21st October, 1938

Talk 562.

There is a statement in the book Vichara Sangraha that though a person realises the Self once, he cannot, for that simple reason alone, become a mukta ^[?]. He continues to remain a victim of vasanas (latencies). Sri Bhagavan was asked whether the realisation referred to was the same as the jnani's, and if so why there should be a difference in their effects.
M.: The experience is the same. Every person experiences the Self consciously or unconsciously. The ajnani's experience is clouded by his latencies whereas the jnani's is not so. The jnani's experience

of the Self is therefore distinct and permanent. A practiser may by long practice gain a glimpse of the Reality. This experience may be vivid for the time being. And yet he will be distracted by the old vasanas and so his experience will not avail him. Such a man must continue his manana ^[?] and nididhyasana ^[?] so that all the obstacles may be destroyed. He will then be able to remain permanently in the Real State.

D.: What is the difference between a man who makes no attempts and remains an ajnani ^[?], and another who gains a glimpse and returns to ajnana ^[?]?

M.: In the latter case a stimulus is always present to goad him on to further efforts until the realisation is perfect.

D.: The Srutis say: Sakrit vibhatoyam brahmaloka (This knowledge of Brahman shines forth once and forever).

M.: They refer to the permanent realisation and not to the glimpse.
D.: How is it possible that a man forgets his very experience and falls back into ignorance?

Page 538
Sri Bhagavan illustrated it with the following story: There was a king who treated his subjects well. One of his ministers gained his confidence and misused the influence. All the other ministers and officers were adversely affected and they hit upon a plan to get rid of him. They instructed the guards not to let the man enter the palace. The king noted his absence and enquired after him. He was informed that the man was taken ill and could not therefore come to the palace. The king deputed his physician to attend on the minister. False reports were conveyed to the king that the minister was sometimes improving and at other times collapsing. The king desired to see the patient. But the pandits said that such an action was against dharma. Later the minister was reported to have died. The king was very sorry when he heard the news. The arrogant minister was kept informed of all the happenings by spies of his own. He tried to foil the other ministers. He waited for the king to come out of the palace so that he might report himself to the king. On one occasion he climbed up a tree, hid himself among the branches and awaited the king. The king came out that night in the palanquin and the man in hiding jumped down in front of the palanquin and shouted his identity. The companion of the king was equally resourceful. He at once took out a handful of sacred ashes (vibhuti ^[?]) from his pocket and scattered it in the air so that the king was obliged to close his eyes. The companion shouted victory (`jai ^[?]') to the king and ordered the band to play so that the other man's shout was drowned in the noise. He also ordered the palanquin-bearers to move fast and he himself sang incantations to keep off evil spirits. The king was thus left under the impression that the dead man's ghost was playing pranks with him. The disappointed man became desperate and retired into the forest for tapasya (austerities). After a long time the king happened to go hunting. He came across the former minister seated in deep contemplation. But he hastened away from the spot lest the ghost should molest him. The moral of the story is that even though the man was seen in flesh and blood, yet the wrong notion that he was a ghost prevented right values being taken. So it is with a forced realisation of the Self.

Page 539