GOD
Superficially, it might seem that the Maharshi's statements about God were inconsistent, since he would sometimes enjoin complete faith and submission to God and sometimes speak of God as unreal; but actually there was no inconsistency. It must always be remembered that the purpose of his exposition was not to propound a philosophy but to give practical guidance on the spiritual path. Someone who could conceive of the non-dual Self could understand that it was his own Self and the Self of God and of the world also, whereas one who clung to the apparent reality of his ego could understand the Self only as the God who had created him. According to their needs he explained. In this, as in other matters, he pointed out the uselessness of discussion. Following either path was useful; theorising about them was not.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. Therefore to inhere in one's own Being, when the ego is dead is the perfect state.
`The world is real', `No, it is mere illusory appearance', `The
world is conscious,' `No', `The world is happiness', `No,' ? What use is it to argue thus? That state is agreeable to all wherein, having given up the objective outlook, one knows one's Self and loses all notions either of unity or duality, of oneself and the ego.
If one has form oneself, the world and God will also appear to have form; but if one is formless, who is to see these forms, and how? Without the eye can any object be seen? The seeing Self is the Eye, and that Eye is the Eye of Infinity.1
Brahman is not to be seen or known. It is beyond the three fold relationship of seer, sight and seen, or knower, knowledge and known. The Reality remains ever as it is. The existence of ignorance or the world is due to our illusion. Neither knowledge nor ignorance is real; what lies beyond them, as beyond all other pairs of opposites, is the Reality. It is neither light nor darkness but beyond both, though we sometimes speak of it as light and of ignorance as its shadow.2
When there was genuine search for understanding, Bhagavan would explain in some details, always leading the seeker back to the doctrine of the One Self.
Mr. Thompson, a very quiet young gentleman who has been staying in India for some years and studying Hindu philosophy as an earnest student, asked: Srimad Bhagavad Gita says: `I am the prop for Brahman'. In another place it says: `I am in the Heart of each one'. Thus the different aspects of the Ultimate Principle are revealed. I take it that there are three aspects, namely: (1) the transcendental, (2) the immanent, and (3) the cosmic. Is Realisation to be in any of these or in all of
Page 38
them? Coming to the transcendental from the cosmic, Vedanta discards the names and forms as being maya. Again Vedanta also says that the whole is Brahman, as illustrated by gold and ornaments of gold. How are we to understand the truth?
B.: The Gita says: Brahmano hi pratishtaham. If that aham
is known, the whole is known.
D.: That is the immanent aspect only.
B.: You now think that you are an individual; outside you
there is the universe and beyond the universe is God. So there is the idea of separateness. The idea must go. For God is not separate from you or the cosmos. The Gita also says:
`I am the Self, O Gudakesa, seated in the heart of all beings;
I am the beginning and the middle and also the end of all beings.'1
Thus God is not only in the heart of all, He is the prop of all. He is the source of all, their abiding place and their end. All proceed from Him, have their stay in Him, and finally resolve into Him. Therefore He is not separate.
D.: How are we to understand the line in the Gita: `This
whole cosmos forms a particle of me.'
B.: It does not mean that a small particle of God separates
from Him and forms the universe. His shakti is acting; and as a result of one phase of such activity the cosmos has become manifest. Similarly the statement in Purusha Sukta: Padosya viswa bhutani (All beings form one of His parts) does not mean that Brahman is in four parts.
D.: I understand that. Brahman is certainly not divisible.
B.: So the fact is that Brahman is all and remains
indivisible. He is ever realised. However, man does not know this; and it is just what he has to know. Knowledge means overcoming the obstacles which obstruct the revelation of the
Page 39
Eternal Truth that the Self is the same as Brahman. The obstacles taken altogether form your idea of separateness as an individual. Therefore the present attempt will result in the truth being revealed that the Self is not separate from Brahman.1
Christians, except for the greatest mystics, cling to the idea of a permanently real and separate ego. Sri Bhagavan had a discussion on this point with a Jesuit Father, but it remained inconclusive, Bhagavan trying to turn the Father's mind inwards to Self-enquiry and the Father demanding a theoretical exposition instead.
Dr. Emile Gathier, S. J., Professor of Philosophy at the
Sacred Heart College, Shenbaganur, Kodaikanal, asked: Can you kindly give me a summary of your teachings?
B.: They are found in the booklets, particularly in Who am I?
D.: I shall read them. But may I have the central point of
your teaching from your own lips?
B.: The central point is just the thing.
D.: It is not clear to me what you mean by that.
B.: That you should find the centre.
D.: I come from God. Isn't God distinct from me?
B.: Who asks this question? God does not. You do. So find
who you are and then you may find out whether God is distinct from you.
D.: But God is perfect and I am imperfect. How can I
ever know Him fully?
B.: God does not say so. It is you who ask the question.
After finding out who you are, you may know what God is.
D.: But you have found your Self. Please let us know if
God is distinct from you.
Page 40
B.: It is a matter of experience. Each one must experience
it for himself.
D.: Oh! I see. God is infinite and I am finite. I have a
personality which can never merge into God. Isn't that so?
B.: Infinity and perfection do not admit of parts. If a finite
being is apart from Infinity, the perfection of Infinity is marred. Thus your statement is a contradiction in terms.
D.: No, see, there is both God and creation.
B.: How are you aware of your personality?
D.: I have a soul. I know it by its activities.
B.: Did you know it in deep sleep?
D.: The activities are suspended in deep sleep.
B.: But you exist in sleep and you do now too. Which of
these two is your real state?
D.: Sleep and waking are mere accidents. I am the substance
behind the accidents.
(He looked up at the clock and said that it was time for
him to catch the train. He left after thanking Sri Bhagavan. So the conversation ended abruptly).1
The following talk takes up various problems which plague philosophers and theologians ? Divine Omniscience and freewill; natural laws and divine activity; personal God and impersonal; and yet the tone of the answer shows that Bhagavan considers it of rather secondary importance.
D.: What is the relation between my freewill and the over-
shadowing might of the Omnipotent? (a) Is the Omnipotence of God consistent with the ego's free-will? (b) Is the Omniscience of God consistent with the ego's freewill? (c) Are natural laws consistent with God's freewill?
Page 41
B.: Yes. Freewill is the present appearing to a limited faculty
of sight and will. That same ego sees its past activity as falling into a course of `law' or rules -- its own freewill being one of the links in the course of law. The Omnipotence and Omniscience of God are then seen by the ego to have acted through the appearance of his own freewill. So he comes to the conclusion that the ego must go by appearances. Natural laws are manifestations of God's will and they have been laid down.1
The following dialogue is characteristic as showing refusal to discuss theory and insistence on the need for practice.
D.: Is God personal?
B.: 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 will remain as the `I', the Self.
D.: The final state of Realisation is said, according to Advaita,
to be 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?
B.: Why speculate about what will happen at 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.
D.: But will not some understanding of the final state be a
helpful guide even to the aspirant?
Page 42
B.: No purpose is served by trying to decide now what the
final state of Realisation will be. It has no intrinsic value.
D.: Why not?
B.: Because you proceed on a wrong principle. Your
conclusion is arrived at by the intellect which shines only by the light it derives from the Self. Is it not presumptuous on the part of the intellect to sit in judgement over that from which it derives its little light? 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 Realisation? 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. Instead of indulging in mere speculation, devote yourself here and now to the search for the Truth that is ever within you.1
Sometimes questions were also asked about the multiple gods of Hinduism. In this connection it should be explained that Hindus, like Christians or Muslims worship the One God. Some of the questions about God recorded above were put by Hindus. However, they also worship God manifested in various forms, one possibility or name or form or viewpoint not negating another.
D.: Why are so many gods mentioned?
B.: The body is only one, but how many functions are
performed by it! The source of all these functions is one. It is the same with the gods.2
It would sometimes be asked whether the various gods and their heavens were real. But such a question starts from the presumption of the reality of this physical world and the questioner's body -- a presumption which Bhagavan would
Page 43
not admit. Instead, he would turn this question, like all others, to the quest for Reality.
D.: Are the Gods, Ishvara and Vishnu, and their heavens,
Kailas and Vaikuntha, real?
B.: As real as you are in this body.
D.: I mean, have they got a phenomenal existence like my
body, or are they pure fictions like the horns of a hare?
B.: They do exist.
D.: If so, they must be somewhere; where are they?
B.: In you.
D.: Then they are only my idea; something which I create
and control?
B.: Everything is.
D.: But I can create a pure fiction like the horns of a hare,
or a partial truth, like a mirage; while there are also facts which exist irrespective of my imagination. Do the gods, Ishvara and Vishnu, exist like that?
B.: Yes.
D.: Is God subject to cosmic dissolution at the end of a cycle?
B.: Why should He be? A man who realises the Self
transcends cosmic dissolution and is liberated; why should not Ishvara (God) who is infinitely wiser and abler than a man?
D.: Do gods and devils also exist?
B.: Yes.
D.: How are we to conceive of Supreme Divine Consciousness?
B.: As that which is.1
Particularly interesting are the questions asked by a Muslim professor about the hymns which Bhagavan wrote to God in the form of Arunachala.
Page 44
D.: I have been reading the Five Hymns. I find that the
hymns are addressed by you to Arunachala. But you are a non- dualist, so how can you address God as a separate Being?
B.: The devotee, God and the hymns are all the Self.
D.: But you are addressing God. You are specifying this
Arunachala Hill as God.
B.: You can identify the Self with the body, so why shouldn't
the devotees identify the Self with Arunachala?
D.: If Arunachala is the Self, why should it be specifically
picked out among so many other hills? God is everywhere. Why do you specify Him as Arunachala?
B.: What has attracted you from Allahabad to this place?
What has attracted all these people around?
D.: Sri Bhagavan.
B.: How was I attracted here? By Arunachala. The Power
cannot be denied. Again Arunachala is within and not without. The Self is Arunachala.
D.: Several terms are used in the holy books. Atman,
Paramatman, Para, etc. What is the gradation among them?
B.: They mean the same to the user of the words but they
are understood differently by various persons according to their development.
D.: But why do you use so many words to mean the same thing?
B.: It depends on the circumstances. They all mean the
Self. Para means not relative, or beyond the relative, that is to say the Absolute.1
Bhagavan would often make remarks, which the superficial critic might take to be agnostic or atheistic, just as has been done by superficial critics of the Buddha. For instance he might say:
Page 45
Why worry about God? We do not know whether God exists but we know that we exist, so first concentrate on yourself. Find out who you are.
There was no agnosticism, since Bhagavan, like the Buddha, spoke from perfect knowledge. He was simply placing himself in the position of the questioner and advising him to concentrate rather on what he knew than what he merely believed in. Sometimes he would tell people not to trouble whether there is God or whether Realization implies unity with God or not but simply to strive to realise the Self, and when that was achieved they would know. Theorising about it would not help them.
The Malayalam version of Ulladu Narpadu (Forty Verses) was read out by a devotee for the benefit of a visitor. After hearing it, the latter asked: What about the reference to duality during one's effort and unity at the end?1
B.: It refers to people who think one must begin one's
spiritual striving with a dualistic idea. They say that there is God and that one must worship and meditate until ultimately the individual merges into God. Others say that the individual and the Supreme Being always remain separate and never merge. But let's not worry now about what happens at the end. All agree that the individual exists now. So let a man discover it -- that is discover his Self. There will be time enough afterwards to find out whether the Self is to merge in the Supreme or is a part of it or remains separate. Let us not forestall the conclusion. Keep an open mind, dive within and find the Self. The truth will dawn upon you all right, so why try to decide beforehand whether it is absolute or qualified unity or duality? There is no meaning in doing so. Your decision would have to be made by
Page 46
logic and intellect, but the intellect derives its light from the Self (the Highest Power) so how can its reflected and partial light envisage the entire and original light? The intellect cannot attain to the Self, so how can it ascertain its nature?1
While explaining to an American lady, Bhagavan said:
The Self alone is Real. All else is unreal. The mind and intellect have no existence apart from you. The Bible says: `Be still and know that I am God'. Stillness is the only thing needed to realise that `I am' is God.
Later he added:
The whole Vedanta is contained in the two Biblical statements
`I am that I am' and `Be still and know that I am God'.2
For one who found Self-enquiry too difficult, he would recommend worship and submission.
D.: What should one think of when meditating?
B.: What is meditation? It is the suspension of thoughts.
You are perturbed by thoughts which rush one after another. Hold on to one thought so that others are expelled. Continuous practice gives the necessary strength of mind to engage in meditation. Meditation differs according to the degree of advancement of the seeker. If one is fit for it one can hold directly to the thinker; and the thinker will automatically sink into his source, which is Pure Consciousness. If one cannot directly hold on to the thinker, one must meditate on God; and in due course the same individual will have become sufficiently pure to hold on to the thinker and sink into the absolute Being.3
Page 47
In case the path of worship was chosen, he demanded absolute surrender.
D.: God is described as manifest and unmanifest. As the
former, He is said to include the world as a part of His Being. If that is so, we, as part of the world, should find it easy to know Him in His manifested form.
B.: Know yourself before you seek to know the nature of
God and the world.
D.: Does knowing myself imply knowing God?
B.: Yes, God is within you.
D.: Then, what stands in the way of my knowing myself or God?
B.: Your wandering mind and perverted ways.
D.: I am a weak creature. But why does not the superior
power of the Lord within remove the obstacles?
B.: Yes, He will, if you have the aspiration.
D.: Why should He not create the aspiration in me?
B.: Then surrender yourself.
D.: If I surrender myself, is no prayer to God necessary?
B.: Surrender itself is a mighty prayer.
D.: But is it not necessary to understand His nature before
one surrenders oneself?
B.: If you believe that God will do all the things that you
want Him to do, then surrender yourself to Him. Otherwise let God alone, and know yourself.1
If there be true surrender, there can be no complaint or frustration.
D.: We are worldly people and are afflicted by some grief
that we cannot get over. We pray to God and are still not satisfied. What should we do?
B.: Trust God.
Page 48
D.: We surrender but still there is no help.
B.: But if you have surrendered, it means that you must
accept the will of God and not make a grievance of what may not happen to please you. Things may turn out differently from what they appear. Distress often leads people to faith in God.
D.: But we are worldly people. We have wife, children,
friends and relations. We cannot ignore them and resign ourselves to the Divine will without retaining some trace of individuality.
B.: That means that you have not really surrendered, as
you say you have. All you need to do is to trust God.1
Following the path of devotion, one should leave everything to God.
The Lord bears the burden of the world. Know that the spurious ego which presumes to bear that burden is like a sculptured figure at the foot of a temple tower which appears to sustain the tower's weight. Whose fault is it if the traveller, instead of putting his luggage in the cart which bears the load anyway, carries it on his head, to his own inconvenience?2
There cannot even be impatience for speedy realisation. To one who was so afflicted, he replied:
Surrender to Him and accept His will whether He appears or vanishes. Await His pleasure. If you want Him to do as you want, it is not surrender but command. You cannot ask Him to obey you and yet think you have surrendered. He knows what is best and when and how to do it. Leave everything entirely to Him. The burden is His and you have no more cares. All your cares are His. That is what is meant by surrender.3
Page 49
Even prayer can betoken a lack of trust and Bhagavan did not normally encourage prayer in the sense of petition.
They pray to God and finish with: `Thy will be done'. 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. Individuals cannot act of their own accord. Recognise the force of the Divine will and keep quiet. Everyone is looked after by God. He created all. You are only one among two thousand millions. When He looks after so many, will He omit you? Even common sense dictates that one should accept His will.
There is no need to tell Him your requirements. He knows them Himself and will look after them.1
On other occasions, however, he would confirm the efficacy of prayer. As in other matters, he would put the viewpoint which would best help the spiritual development of the particular questioner.
D.: Are our prayers granted?
B.: Yes, they are granted. No thought will ever go in vain.
Every thought will produce its effect some time or other. Thought force will never go in vain.2
It will be seen that this hints at a doctrine far wider than personal response by an anthropomorphic God. It indicates the general power of thought for good or evil and its repercussions on the thinker. Understanding of this involves a great responsibility for thoughts no less than for actions, just as Christ indicated that to look at a woman lustfully was a sin, the same as committing adultery with her. The following passage shows how far this teaching was from any humanised conception of a God.
Page 50
Not from any desire, resolve, or effort on the part of the rising sun, but merely due to the presence of his rays, the lens emits heat, the lotus blossoms, water evaporates, and people attend to their various duties in life. In the proximity of the magnet the needle moves. Similarly, the soul or jiva [?] subjected to the threefold activity of creation, preservation and destruction, which takes place merely due to the unique Presence of the Supreme Lord, performs acts in accordance with its karma, and subsides to rest after such activity. But the Lord Himself has no resolve; no act or event touches even the fringe of His Being. This state of immaculate aloofness can be likened to that of the sun, which is untouched by the activities of life, or to that of the all-pervasive ether, which is not affected by the interaction of the complex qualities of the other four elements.1
Page 51