CHAPTER FOUR
SIDDHIS AND VISIONS
1. "Is not making oneself invisible (like Vasishta and
Valmiki) evidence of advanced Wisdom (jnana)?"
Bhagavan: "No; for in that case all those who have spent their lives in the sight of others would be considered ajnanis. It might have been the prarabdha of these sages to develop these powers (siddhis) side by side with their jnana. Why should you aim at that which is not essential, but on the contrary is apt to prove a hindrance to jnana?
Does the sage feel oppressed by the visibility of his body?
A magician can render himself invisible in a trice. Is he a Jnani [?] for that? Visibility and invisibility imply a seer.
Who is that seer? Find him out first. Other matters are unimportant."
Talk 30
Note: What counts most is jnana — the knowledge of Truth.
This is called Realisation of the Absolute, or Realisation of the Self. The siddhis are not the Self itself, but its powers, as are seeing, smelling, thinking, etc., with the sole exception that the latter are common experiences, whereas the siddhis are not. The powers themselves are unintelligent: the intelligent is their possessor. To fix the attention on the powers and not on their owner, who is the reality, is, therefore, like throwing away the pearl and retaining its shell.
Again, as the common perception is a hindrance to
jnana, so are the siddhis, only more so, because the latter are apt to slacken one's efforts towards the Highest, and make
him fall prey to the wealth and fame which follow them like their shadow. Therefore siddhis are far more dangerous in the pursuit of Brahman than the senses. They are condoned only if they are accompanied by jnana, as is the case with
Valmiki, Vasishta, and others. They have no spiritual value whatever in other cases, and their use cannot but be highly detrimental to him who uses them and him — the weak- minded — who is taken in by them.
Page 39
2. "The disappearance from sight by yogis like Vasishta and Viswamitra concerns only physical matter. Is that our chief interest? Are you not the Self — the Reality?
Why trouble yourself about extraneous matters? Take the essence and reject other theories as useless. Those who imagine physical invisibility counts in the quest for mukti are mistaken. No such thing is necessary. You are not the body: what does it then matter if it disappears in one way or another? There is no great merit in such phenomena. Achievement of the Real alone matters. The loss of the ego is the main object, and not the loss of the body. Identity of the (real) Self with the (unreal) body is the real bondage."
Talk 31
Note: Sadhana [?], that is, search for the Absolute, consists of mental and spiritual purification through certain yogic practices. But siddhis have reference only to the body, to make it appear and disappear at will; to make it hear things in a manner not usually heard, or see things in a manner not usually seen, or smell things in a manner not usually smelt, and so on. In other words, siddhis take one in a diametrically opposite direction from that which the keen yogi should take.
We reject the ways and habits of the body in order to have our attention fixed on the soul, which uses the body and which is the one, eternal reality, whose attainment completely redeems us from the bondage of the flesh and from sorrow
and ignorance. Siddhis [?], as it has been demonstrated in the last note, perpetuate avidya [?], often degrade and strengthen the ego, which we are out to destroy. Consider the tremendous popularity and deification of the `clairvoyant' and `clairaudient', and the power he wields over the superstitious, the credulous, the feeble-minded, who would by far run after this siddhi-exhibitor rather than after the man of truth who has attained complete union with God, and who is in a position to show the direct way to this truth and its bliss. We have also to consider the very frequent possibility that the siddhis not being of the genuine brand.
Page 40
Bhagavan calls them "extraneous matters", totally irrelevant to the true seeking — "there is no merit in such phenomena." The true siddhas are the Jnanis, who do not preach siddhis, and scarcely ever exhibit them. On the contrary, they teach nothing but the science of the Absolute and the way to It. They have nothing to do with koshas, creation, life-after-death, mental and astral planes, fairies, ghosts and the like. The reality cannot be intuited with all this lumber filling every corner of the head. Fairy tales, if taken seriously, bar the way to the reality of Brahman; certainly, real adhikaris do not indulge in them.
Bhagavan continues:
3. "Leave off false notions and perceive intuitively the Real.
That alone matters. If you melt a gold ornament what matters how it is melted, whole or in parts, or of what shape the ornament had been? You are only interested in the gold. Realise the Self."
Talk 31
Note: When we buy gold we do not question what shape it had before it was melted, and how it was melted, etc. Similarly we should not waste our time on how we are born and how we die, how many spheres and planets we had visited, if we
did visit at all, and who we were in our past lives. All this is dross, superfluous curiosities, "false notions," which we have to "leave off ". What we want is the gold, namely, to know and be ourselves. If this is gained the riddle of the universe is solved.
The universe of the "clairvoyant" is romantic even if the clairvoyance is genuine. What it sees is as false as dreams, as false as this waking state, which we aim at transcending rather than preoccupy ourselves with. The dreamer is alone real — the dream total hallucination. The seer is the gold, the seen the dross. The Self of the seeker is the reality, and to this Self we should direct our whole attention.
Page 41
4. "With Self-realisation real and incessant tapas results. With the maturing of such tapas some Jnanis can make their bodies intangible and invisible. These are known as siddhas."
Talk 57
Note: This is very important to note. Tapas does not mean here the austerities that precede Realisation, but the inherence in the Self after Realisation. Ramana Gita says in this connection: "He who is fixed in sahaja state is in automatic and incessant tapas." (XI, 18) Again: "The pristine nature of the Self is effortless, spontaneous tapas. Incessant tapas of this kind leads to the manifestation of all powers." (XI, 24)
This immediately draws a clear line between a siddha Rishi and a "clairvoyant", a magician, or a miracle-worker whom we sometimes meet in this country and who have no jnana, as it is shown by the display of their trade far and wide and by their superficial teaching, if they have any.
5. "People look to the body only and want siddhis. They are not content with the idea of jnana and so want siddhis to be associated with it. They are likely to ignore the supreme happiness of jnana and aspire for siddhis. For this they are
going through the by-lanes instead of the royal path, and so are likely to lose their way. In order to guide them aright and keep them on the royal road alone, siddhis are said to accompany jnana. In fact jnana comprises all, and a Jnani [?] will not waste a thought on them. Seekers must try to get jnana and then seek siddhis if they so desire."
Talk 57
Page 42
Note: The main purport of this text has already been discussed in this chapter. The people who are attracted to siddhis are the ones who have a great attachment to their bodies, for whose sake they seek siddhis, ignoring the real blessedness of jnana. These people are their own enemies. The statement that siddhis accompany jnana to "guide them aright and keep them on the royal road" is noteworthy. The exhibition of siddhis is permissible only on the condition that it brings the straying sheep back to the fold — the "royal road" of jnana or Truth. There is nothing more unpleasant to the
Enlightened man than the sight of people being led away from the right path by exhibitionism, by a glamorous display of the "miraculous". To the siddhi-`fans' Bhagavan gives a way to gain true and sound siddhis, namely, by first trying to acquire jnana and then work for siddhis, if they will continue to long for them. Then they will have a healthy appraisal of siddhis and their use.
6. "In Halasya Mahima there is a chapter on the eightfold siddhis. There Siva says that His bhaktas never waste a thought on them. Again Siva says that He never grants boons. The desires of the devotees are fulfilled according to their prarabdha only. When Ishwara [?] Himself says so, what of others? In order to display siddhi there must be others to recognise it, which means that there is no jnana in the person who displays siddhis. Therefore these are not worthy of any thought. Jnana [?] alone must be aimed at."
Talk 57
Page 43
Note: This evidence of Siva against siddhis must be taken
very seriously. For here He is in His highest Form, as the
Supreme Yogi, the Spirit and Soul of the universe, which is
Pure Consciousness and Bliss. The Tantrikas, the Kaulas in particular, aim at siddhis, which they mistake for the highest spiritual achievement, and their Master and Giver of siddhis and of all boons is this very Siva with His consort Devi, also called Bhairavi. The jnana-seeker takes the former Siva as his ideal and guide; hence His repudiation of siddhis and boons in Halasya Mahima is of great significance to him.
The other noteworthy point refers to boons being granted only on the basis of merits, that is, according to the individual prarabdhas: they are not fortuitous, as they are commonly mistaken to be.
The third point deserves close attention. What
Bhagavan means by the display of siddhis requiring the presence of others to witness them, which automatically brands the displayer as ajnani, is that the Jnani [?] is ever in the
Self, cognising nothing but the pure Consciousness which alone exists — one without a second. To exhibit siddhis implies the admission of multiplicity, which jnana negates. The deliberate displayer of siddhis thus stands a self-confessed ajnani,1 the Jnani-siddha mentioned before is excepted.
7. "Atma alone is to be realised. Its realisation holds all else in its compass: shakti, chakras, ganapati, siddhis, etc. These are included in it. Those who speak of these have not realised the Atman [?]."
Talk 57
Page 44
Note: This affirms the previous texts. Bhagavan, being concerned only with the Absolute takes his stand on the following truth: all things, all powers, all phenomena have a common source which must be changeless and eternal. This absolute Source goes in the Scriptures by various names, of which the best is Atman [?] or Self, which is easy for everyone to comprehend, being represented by one's own existence, or being, which everyone loves and is aware of. Therefore the
Self is the repository of all powers, all shapes, all colours, all thoughts, all sensations — the whole universe, physical, emotional and mental, in brief. The knowledge of the Self is consequently alone true knowledge, true enlightenment, because it is perennial and all-inclusive. These its mani- festations or emanations are unstable and thus cravings for them lead to ignorance and misery. Those who deal with siddhis, chakras, shakti, psychic phenomena and the like,
Bhagavan says, have proved themselves to have not beheld the light of Truth, and should thus be shunned. Let us note this very carefully.
8. "A Swiss lady, while sitting before Bhagavan with her eyes wide open, saw the Master's face becoming cherub-like and draped in glorious flowers. She was drawn in love towards that childlike face. She described the vision to
Bhagavan. He remarked: `The vision is in your own mind.
P. B. saw me as a giant, you saw me as a child. Both are visions. Do not be deceived by them. P. B. had his eyes closed, whereas you had your eyes open. Probably you had been thinking of a child, and it came in your vision.'
The lady confessed that she had, namely, the childlike face of Siva."
Talk 304
Note: "Do not be deceived by visions" is a scriptural injunction. The extent of unreliability of visions can be gauged by the discrepancy between the vision of P. B. which
recorded a giant figure and that of the lady which recorded a mere child for the one and the same person. All visions are psychosomatic, mostly emanating from the subconscious, as this lady has confessed to a prior thought of the childlike
Siva. They need not all be as obviously known to the subject himself or herself as this vision, or its origin, has been known to the lady in question. Some subjects do expect and look forward to visions, and so they have them. They cook up their visions inside themselves and then see them with closed or open eyes, outside them. God has been the greatest victim of such hallucinations. He who is changeless, formless and only one, and the same for all nations, has been made to appear differently to different people, which has cost many million innocent lives and has brought incalculable suffering to many more living millions. The Greeks saw Him as Zeus, the thunder-wielder, Jesus conceived Him as a Father, and
His followers later expanded Him to "Three-Persons-in-One-
God". To Moses He appeared as "I-am-that-I-am", which
Bhagavan often quotes. To the Hindus He is Rama, Krishna, and many others. Yet He is the One and only Being who resides in all hearts. ajnana [?] cannot be better demonstrated than in the intolerance and bigotry, which conventional religions have exhibited in the recorded history of man. This shows the danger of taking visions and symbols for truths and acting on them.
Page 45
Bhagavan continues:
9. "Visions are not external. They appear only internally.
If external they would assert themselves without there being a seer. In that case what is the warrant for their existence? The seer only."
Talk 305
Note: Is the vision independent of the seer? We know that it is not. Then how can it be real? The reality must be self-
sufficient, substantive, wholly depending upon itself, and must be present at all times. But visions are not only temporary, but also depend on the qualities and abilities of the mind of their seer. Therefore all visions are false.
Page 46
10. "Many visitors here tell me that they get visions or thought-
current from you. I am 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? If so, I feel it disgraceful that I, being of the lineage of Vasishta, should not have your Grace, while far off foreigners should have it. Will you kindly suggest what expiation I should suffer or undergo to remove this disgrace?"
Bhagavan: "Visions and thought-currents are obtained according to the state of the mind, which depends on the individuals themselves and not upon the Universal
Presence. Moreover, they are immaterial. What matters is peace of mind."
Talk 317
Note: I have recorded here this item, not so much for the
Master's answer, which has been substantially recorded earlier, as for the quality of the question. This illustrates my previous statement that visions often come to those who expect them.
This questioner has been expecting a vision since six or seven weeks, and its absence has made him miserable, because he is suspecting his own spiritual worth — he, a direct descendant of the great Vasishta Muni. To be ignored in favour of "foreigners" who are of no lineage worth speaking of, of no caste whatever, is a disgrace to him, an extremely puzzling calamity.
One feels for the poor man's grievance indeed. But is this a genuine grievance? He does not seem to heed the persistent teaching of the Master, made in his very presence, that visions are rubbishy stuff, and that not lineage but adhikara alone counts in this path. I have brought this out as
Siddhis and Visions
a specimen of the mental outlooks of the worshippers of siddhis and the harm these do in perverting the mind. Had this gentleman extended his experience a little longer in the
Ashram, he would have found men who had lived there not for six weeks but for six, ten and fifteen years and yet had had no visions of any kind, and had not felt thereby any slight to their lineage, their personal dignity, or spiritual advancement, but who, on the contrary, considered their absence a perfect grace from the Master, amply proved to them in other ways.
The peace of mind of which Bhagavan speaks is naturally contingent on the direct apprehension of the Reality. That peace, and not visions, must be our objective.
11. "It is said of some saints that they revived the dead. Yet
even they did not revive all the dead. If that were possible there would be no death, no cemeteries, no world, etc."
Talk 342
Note: The context is as follows. A mother had brought the body of her dead child about three hundred miles by train to Tiruvannamalai, on which she had paid a very high fare, basing herself on a dream in which she had been told that
Bhagavan's touch would revive the child. The corpse was not permitted to be brought inside the Ashram, so that the touch was not granted. But to satisfy the disconsolate, bereaved mother Bhagavan substituted the touch by an oral statement that, if the dream were true, her son would revive on the next day. Thereupon the body was kept for the night and cremated the next day.
Now was that not a cruel dream? But this is the fate of those who shape their lives on dreams, visions, prophesies, ethereal sounds and sights, etc. In all probability this dream had originated from a wishful thinking of the mother.
Page 48
Bhagavan rightly remarks that even those who were said to have revived the dead were of limited powers, their action being against the course of nature. Otherwise humanity would have attained immortality, but would have thereby created such complications — economic, political, domestic, social — for itself that dead-revivers would have been at a discount, if not also restrained by the law.
Revivals by the touch or the grace of saints must be taken to depend on the prarabdha of the revived person, as the evidence of Lord Siva given in text 6 above proves.
