CHAPTER FOUR
THE GURU
It has always been taught that in order to attain Realisation, not only practice but also a guide is needed. In this, as in all things, Bhagavan gave the doctrine its deepest meaning. In fact, it became essentially the same as the Christian doctrine of `the Christ in you' or the Buddhist doctrine of the `Buddha- mind' which is to be realised in oneself.D.: Bhagavan has said that without the grace of the Guru
one cannot attain the Self. What precisely does he mean by this? What is this Guru?
B.: From the standpoint of the path of knowledge, it is the
supreme state of the Self. It is different from the ego which you call yourself.
D.: Then, if it is the supreme state of my own self, in what
sense does Bhagavan mean that I cannot reach it without the grace of the Guru?
B.: The ego is the individuality and is not the same as the
Lord of all. When it approaches the Lord with sincere devotion, He graciously assumes name and form and takes it to Himself. Therefore they say that the Guru is none other than the Lord. He is the human embodiment of Divine Grace.
This would seem to mean, then, that the Guru is the Lord or the Self manifested outwardly in human form and that this outward manifestation is necessary. But the questioner, in the present instance, was not convinced of this, since he knew that Bhagavan himself had had no human Guru and that there are other cases on record also, especially among the founders of religions. He therefore continued:
Page 92
D.: But there are some who seem to have had no human
Guru at all?
B.: True. In the case of certain great souls, God reveals
Himself as the Light of the Light from within.1
It occasionally happened that some questioner would openly raise the objection that Bhagavan himself had not a Guru and in such cases, his reply would be that the Guru need not necessarily take human form.
Some who knew his teaching at second hand suggested that he did not hold it necessary to have a Guru and explained the lack of explicit initiation in that way, but he rejected this suggestion unequivocally. S.S. Cohen has recorded a conversation on this subject with Dilip Kumar Roy, the celebrated musician of Sri Aurobindo Ashram:
Dilip.: Some people report Maharshi to deny the need of
a Guru. Others say the reverse. What does Maharshi say?
B.: I have never said that there is no need for a Guru.
Dilip: Sri Aurobindo often refers to you as having had no
Guru.
B.: That depends on what you call Guru. He need not
necessarily be in human form. Dattatreya had twenty-four Gurus -- the elements, and so on. That means that any form in the world was his Guru. Guru is absolutely necessary. The Upanishads say that none but a Guru can take a man out of the jungle of mental and sense perceptions, so there must be a Guru.
Dilip: I mean a human Guru. The Maharshi didn't have one.
B.: I might have had at some time or other. And didn't I sing
hymns to Arunachala? What is a Guru? Guru is God or the Self. First a man prays to God to fulfil his desires, then a time comes
Page 93
when he does not pray for the fulfilment of a desire, but for God Himself. So God appears to him in some form or other, human or non-human, to guide him as a Guru in answer to his prayer.
It was only when some visitor brought up the subject that
Sri Bhagavan himself had not had a Guru that he explained that the Guru need not necessarily take on a human form, and it was understood that this referred to very rare cases.1
I shall return to this question later, but wish immediately to consider the implication of the saying that God, Guru and Self are the same. In the ordinary sense of the word, a Guru is one who has been invested with the right to initiate disciples and prescribe a spiritual discipline for them; and in this sense, a proper investiture is necessary to validate his actions as a Guru, just as proper ordination is necessary to validate the religious rites performed by a priest. A mass said by a duly ordained priest would be valid, whereas one said by a man of greater moral integrity and intellectual power who was not an ordained priest, would not; and in exactly the same way, the genuineness of a Guru and validity of his initiation and discipline is normally dependent rather on his legitimate investiture as the successor to a line of Gurus than on his own inherent attainments. Bhagavan was little interested in this interpretation of the word Guru, but he did accept it when asked.
D.: Can one derive any benefit from repeating
incantations picked up casually, without being initiated into them?
B.: No. One must be initiated into them and authorised
to use them.
Bhagavan then illustrated this saying by the following story:
A king once visited his minister at the latter's house. There he was told that the minister was busy with his incantations. The
Page 94
king accordingly waited for him, and when he was free to meet him, asked him what incantation it was. The minister told him that it was the Gayatri. The king then asked the minister to initiate him into the use of it, but the latter declared that he was unable to. Thereupon the king learnt it from someone else and the next time he met the minister he repeated it to him and asked him whether it was right. The minister replied that the incantation was right but that it was not right for him to say it. The king asked why; the minister called an attendant who was standing nearby and told him to arrest the king. The order was not obeyed. The minister repeated it and still it was not obeyed. The king then flew into a temper and ordered the attendant to arrest the minister, which he immediately did. The minister laughed and said that that was the explanation the king had asked for.
`How?' the king asked. `Because the order was the same, and the executive was the
same but the authority was different. When I pronounced the order there was no effect; but when you did it, the effect was immediate. It is the same with incantation.'1
Normally, however, when Bhagavan said `Guru' he meant something far greater than this, something different not in degree but in kind; he meant Sat-Guru, or Guru-deva, and that too in its highest meaning as nothing less than one who has realised his identity with the Self and abides therein constantly.
D.: What are the distinctive characteristics of a Guru by
which one can recognise him?
B.: The Guru is one who at all times abides in the profound
depths of the Self. He never sees any difference between himself
Page 95
and others and is quite free from the idea that he is the Enlightened or the Liberated One, while those around him are in bondage or the darkness of ignorance. His self-possession can never be shaken under any circumstances and he is never perturbed.
D.: What is the essential nature of upadesa [?] or spiritual
instruction given by the Guru?
B.: The word upadesa [?] literally means `restoring an object
to its proper place'. The mind of the disciple, having become differentiated from its true and primal state of Pure Being, which is the Self and which is described in the scriptures as Sat-chit- ananda (Being-Consciousness-Bliss), slips away therefrom and, assuming the form of thought, constantly pursues objects of sense-gratification. Therefore it is assailed by the vicissitudes of life and becomes weak and dispirited. Upadesa [?] consists in the Guru restoring it to its primal state and preventing it from slipping away from the state of Pure Being, of absolute identity with the Self or, in other words, the Being of the Guru.
The word can also be understood as meaning `to present an apparently distant object to close view'; that is to say, it consists in the Guru showing the disciple what he had considered as distant and different from himself to be immediate and identical with himself.
D.: If, as this implies, the real being of the Guru is identical
with that of the disciple, why have the scriptures categorically declared that, however great powers one may attain, he cannot attain Self-realisation without the grace of the Guru?
B.: It is true that the being of the Guru is identical with
that of the disciple; however, it is very seldom that a person can realise his true Being without the grace of the Guru.1
Page 96
It is not really the bodily individual that is the Guru.
B.: What is your idea of a Guru? You think of him in
human shape as a body of certain dimensions, complexion, and so on. A disciple, after Realisation once said to his Guru: `I now realise that you dwelt in my innermost heart as the one Reality in all my countless births and have now come before me is human shape and lifted this veil of ignorance. What can I do for you in return for such a great benefit?' And the Guru replied: `You need not do anything. It is enough if you remain as you are in your true state. That is the truth about the Guru.1
Bhagavan often explained that the Divine Guide, the true Guru, is in one's heart as well as being manifested outwardly. While the outward Guru turns one's mind inwards, the inner Guru pulls from within. Even one's environment does not happen by accident. The Guru creates the conditions necessary for one's quest.
D.: What is the Grace of the Guru?
B.: The Guru is the Self. At some time a man grows dissatisfied
with his life and, not content with what he has, seeks the satisfaction of his desires through prayer to God. His mind is gradually purified until he longs to know God, more to obtain His Grace than to satisfy worldly desires. Then God's grace begins to manifest. God takes the form of a Guru and appears to the devotee, teaches him the Truth and, moreover, purifies his mind by association with him. The devotee's mind thus gains strength and is then able to turn inward. By meditation it is further purified until it remains calm without the least ripple. That calm Expanse is the Self.
The Guru is both outer and inner. From outside he gives a push to the mind to turn inward while from inside he pulls
Page 97
the mind towards the Self and helps in quieting it. That is the Grace of the Guru. There is no difference between God, Guru and Self.
D.: In the Theosophical Society they meditate in order to
seek masters to guide them.
B.: The master is within; meditation is meant to remove the
ignorant idea that he is only external. If he were some stranger whom you awaited, he would be bound to disappear also. What would be the use of a transient being like that? But as long as you think you are separate or that you are the body, so long is the outer master also necessary and He will appear as if with a body. When the wrong identification of yourself with the body ceases, the master will be found to be none other than the Self.
D.: Will the Guru help us to know the Self through
initiation, and so on?
B.: Does the Guru hold you by the hand and whisper in
your ear? You may imagine him to be what you are yourself. Because you think you have a body, you think that he has also and that he will do something tangible to you. His work lies within, in the spiritual realm.
D.: How is the Guru found?
B.: God, who is immanent, in His Grace takes pity on the
loving devotee and manifests Himself according to the devotee's development. The devotee thinks that he is a man and expects a relationship as between two physical bodies. But the Guru who is God or the Self incarnate, works from within, helps the man to see his mistakes and guides him in the right path until he realises the Self within.
D.: What should the devotee do then?
B.: He has only to act according to the words of the master
and work inwardly. The master is both `within' and `without',
Page 98
so he creates conditions to drive you inward and at the same time prepares the `interior' to drag you to the Centre. Thus he gives a push from `without' and exerts a pull from `within' so that you may be fixed at the Centre.
You think that the world can be conquered by your own efforts. When you are frustrated externally and are driven inwards you feel, `Oh, there is a power higher than man.' The ego is a very powerful elephant which cannot be brought under control by any creature less powerful than a lion, which, in this instance, is none other than the Guru, whose very looks make the elephant-like ego tremble and die. You will know in due course that your glory lies where you cease to exist. In order to gain that state, you should surrender yourself. Then the master sees that you are in a fit state to receive guidance and He guides you.1
What is the significance of saying that the Guru is the manifestation of God or Self? Bhagavan spoke always from the point of view of non-duality, and from this point of view the disciple is also guided thus. The only difference is that the Guru has realised it and the disciple has not.
B.: So long as you seek Self-realisation, the Guru is
necessary. Guru is the Self. Take Guru to be the real Self, and yourself to be the individual self. The disappearance of this sense of duality is the removal of ignorance. So long as duality persists in you, the Guru is necessary. Because you identify yourself with the body, you think the Guru too is the body. You are not the body, nor is the Guru. You are the Self and so is the Guru. This knowledge is gained by what you call Self-realisation.2
Page 99
You mistake the body for the Guru. But the Guru himself does not make that mistake. He is the formless Self. That is within you. He appears outwardly only to guide you.1
A curious paradox arises with the perfect Guru, the Self-realised man in constant, conscious identity with the Self. For the very reason that he is the complete and perfect Guru he will not call himself a Guru or call any his disciples, since that would be an affirmation of relationship and therefore of duality.
Though he instructs his disciples, yet he does not call himself their Guru, realising as he does that Guru and disciple are mere conventions born of maya (total illusion).2
And indeed, Bhagavan initiated his disciples through silence, or in a dream when at a distance, or by look when they were in his bodily presence; but he did not call them his disciples or give the formal initiation that postulates duality. He watched over them constantly, prescribed a discipline for them verbally or guided them to it by the power of his silent grace. But he did not call himself their Guru.
D.: Isn't grace the gift of the Guru?
B.: God, Grace and Guru are all synonymous and are
both eternal and immanent. Isn't the Self already within? Is it for the Guru to bestow it by his look? If a Guru thinks so, he does not deserve that name. The books say there are many kinds of initiation. They also say that the Guru performs various rites with fire, water, incantations and so on, and call such fantastic performances initiation, as if the disciple became ripe only after such processes were gone through by the Guru.
If the individual is sought, he is nowhere to be found.
Such is the Guru. Such is Dakshinamurthi. What did he do?
Page 100
He sat silent. The disciples appeared before him. He maintained silence, and their doubts were dispelled, which means they lost their individual identities. Jnana [?] (spiritual knowledge) is that silent understanding and not the verbal definitions that are usually given for it. Silence is the most potent form of work. However vast and emphatic the scriptures may be, they fail in their effect. The Guru is quiet and peace prevails in all. His silence is vaster and more emphatic than all the scriptures put together. These questions arise because of the feeling that, in spite of having been here so long, heard so much, striven so hard, you have not gained anything. The process that goes on inside you is not apparent to you. In fact, the Guru is always within you.1
Not all felt the grace, the power of silent initiation, immediately, but Bhagavan reassured them.
D.: It is said that one look of a Mahatma is enough; that
idols, pilgrimages, and so on, are not so effective; but I have been here for three months and still do not know how I have been benefitted by the look of the Maharshi.
B.: The look has a purifying effect. Purification cannot be
visualised. Just as a piece of coal takes a long time to ignite and a piece of charcoal a shorter time, while a heap of gunpowder is ignited instantaneously, so it is with different types of men coming in contact with a Mahatma.2
Incidentally, the devotee who raised this question stayed on and became one of the staunchest and most devoted of all. Complete faith in the Guru was necessary but, as explained in the previous chapter, effort was also necessary.
Page 101
D.: After leaving this Asramam in October, I was aware of
Bhagavan's peace enfolding me for about ten days. All the time, while busy with work, there was an undercurrent of that peace of unity; it was almost like the dual consciousness while half asleep in a dull lecture. Then it faded out entirely and the old stupidities came instead.
Work leaves no time for separate meditation. Is the constant reminder `I am' and trying to feel this while actually at work enough?
B.: It will become constant when the mind is strengthened.
Repeated practice strengthens the mind, and such a mind is capable of holding on to the current.
Then, whether you are engaged in work or not, the current remains unaffected and uninterrupted.1
It often happened that the disciple saw no improvement in himself despite the effort, but he was told to have faith in the Guru. The process might not be visible to himself and improvement might be the greatest when least apparent.
He evoked no spectacular changes in the devotees, for such changes may be a superstructure without foundation and collapse later. Indeed, it sometimes happened that a devotee would grow despondent, seeing no improvement at all in himself and would complain that he was not progressing at all. In such cases Bhagavan might offer consolation or might retort, `How do you know there is no progress?' And he would explain that it is the Guru, not the disciple, who sees the progress made; it is for the disciple to carry on perserveringly with his work even though the structure being raised may be out of sight of the mind.2
Page 102
There were some who desired a definite statement that Bhagavan was a Guru, but this he would not make.
Mr. Evans-Wentz, the well-known writer on Tibetan Yoga, asked whether Bhagavan initiated disciples, but Bhagavan sat silent, giving no reply.
Then one of the devotees took it on himself to answer that the Maharshi does not regard any as being outside himself and therefore none can be disciples to him. His grace is all- pervading and is bestowed in silence on any deserving individual.1
Bhagavan heard the explanation and did not reject it. Sometimes he would explain that the Guru-disciple relationship was necessary from the point of view of the disciple, since the latter viewed things from the stand-point of duality; and therefore the disciple could affirm that so-and-so was his Guru, although the Guru would not affirm that the other was his disciple.
D.: Bhagavan says he has no disciples?
B.: Yes.
D.: He also says that a Guru is necessary if one wishes to
attain liberation.
B.: Yes.
D.: What then must I do? Has my sitting here all these
years been just a waste of time? Must I go and look for some Guru in order to receive initiation, seeing that Bhagavan says he is not a Guru?
B.: What do you think brought you here such a long
distance and made you remain here so long? Why do you doubt? If there had been any need to seek a Guru elsewhere, you would have gone away long ago. The Guru or Jnani [?] (Enlightened
Page 103
One) sees no difference between himself and others. For him all are Jnanis, all are one with himself, so how can a Jnani [?] say that such-and-such is his disciple? But the unliberated one sees all as multiple, he sees all as different from himself, so to him the Guru-disciple relationship is a reality. For him there are three ways of initiation: by touch, look and silence. (Sri Bhagavan here gave the disciple to understand that his way was by silence, as he has to many on other occasions.)
D.: Then Bhagavan does have disciples?
B.: As I said, from Bhagavan's point of view there are no
disciples, but from that of the disciple, the Grace of the Guru is like an ocean. If he comes with a cup he will get only a cupful. It is no use complaining of the niggardliness of the ocean; the bigger the vessel the more he will be able to carry. It is entirely up to him.1
When the devotee pressed him once more for a confirmation, he turned to the attendant and said humorously, `Let him get a document from the sub-registrar and take it to the office and get the office stamp on it.'
In the following conversation, he implied clearly enough that he was to be regarded as the visible Guru.
D.: Can Sri Bhagavan help us to realise the Truth?
B.: Help is always there.
D.: Then, there is no need to ask questions. I do not feel
the ever-present help.
B.: Surrender and you will find it.
D.: I am always at your feet. Will Bhagavan give me some
upadesa [?] to follow? Otherwise how can I get the help, living six hundred miles away?
B.: The Sad-Guru is within.
Page 104
D.: The Sad-Guru is necessary to guide me to understand
that fact.
B.: The Sad-Guru is within you.
D.: I want a visible Guru.
B.: That visible Guru says that he is within.
It was in keeping with the purely spiritual nature of Bhagavan's initiation and guidance that he was averse to touching his disciples or being touched by them. In the further part of the talk just quoted the devotee requests:
D.: Will the Sad-Guru place his hand on my head to assure
me of his help? Then I shall have the consolation of knowing that his promise will be fulfilled.
In such cases Bhagavan was apt either to remain silent or to turn it into a joke. On this occasion he took the latter course.
B.: Next you will be asking me for a bond and filing a suit
if you imagine that the help is not forthcoming.1
It may be said by some readers of this book that this doctrine of God manifested as Guru was all right for those who had the good fortune to meet Bhagavan in his lifetime, but what of those who seek a Guru now? There are Gurus to be found, although the appearance on earth of a perfect Sad-Guru such as Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi, a Jivanmukta living in constant conscious identity with the Self, is a very rare thing.
D.: How can one know whether a particular person is
competent to be a Guru?
B.: By the peace of mind you feel in his presence and by
the respect you feel for him.
D.: And if it turns out that he is not competent, what will
be the fate of the disciple who has implicit faith in him?
Page 105
B.: The fate of each one will be according to his merit.1
But if the Guru has not attained the Supreme State, can he be regarded as a manifestation of God or the Self? In a way, he can. The disciple himself is the Self, although ignorant of his true identity. The entire outer world manifests tendencies and possibilities in himself and among these the person who functions as Guru for him manifests the possibility of divine guidance, even without full awareness.
There is, however, another possibility also, and that is continued guidance by Bhagavan. It will be recalled that Bhagavan confirmed that the Guru need not necessarily take human form. He sometimes added that this happened only in rare cases. He himself had no human Guru. Just as, with Self- enquiry, he created a new path suitable to the conditions of the modern world, a path that can be followed without any outward forms, invisibly, while conforming to the outer conditions of modern life, so also he brought to men the possibility of silent, formless initiation, requiring no physical Guru. In his life-time initiation was by look or silence. He often confirmed that the truest upadesa [?] or spiritual instruction was by silence.
The highest form of grace is silence. It is also the highest spiritual instruction… All other modes of instruction are derived from silence and are therefore secondary. Silence is the primary form. If the Guru is silent the seeker's mind gets purified by itself.2
The disciples of Bhagavan have found that the silent instruction continues as before. Others who have never met him in his lifetime have been drawn to him and begun to follow the guidance. If this seems strange to anyone, it means that he has not understood what Bhagavan was in his lifetime, that he identifies the Guru with the body. It is sometimes asked how a Jivanmukta continues to guide disciples after death, when
Page 106
he has merged in the Absolute, the Self of all. But the Jivanmukta is already consciously one with the Absolute, the Self of all, while still embodied. If this is not incompatible with initiation and guidance while he wears a body it is not afterwards. Death makes no difference to him, no change in his state. There is nothing more to be acquired, because he is that now; there is nothing to be lost, because he has already completely surrendered the ego.
P. Bannerjee asked Bhagavan what is the difference between
Jivanmukti (Realisation while in the body) and Videhamukti (Realisation after death).
B.: There is no difference. For those who ask, it is said: A Jnani [?]
with a body is a Jivanmukta and he attains Videhamukti [?] when he sheds the body. But this difference exists only for the onlooker, not for the Jnani [?]. His state is the same before and after the body is dropped. We think of the Jnani [?] as a human form or as being in that form; but he knows that he is the Self, the one reality which is both inside and out, and which is not bounded by any form or shape. There is a verse in the Bhagavata (here Bhagavan quoted the verse in Tamil) which says: Just as a man who is drunk is not conscious whether his upper cloth is on his body or has slipped away from it, the Jnani [?] is hardly conscious of his body, and it makes no difference to him whether the body remains or has dropped off.1
He did not encourage curiosity and seldom answered questions about the state of the Jnani [?] or the Realised Man, but when asked whether the Jnani [?] continues to perform a function after the death of the body, I have heard him reply briefly that in some cases he may. Also he himself confirmed what his disciples know now from experience, that the Guru may continue to give guidance after the death of the body, when no longer in human form.
Page 107
Dr. Masalawala, retired Chief Medical Officer of Bhopal, who has been here for over a month and is in temporary charge of the Asramam hospital in the absence of Dr. K. Shiva Rao, put the following questions to Bhagavan and received the following answers:
D.: Bhagavan says: `The influence of the Jnani [?] steals into
the devotee in silence'. Bhagavan also says: `Contact with great men, exalted souls, is one efficacious means of realising one's true being.'
B.: Yes. What is the contradiction? Jnani [?], great men, exalted
souls -- does he differentiate between them?
Thereupon I said `no'.
B.: Contact with them is good. They will work through silence. By speaking, their power is reduced. Speech is always less powerful than silence. So silent contact is the best.
D.: Does the contact continue even after the dissolution
of the physical body of the Jnani [?] or only so long as he is in flesh and blood?
B.: The Guru is not in the physical form. So contact will
remain even after his physical form vanishes.1
He declared that one who has obtained the grace of the Guru would never be abandoned.
He who has earned the grace of the Guru will undoubtedly be saved and never forsaken, just as the prey that has fallen into the tiger's jaw will never be allowed to escape.2
Remembering this, perhaps, some devotees complained, when the death of his body was imminent, that he was abandoning them and asked what they could do without his continued guidance. He answered briefly:
Page 108
You attach too much importance to the body.1
The implication was clear. The Guru is the same whether he wears a body or not. And his devotees have since found it to be so.
Having dealt with the need to pass from theory to practice, the possibility of practising in the conditions of the modern world without any outward observances, and the necessity for a Guru, the next two chapters will deal with the forms of practice that Bhagavan prescribed. His prescribing them openly is in itself remarkable. In their public writings and utterances the spiritual masters of all religions have dealt mainly with theory and said little or nothing about the practical discipline they enjoined. The reason for this is obvious. It is that, as Bhagavan explains in the story of the king and his minister quoted earlier in this chapter, a technique of spiritual training can be legitimately used and be effective for good only when the use of it has been authorised by one duly qualified. And yet Bhagavan himself openly expounded the methods he enjoined, both in speech and writing. Most of the books on which the present exposition is based were written and published during his lifetime, and he always showed interest in them and often recommended a questioner to turn to one of them for his answer. Even when it became clear that the life of his body was approaching its end, he continued to show interest, in their editing and publication. Why did he permit this, when he was insistent that no technique is valid without the authorisation of the Guru? The only answer is the one given above. Physical death made no difference. If the Mukta [?] can be a Guru before death, so can he also after death. He becomes no more a Mukta [?] by dying. The path that had been made open by his Grace to those who turn to him was not for his lifetime only or for those few only who could approach him physically. He said:
They say that I am dying, but I am not going away. Where could I go? I am here.2
Page 109