Talk 392.
(Swami Lokesananda continued another series of questions).D.: They say that Kundalini [?] must be roused before Realisation and that its awakening makes the body feel hot. Is that so?
M.: The yogis call it Kundalini Sakti. It is the same as vritti [?] 1 of the form of God (Bhagavatakara vritti) of the bhaktas and vritti of the form of Brahman (Brahmakara vritti) of the jnanis. It must be preliminary to Realisation. The sensation produced may be said to be hot.
D.: Kundalini is said to be of the shape of a serpent but vrittis cannot be so.
M.: The Kundalini of jnana marga [?] is said to be the Heart, which is also described in various ways as a network of nadis, of the shape of a serpent, of a lotus bud, etc.
D.: Is this Heart the same as the physiological heart?
M.: No, Sri Ramana Gita defines it as the origin of the `I-thought'.
D.: But I read that it is on the right of the chest.
M.: It is all meant to help the bhavana [?] (imagery). There are books dealing with six centres (shadchakra) and many other lakshyas (centres), internal and external. The description of the Heart is one among so many lakshyas. But it is not necessary. It is only the source of the `I-thought'. That is the ultimate truth.
D.: May we take it to be the source of the antahkaranas?
M.: The inner organs (antakaranas) are classified as five: (1)
Knowledge - Jnana; (2) Mind - Manas; (3) Intellect - Buddhi [?]; (4) Memory - Chitta [?]; and (5) The ego - Ahankara [?]; some say only the latter four; others say only two, namely (1) Manas, mind and (2)
Ahankara, the ego; still others say the Antahkarana is only one whose different functions make it appear differently and hence its different names. Heart is thus the source of the Antahkaranas. There is the body which is insentient; there is the Self which is eternal and self-luminous; in between the two there has arisen a phenomenon, namely the ego, which goes under these different names, mind (manas), intellect (buddhi [?]), memory (chitta [?]), the ego (ahankara [?]) ,
Page 374
power (sakti [?]), life current (prana [?]), etc. Seek your source; the search takes you to the Heart automatically. The antahkaranas are only ideas (kalpana [?]) to explain the subtle body (sukshma sarira [?]). The physical body (sarira [?]) is made up of the elements: earth, air, fire, water and ether; it is insentient. The Self is pure and self-luminous and thus self-evident. The relation between the two is sought to be established by positing a subtle body, composed of the subtle aspects of the five elements on the one hand, and the reflected light of the Self on the other. In this way the subtle body which is synonymous with the mind, is both sentient and insentient, i.e. , abhasa [?]. Again, by the play of the pure quality (satva guna) on the elements, their brightness (satva aspect) manifests as the mind (manas), and the senses (jnanendriyas); by the play of rajas [?] (active quality), the raja (active) aspect manifests as life (prana) and limbs (karmendriyas); by the play of dullness (tamas [?]) the tama (dark) aspect manifests as the gross phenomena of the body, etc.
D.: But the mind is reputed to have these three qualities also.
M.: Yes. There is purity (satva) in satva (in the pure quality); activity in it (rajas in satva); and dullness also (tamas in satva); and so on , Suddha satva is quite pure; misra (mixed satva) is a combination of satva with other qualities. The quality satva implies only its predominance over the other two qualities. Later Sri Bhagavan continued: The intricate maze of philosophy of different schools is said to clarify matters and reveal the Truth. But in fact they create confusion where no confusion need exist. To understand anything there must be the Self. The Self is obvious. Why not remain as the Self? What need to explain the non-self? Take the Vedanta for instance: They say there are fifteen kinds of prana. The student is made to commit the names to memory and also their functions. The air goes up and is called prana; goes down and is called apana [?]; operates the indriyas [?] and is called something. Why all this? Why do you classify, give names and enumerate the functions, and so on? Is it not enough to know that one prana does the whole work? The antahkarana thinks, desires, wills, reasons, etc., and each function is attributed to one name such as mind, intellect, etc. Has anyone seen the pranas or the antahkaranas? Have they any real
Page 375
existence? They are mere conceptions. When and where will such conceptions end? Consider the following: A man sleeps. He says on waking that he slept. The question is asked: `Why does he not say in his sleep that he is sleeping?' The answer is given that he is sunk in the Self and cannot speak, like a man who has dived in water to bring out something from the bottom. The diver cannot speak under water; when he has actually recovered the articles he comes out and speaks. Well, what is the explanation? Being in water, water will flow into his mouth if he were to open the mouth for speaking. Is it not simple? But the philosopher is not content with this simple fact. He explains, saying that fire is the deity presiding over speech; that it is inimical to water and therefore cannot function! This is called philosophy and the learners are struggling to learn all this! Is it not a sheer waste of time? Again the Gods are said to preside over the limbs and senses of the individual (vyashti [?]). They are the limbs and senses of Virat [?] (samashti [?]). So they go on explaining Hiranyagarbha [?], etc. Why should confusion be created and then explained away? Ah! Fortunate is the man who does not involve himself in this maze! I was indeed fortunate that I never took to it. Had I taken to it, I would probably be nowhere - always in confusion. My purva
vasanas (former tendencies) directly took me to the enquiry "Who am I??" It was indeed fortunate!