeing God seated on a throne,etc., without noticing any incongruity in it? The dream is as real then to you as jagrat is now. Where is the
difference? If you call the dream illusion, why do you not do so to jagrat also?

C. I suppose efforts have to be made in the waking state, which implies that moksha can be gained only in jagrat.

Bh. Quite so, awareness is necessary for mind control; otherwise who is to make the effort? You cannot make it in sleep or under the influence of drugs. Also mukti has to be gained in full awareness, because the Reality itself is pure awareness.

MoreOver Micheal James in his "Happiness And Art Of Living" book says,

Since our illusory imagination that we are a body in dream is so easily dissolved by even a superficial self-attention, it is difficult for us to attend to ourself deeply and keenly in dream.Therefore it is only in the present waking state that we can seriously make an effort to attend to ourself deeply – that is, to attend wholly and exclusively to our essential self-consciousness ‘I am’.

V. Arjuna saw the Divine Form of Sri Krishna. Was that vision true?

Bh. Sri Krishna started the discourse in Chapter II of the Bhagavad Gita with: “I have no form,” etc., but in Chapter XI, He said: “I transcend the three worlds . . . ,” yet Arjuna saw these in Him.

Again Sri Krishna said: “I am Time.” Does time have a form? If the universe is His form, should it not be uniform and changeless, He being the Changeless One?

The solution to these apparent contradictions lies in His statement to Arjuna: “See in Me all you desire to see. . . ,” which means that His form varies according to the desires and conceptions of the seer.

Men speak of divine visions, yet paint them differently with the seer himself in the scene. Even hypnotists can make one see strange scenes and phenomena, which you condemn as tricks and jugglery,whereas the former you extol as Divine. Why is this difference?

The fact is that all sights are unreal, whether they come from the senses or the mind as pure concepts.THIS IS THE TRUTH.

Source: GURU RAMANA MEMORIES AND NOTES By S. S. COHEN

Read More

Ramana Maharshi Says Unless The Realisation Be Eternal It Cannot Serve Any Useful Purpose

Talk 469

What is Realisation? Is it to see God with four hands, bearing conch, wheel, club, etc.? Even if God should appear in that form,how is the disciple’s ignorance wiped out? The truth must be eternal realisation. The direct perception is ever-present Experience.God Himself is known as directly perceived. It does not mean that He appears before the devotee as said above.

Unless the Realisation be eternal it cannot serve any useful purpose. Can the appearance with four hands be eternal realisation? It is phenomenal and illusory.There must be a seer. The seer alone is real and eternal.

Let God appear as the light of a million suns: Is it pratyaksha? To see it, the eyes, the mind, etc. are necessary. It is indirect knowledge,whereas the seer is direct experience. The seer alone is pratyaksha.

All other perceptions are only secondary knowledge. The present super-imposition of the body as ‘I’ is so deep-rooted, that the vision before the eyes is considered pratyaksha but not the seer himself.No one wants realisation because there is no one who is not realised.

Can anyone say that he is not already realised or that he is apart from the Self? No. Evidently all are realised. What makes him unhappy is the desire to exercise extraordinary powers. He knows that he cannot do so. Therefore he wants God to appear before him, confer all His powers on the devotee, and keep Himself in the background. In short,God should abdicate His powers in favour of the man.

D.: It is all right for mahatmas like Sri Bhagavan to speak out so plainly.Because the Truth does not swerve from you, you consider it easy for all others. Nevertheless, the common folk have a real difficulty.

M.: Then does anyone say that he is not the Self?

D.: I meant to say that no one else has the courage to put things straight like Maharshi.

M.: Where is the courage in saying things as they are?

Source: Talks With Ramana Maharshi Book

Readers interested are requested to read below articles as well

http://prashantaboutindia.blogspot.com/2009/05/ramana-maharshi-why-do-religions-speak.html

http://prashantaboutindia.blogspot.com/2009/03/ramana-maharshi-comments-about-lord.html

http://prashantaboutindia.blogspot.com/2010/03/ramana-maharshi-says-to-find-out-truth.html

Read More