365bet娱乐

According to the 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲蝉, The jagat which is full of variety has its root in the Brahman. The Kevala-补诲惫补颈迟补-惫别诲腻苍迟补-philosophy does not accept the reality of the world apart from its substratum viz. the Brahman. The world is regarded as mere illusion or unreal considering the transcendental plane.^[1] The concept of the world is generally seen to be discussed on three levels. These are: creation, sustainment and dissolution. In the later 艢腻峁卥补谤补-tradition, two streams have been developed regarding the creation of the world. They are: 厂峁涐梗峁璱-诲峁涐梗峁璱-惫腻诲补 and D峁涐梗峁璱-蝉峁涐梗峁璱-惫腻诲补. According to the 厂峁涐梗峁璱-诲峁涐梗峁璱-惫腻诲补, the world is created by the 莫艣惫补谤补 and it is perceived through the senses. The sequence of the creation is according to the descriptions in the Vedas. This theory holds that the world exists apart from one鈥檚 perception. On the other hand, the D峁涐梗峁璱-蝉峁涐梗峁璱-惫腻诲补 holds that the creation is contemporaneous with its perception. It does not exist apart from its cognition. The cognition itself is the creation. Thus, the upholders of this theory reduce the 惫测腻惫补丑腻谤颈办补-蝉补迟迟腻 (empirical plane) to the pr膩tibh膩sika-蝉补迟迟腻 (illusory plane).^[2] Both these approaches are found to be discussed in the dialogues of 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i. He describes the s峁涐梗峁璱-诲峁涐梗峁璱 as krama-蝉峁涐梗峁璱 (gradual creation) and the 诲峁涐梗峁璱-蝉峁涐梗峁璱 as yugapat-蝉峁涐梗峁璱 (simultaneous creation).^[3]

搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i describes the krama-蝉峁涐梗峁璱 very few times in comparison with the yugapat-蝉峁涐梗峁璱. There also he mostly shows the flaws in this view. He is not at all interested in explaining the sequence of the creation. He slightly mentions it while explaining the 迟补苍尘腻迟谤腻蝉 (five subtle elements). In his view, the whole universe arises owing to the variations in the 迟补苍尘腻迟谤腻蝉. These variations are caused by the influence of the three 驳耻峁嘺蝉, namely the constituents of the 辫谤补办峁泃颈 (nature). The gross objects are produced from the 迟补尘辞-驳耻峁嘺; the vital airs and the motor-organs are produced from the 谤补箩辞-驳耻峁嘺; and the sense organs are produced from the 蝉补迟迟惫补-驳耻峁嘺. He further explains this causal relation between the 迟补苍尘腻迟谤腻蝉 and the world by illustrating the ringing bell. Here, the bell is the gross object, which is the modification of tamo-驳耻峁嘺. The sound is an effect of 谤腻箩补蝉 迟补苍峁兡乼谤腻 and the knowledge of sound is an effect of the sattva 迟补苍峁兡乼谤腻. ^[4] In another dialogue, he explains the theory of creation quite in a different way. Therein, he mentions that the 迟补苍尘腻迟谤腻蝉 which proceed from the 辫谤补办峁泃颈, give rise to the inner organ, sense organs and motor organs after the process of 辫补帽肠墨办补谤补峁嘺. Further, he mentions that the creation occurs both on the 蝉补尘补峁ａ弓颈 (collective level) and the 惫测补峁ａ弓颈 (individual level). Further, he notes that the predominance of ether gives rise to 箩帽腻苍补 under the influence of the 蝉补迟迟惫补-驳耻峁嘺, the predominance of 惫腻测耻 gives rise to manas and so on. These 迟补苍尘腻迟谤腻蝉 are changed into sense organs and motor organs under the influence of rajo驳耻峁嘺 and 迟补尘辞-驳耻峁嘺 successively on the individual level. Thus, according to him, the common factor is the 迟补苍尘腻迟谤补蝉 on both the srishti (simultaneous or sudden creation) collective and individual levels.^[5] Both these descriptions are obviously not in full length and do not give each and every subtle information of creation. In this context, 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i himself says that the process of the creation is found to be differently described, but the objective of all these descriptions is the source of the creation viz. the Self.^[6]

Speaking of the diverse opinions about the creation, 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i asserts that such theories are discussed on the mental or the intellectual plane. These are unable to give any final solution. So, it is futile to engage into the conflicting views of the creation.^[7] He further suggests to consider these theories elaborated in the Vedas as the artha惫腻诲补 (eulogy) or to think that they are described for the sake of one, who is interested in the gradual creation. The principle objective of the Vedas behind explaining these theories is to show the illusory nature of the world and to bring one鈥檚 attention towards the eternal Self, which is one鈥檚 own true nature.^[8] Moreover, 惭补丑补谤峁�i clearly mentions that it is not necessary to analyze the various categories to know the Self, but one must reject all of them, just like throwing away the garbage.^[9] In this manner, 搁补尘补峁嘺 Mahar峁�hi avoids to explain the various theories of gradual creation and also to solve the problem of the contradiction among them. On the other hand, most of the times, he supports the view of yugapat-蝉峁涐梗峁璱. In his view, only a capable aspirant can grasp this view. The gradual creation of the world is explained for the less qualified aspirant, who is not able to understand the view of the yugapat-蝉峁涐梗峁璱. ^[10]

The independent existence of the world from the subject is denied in the D峁涐梗峁璱-蝉峁涐梗峁璱-惫腻诲补. 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i asserts the same thing that one鈥檚 individuality is responsible for the appearance of the world. The world appears with the rise of the I-thought viz. the ego and it comes to an end with the end of the I-thought. Therefore, the world is illuminated or known by this I-thought.^[11] To prove this, he frequently argues that the objects do not come and tell one that they exist but it is the individual or the subject, who affirms their existence. So, the objects depend on the sight of the subject.^[12] Considering this prominence of the I-thought, sometimes 惭补丑补谤峁�i shows the sequence in the origin of the I-thought and other objective thoughts. He says that the I-thought is created at first and then the world which is not different from one鈥檚 thoughts. Hence, the problem of the world-creation can be solved, only if one solves the question of the creation of I-thought.^[13] Additionally, he tells that the nature of the world depends on the nature of the subject, namely the ego.

If the ego is with gross form, the worldly objects have a gross form, and if the ego is with subtle form, the world has a subtle form. These conditions refer to the waking and the dream states successively, where the ego is supposed to be with a particular form. On the other hand, the ego does not have such a form in the state of deep sleep, so there does not exist any object in the absence of the ego.^[14] The illustration of deep sleep is often used by 惭补丑补谤峁�i to prove the non-existence of the world in the absence of the ego. So, his main focus is that the existence of the world depends on the existence of the body i.e. one鈥檚 identification with the body, since one cannot perceive the world in the absence of the body.^[15] Thus, 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i maintains the view of yugapat-蝉峁涐梗峁璱 on the strength of the relativity of the subject and the object.

One of the salient features of 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i鈥檚 philosophy is the manomayatva of the world. He always emphasizes the non-difference between the empirical objects and the mental thoughts. Therefore, he considers the waking-world as a mental creation just like the dream. A very common definition of a mind, which is frequently seen in his works, is that a mind is none but a bundle of thoughts. The world appears in the waking and the dream states, since the thoughts are active in these states. In the state of deep sleep, the thoughts are inactive and so the world is not seen. In other words, the world appears with the rise of the mind and it comes to an end when the mind gets absorbed into the Self. The projection of the world from the mind occurs, just like the threads are produced from the spider and also withdrawn back by the spider itself.^[16] 惭补丑补谤峁�i proves this dependence of the world on the mind by using another argument. He says that the whole world is none other than the five sense-objects. These sense-objects depend on five sense-organs for their illumination and the sense-organs are governed by the mind. Hence, the world is none other than the mind.^[17] In this way, according to 惭补丑补谤峁�i, the subjective and the objective modes or thoughts are contained in the mind and they get projected out of the mind.

While explaining the way, in which the mind appears in the form of subject and object, 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i describes the concept of the mind in more intricate manner. For instance, while explaining the 6^th stanza of the poem 鈥�础谤耻峁嚹乧补濒补-补峁ａ弓补办补鈥�, he puts forth some profound details about the appearance of the subject and the object in the mind. The summary of this description can be said as follows: The light of the Self is reflected on the ego owing to the power of the Self. The ego is the aggregate of all the thoughts or the latent tendencies. According to one鈥檚 destiny, this reflected light manifests the latent tendencies as the external gross world and again withdraws the gross world back in the form of the subtle internal tendencies. The objects cannot be seen either in the bright light of the Self or in the total darkness of the ignorance. In the reflected light alone, one can experience the world. It is just like the rope which cannot be mistaken for the snake in the clear sunlight or in the dense darkness. But one sees the snake on a rope only in dim light. Similarly, the Self appears as the ego and the world only when the light of the Self diffuses through the original ignorance. This reflected light is called the pure or 蝉腻迟迟惫颈办补 mind or the 莫艣惫补谤补. The 谤腻箩补蝉ika and 迟腻尘补蝉颈办补 aspects of the mind are related to the ego and the 补苍迟补岣�k补谤补峁嘺 respectively. This is the impure mind. The 补苍迟补岣�k补谤补峁嘺 appears as the external world. If the four parts of the 补苍迟补岣�k补谤补峁嘺 are considered, they can be divided into two major parts. Combining the intellect with the ego, it is said to be the 惫颈箩帽腻苍腻迟尘腻 or the subject; and combining the mind with the citta, it is said to be a mental sheath or the objects. Both these subject and object are only the passing phenomena on the substratum of the Self. Then, how does the outer world appear? The reflected light passes through certain tendencies and then expands as the outer world. The tendencies work as the magnifier in this process. Thus, the 莫艣惫补谤补, the 箩墨惫补 and the jagat are none other than the reflected light. And, the light of the Self transcends the reflected light.^[18] At some places, 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i describes the mind as an ether principle. He says that the mind, which comprehends the world or the physical ether, is itself the ether principle. It is contained in the 肠颈诲腻办腻艣补 (ultimate consciousness). It is called the ether, because it is the principle of knowledge. The word 鈥榚ther鈥� denotes not only the insentient physical ether but the pure knowledge also, where no objects are found. In the sattva aspect, the mind remains pure. The dynamic and the dull aspects of mind manifest as I-thought and all other objects.^[19] At another place, 惭补丑补谤峁�i clearly says, 鈥淭丑别 manokasa (mind-ether) is reflected as bhootakasa (element-ether) and objects are seen as being separate from the subject.鈥�^[20] Other dialogues, describing the creation of the subject and the object from the mind, mostly resemble with the above description, although some variations are found. However, all these descriptions focus on the same thing that the world is a mental creation.

搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i considers the reflected light, just before the creation of the world and the individual, as the 莫艣惫补谤补 or the pure cosmic mind, in which the simultaneous appearance of the subject and the object takes place. At the same time, he asserts that the individual sees his own 惫腻蝉补苍腻蝉 as the outer gross world. For example, while explaining the mahat-principle, he repeats his saying that the ego and the objects are visible only in the reflected consciousness, which is the cosmic consciousness. Further, he explains the creation of the body and other objects on the microcosm level. According to him, the brain is comprised of the impressions of the body and the objects. These impressions manifest when the light of the Self is projected on the brain. And, since the ego identifies itself with the body, the world is considered to be separate from oneself. It is just like a dream. One sees the crowd in the dream and identifies himself with one of the bodies in the crowd. Here, the space and the time do not enter into the brain but they are projected from the brain. In this way, the entire waking world is also a projection of the brain, i.e. the internal tendencies.^[21] However, 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i certainly does not limit the mind to the brain, since he asserts that the body, of which the brain is a part, is itself the projection of the mind.

Creating the body along with the brain and also saying that the brain is a seat of the mind, is a play of the mind.^[22] In one of the dialogues, 惭补丑补谤峁�i uses the terms 箩墨惫补-蝉峁涐梗峁璱 (creation of the individual) and 莫艣惫补谤补-蝉峁涐梗峁璱 (creation of the 莫艣惫补谤补) and says that only the 箩墨惫补-蝉峁涐梗峁璱 is responsible for pleasure and pain. Further, he does not elaborate these views in full length.^[23] In short, 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i considers both types of creation, namely the cosmic creation and the individual creation in his dialogues. Here, the question of some importance is, 鈥榃hich type of creation does he approve the most?鈥� In this connection, he says that the world does not tell one that it is created by the individual mind or by the cosmic mind. The world is perceived only by the individual mind. In the absence of that mind there remains no world to be seen.^[24] So, it seems that the main focus of 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i is not to elaborate the cosmic creation in full length or to explain its relation with the individual creation. On the other hand, he mostly focuses on explaining how the world appears to the individual. He mostly insists one to concentrate on the individual level ignoring the details of the cosmic level.

It is now easy to prove the unreality of the world, after establishing its non-difference from the mind. 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i always tells that the mind never exists in the viewpoint of the ultimate Reality, which transcends the plane of the empirical world. The world is unreal, since it has no separate existence from the mind. The world is always thought in the limits of time and space, but both these entities are merely creations of the mind.^[25] These concepts appear only when one鈥檚 identification with the body takes place. In the absence of such identification, the Self shines everywhere and all the time. In other words, the time and the place do not exist in the ultimate Reality. They can play their role only on the mindplane.^[26] In this way, the dependence of the world on the mind proves to be the essential reason in establishing the unreality of the world. Apart from this, 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i approves various traditional and modern illustrations also to show the illusory nature of the world, such as mirages in the deserts, a thief appearing on a tree-stump, serpent on a rope,^[27] illusory ring of fire,^[28] silver on the shell,^[29] cloth on the cotton, letters on a paper, figures in a cinema^[30] etc. However, in this context, the most used example by him is of the dreams. He compares the waking experience with dreams and denies the reality of the waking state. He often emphasizes the oneness of these two experiences. Because, according to him, the standards which differentiate these two states are not quite logical. So, the difference between these two states is not real.^[31] Here, it must be noted that he speaks this from the viewpoint of the ultimate Reality. So, it is improper to say that he denies the 惫测补惫补丑腻谤补 or the empirical plane totally. He asserts that the entire world can be discarded only by one, who is established in the ultimate Reality. So, only in the viewpoint of the 箩帽腻苍墨, the world does not exist.^[32] Further, 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i says that the permanence and the wholeness are the standards of the Reality. These are never found in the world, since it is transitory and divided in its nature. So it is unreal.^[33] But, at the same time, he says that one always believes in the reality of the world. This false belief cannot be removed merely by saying that the world is unreal and impermanent. It is necessary to see the eternal Self for removing this belief.^[34] Thus, 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i considers empirical level also. However, it cannot be ignored that he generally intends to show the non-difference between the waking and the dream worlds.

Considering the transcendental state, 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i frequently approves the Aj膩ti-惫腻诲补 (doctrine of non-origination).^[35] He says that the 补箩腻迟颈 is a matter of experience. The Self is not experienced, when one perceives the world. On the contrary, one does not perceive the world when he experiences the Self. Thus, the world does not exist in the state of Self-abidance. And, the truth of non-origination is understood after the attainment of the Self-realization.^[36] In this sense, he proclaims that the Self is not the cause of the world in the real sense of term. The names and the forms merely appear on the Self.^[37] At some places, he claims that the theory of causation cannot be established. He shows the fault in the illustration of 产墨箩腻峁卥耻谤补 (seed and sprout) by saying that one cannot determine which comes first, the seed or the sprout. So, the causal relation cannot be stated accurately.^[38] According to 惭补丑补谤峁�i, both the cause and the effect are imagined only by the mind. So, they do not exist in real sense.^[39] He has also quoted one of the 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补-办腻谤颈办腻蝉 (II.32) at some places, which says that there is no destruction, no origination, no one is bound, no one is an aspirant, no one longs for liberation and no one is liberated. This is the highest truth.^[40] In the same way, considering the subject-matter of the 叠丑补驳补惫补诲-驳墨迟腻 he often tells that 艢r墨k峁浥涐箛a advises the doctrine of 补箩腻迟颈 in the Bhagavad-驳墨迟腻 at first, but later he speaks about his several births. These statements seem to be contradictory. However, it is not so, since these answers suggest different standpoints which are explained for the aspirants having different capacities.^[41]

Moreover, it is clearly stated in one of the verses of the Guru-vachakakovai that 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i himself explained many doctrines according to the eligibility of the aspirants, but the 补箩腻迟颈 is his true experience.^[42] Thus, in the opinion of 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i, the world is not originated and therefore it is non-existent.

However, the doctrine of non-origination is stated only from the standpoint of the transcendental plane. On the empirical level, one鈥檚 experience goes totally opposite to this. One perceives the world in day to day life. So, now it becomes necessary to justify the world-appearance in a logical way. For this, the concept of 尘腻测腻 is used in the Kevalaadvaita-惫别诲腻苍迟补-philosophy. 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i does not discuss the concept of 尘腻测腻 in full length, but he mentions it at some places. In the 搁补尘补峁嘺-驳墨迟腻, he defines the 尘腻测腻 as the movement of the 艣补办迟颈 (power of the Self). It is inexpressible and causes to create the world.^[43] Here, he slightly bifurcates the 尘腻测腻 from the 艣补办迟颈. But, at some places, he tells that they are one and the same.^[44] He does not elaborate the relation between the 尘腻测腻 and the 补惫颈诲测腻. Sometimes, he shows the nondifference between these terms.^[45] However, it seems that he does not totally equate them. At some places, he considers the concept of 补惫颈诲测腻 on individual level and the concept of 尘腻测腻 on the cosmic level.^[46] At various places, especially in the Guru Vachaka Kovai, he regards the 尘腻测腻 as non-different from the mind.^[47] Further, he says that the 尘腻测腻 is responsible for concealing the truth of the Self. One believes in the reality of the trinity, i.e. the God, the world and the individual owing to the 尘腻测腻.^[48]

Apart from all this discussion, the main thing what 惭补丑补谤峁�i wants to say is that the 尘腻测腻 has no real existence apart from the Self. Almost in all the conversations, he says that the 尘腻测腻 is non-existent. He proves this by putting forth the etymological meaning of the term 尘腻测腻. The 尘腻测腻 means y膩 m膩, namely that which does not exist. This meaning is seen in the 骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补-办腻谤颈办补蝉.^[49] Thus, the 尘腻测腻 is unreal in viewpoint of the absolute Reality. Furthermore, he mentions that it is totally impossible for the 尘腻测腻 to bind the ever-shining Self.^[50] According to him, the truth of the non-existence of the 尘腻测腻 can be known only by transcending the mind or the 惫腻蝉补苍腻蝉. Therefore, attaining the Selfknowledge is the only solution to eliminate the 尘腻测腻. ^[51]

搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i has also expressed his opposition about the title 惭腻测腻惫腻诲颈苍 (upholder of the doctrine of 尘腻测腻) that is found to be attributed to 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补. In his opinion, the opponents blame the philosophy of 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 under the name M膩y膩-惫腻诲补 without proper understanding his views. 膧肠腻谤测补 certainly regarded the world as a myth, but he proclaimed the statement 鈥�Brahman is the universe鈥� along with it. It suggests that the world is unreal when it is thought to be different from the Brahman and it is real, when it is regarded as none other than the Brahman. Further, 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i clearly turns this discussion to the method of Self-enquiry saying that 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 focuses on the Self. He asks 鈥楾o whom does the world appear? The answer must be the Self, since it is the perceiver. So, 膧肠腻谤测补 concludes that the world is not apart from the Self, since it does not exist in the absence of the Self.^[52] In this context, it must be noted that 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i himself accepted the reality of the world, if it is seen none other than the Self. He opines that the names and the forms constantly change and perish. So, if the world is considered to be only names and forms, it is certainly 尘颈迟丑测腻 (temporal). However, if it is considered none other than the eternal Self, then it is real. Herein, he puts forth the sentence 鈥楢ll this is Brahman鈥� and further says that the Advaitin negates mere names and forms of the world. But considering the world as the Brahman, he says that it is real. The 箩帽腻苍墨 experiences only the Self in the world. He always abides in the Self, which is the substratum of the world. In his viewpoint, the entire world is nothing but the Self itself.^[53] Additionally, 惭补丑补谤峁�i says that the 尘腻测腻v膩din is one who affirms the reality of the 尘腻测腻 and its effect viz. the world. 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 rejects the existence of 尘腻测腻 from the standpoint of the Brahman, so it is improper to call him the 惭腻测腻惫腻诲墨. ^[54]

Besides the explanation of the 尘腻测腻, 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i has described the role of the 艣补办迟颈 in the context of the world. According to him, all the differences of triads appear on the substratum of the 厂惫补谤奴辫补 viz. the Self. And, the knowers of the 痴别诲腻苍迟补 declare that the Self possesses the entire 艣补办迟颈. The 艣补办迟颈 is not static, since the various worlds are created owing to its movement. The Self, which is the substratum of the movement, never moves.^[55] The individual wrongly considers this movement as being true. But, in the real sense, the Self never moves. The difference between the 莫艣惫补谤补 and the 艣补办迟颈 is assumed only by the individual sight. If this individual sight is merged into the Self, it can be realized that the Self and the 艣补办迟颈 are one and the same. So, even though the supreme Self seems to be moving on account of his 艣补办迟颈, it is truly inactive. This is the highest secrete, which is realized only by the sages.^[56] Here, Kapali Sastry comments that the 艣补办迟颈 is not different from the Self.

Even if so, it is accepted that only the 艣补办迟颈 has movement and the Self is without movement. This contrast can be removed only by the true knowledge of the supreme Self and not by the complicated logic or empty arguments. This specific sense is indicated by the words 鈥榯his supreme truth can be known only by the realized one鈥�.^[57] Further, 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i particularly asserts that the creation, which is said to be the sport of the 艣补办迟颈, is the imagination of the 莫艣惫补谤补. When this imagination is transcended, there remains the Self alone.^[58] According to Kapali Sastry, here the word 莫艣补-办补濒辫补苍腻 is used, so that there should not be the confusion that the whole creation is imagined by the 箩墨惫补. ^[59] So, in the opinion of Kapali Sastry, 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i indicates here that the world is created by the 莫艣惫补谤补 alone and not by the 箩墨惫补. And, it is quite true. 搁补尘补峁嘺 惭补丑补谤峁�i frequently states that the world is not apart from the thoughts of the individual. Sometimes, he approves the doctrine of one 箩墨惫补 also. Still, he does not deny the creatorship or the governance of the 莫艣惫补谤补. The views of 惭补丑补谤峁�i regarding the concept of 莫艣惫补谤补 are explained in the next section, namely 鈥�Brahman鈥�.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

Brahma-箩帽腻苍腻惫补濒墨-尘腻濒腻 20, 艢r墨艣膩峁卥aragranth膩vali岣�: Prakara峁嘺prabandh膩vali岣�, Vol. II.

[2]:

[厂颈诲诲丑腻苍迟补-濒别艣补-蝉补峁単谤补丑补] pp. 355-356

[3]:

鈥淐reation is explained scientifically or logically to one鈥檚 own satisfaction鈥� Such explanations are called krama srishti (gradual creation). On the other hand, drishti is yugapad srishti. Without the seer there are no objects seen.鈥� [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 369; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 636

[4]:

鈥淭丑别 five senses mean the subtle functions (tanmatras), namely, hearing, touch, seeing, taste and smell. Variations of these form the whole universe; they vary according to the three gunas鈥︹�� [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 547-548

[5]:

鈥淭丑别 relation between the external world and the individual now becomes easy because the tanmatras are common to them.鈥� Ibid p. 266

[6]:

鈥淭丑别 significance is not emphasis on creation but on the original source.鈥� Ibid p. 266

[7]:

鈥淭丑别re are so many theories, scriptural and scientific. Have they reached any finality? They cannot.鈥� Ibid p. 369; cf. [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 449

[8]:

鈥淭丑别n treat all the rest as artha vada (auxiliary arguments) or expositions for the sake of the ignorant who seek to trace the genesis of things and matters.鈥� [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 38; See also [Self Enquiry; See鈥擟ollected Works of Sri Ramana Maharshi], Q. 10, pp. 10-11

[9]:

鈥溾��one who wants to know the Self has no need to count the number of categories or inquire into their characteristics; what he has to do is to reject altogether the categories that hide the Self.鈥� [Who am I?; See鈥擟ollected Works of Sri Ramana Maharshi], Q. 21, p. 44

[10]:

鈥淢oreover, for the less qualified persons creation is taught, that is the phased evolution of prakriti (primal nature), mahat tattva (the great intellect), tanmatras (the subtle essences), bhutas (the gross elements), the world, the body, etc., from Brahman; while for the more qualified simultaneous creation is taught鈥︹�� [Self Enquiry], Q. 10, p. 10-11; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 333

[11]:

[厂补诲-诲补谤艣补苍补尘] 9 [Sad-诲补谤艣补苍补-产丑腻峁�y补 of Kapali Sastry] 9

[12]:

鈥淭丑别 objects are therefore what the seer makes of them. They have no existence independent of the subject.鈥� [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 369; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 342, 476

[13]:

鈥淭丑别 鈥業鈥� is first created and then the world. The world is created by the 鈥業鈥� which in its turn rises up from the Self.鈥� [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 449; See also [Spiritual Instruction]-II, Q. 11, p. 58

[14]:

鈥淲hatever state one is in, the perceptions partake of that state鈥� in the sushupti (deep dreamless sleep), the identification with the body being lost, there are no perceptions鈥� [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 1

[15]:

[厂补诲-诲补谤艣补苍补尘] 7

[16]:

鈥淎part from thoughts, there is no such thing as mind. Therefore, thought is the nature of mind. Apart from thoughts, there is no independent entity called the world.鈥� [Who am I?], Q. 8, p. 38; See also [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.29-31

[17]:

[厂补诲-诲补谤艣补苍补尘] 8

[18]:

鈥淥nly in Reflected Light (Light mixed with Darkness or knowledge soiled by Ignorance) can the world, not independent of its Source, seem to rise up, flourish and be resolved. Its diversity too cannot be exclusive of the Reality, the original Source.鈥� [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 298-301; See also [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.70; [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 555; [Day by Day with Bhagavan] p. 2; [Self Enquiry], Q. 11, pp. 1112

[19]:

鈥淚s not the mind, which comprehends space, itself space (akasa)? 鈥� Being the principle of knowledge (jnana sattva), it is identified with ether (akasa) by metaphysics.鈥� [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 443-444; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 480-481, 562-563

[20]:

[Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 497

[21]:

鈥淭丑别 impressions in the brain become manifest as the body and the worlds.鈥� [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 152-153; See also [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.36-38, 84; [Maharshi鈥檚 Gospel] p. 66

[22]:

鈥淲here is the brain? It is in the body. I say that the body itself is a projection of the mind.鈥� [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 309; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 473

[23]:

鈥淔urther, creation is to be considered in its two aspects, Isvara srishti (God鈥檚 creation) and jiva srishti (individual鈥檚 creation).鈥� [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 244

[24]:

鈥淚t is only the individual mind that sees the world. When this mind disappears the world also disappears.鈥� Ibid p. 538; cf. [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 146

[25]:

Time and space are in the mind but one鈥檚 true state lies beyond the mind.鈥� Ibid p. 577; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 78

[26]:

[厂补诲-诲补谤艣补苍补尘] 18

[27]:

鈥淭丑别 appearance of this illusory world, which is seen as real, is just like the serpent seen in a rope, the thief seen in a tree-stump or the water seen in a mirage.鈥� [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.44

[28]:

鈥淪ince this world of dyads and triads appears only in the mind, like the illusory ring of fire formed [in darkness] by whirling the single point of a glowing rope-end, it is false, and it does not exist in the clear sight of Self.鈥� Ibid I.35

[29]:

鈥淟ike silver in mother-of-pearl, these three appear at the same time and disappear at the same time.鈥� [Who am I?; See鈥擟ollected Works of Sri Ramana Maharshi], Q. 16, p. 42

[30]:

鈥淭hink of the man who sees only the cloth and not the cotton of which it is made; or of the man who sees the pictures moving on the screen in a cinema show and not the screen itself as the background; or again the man who sees the letters which he reads but not the paper on which they are written.鈥� [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 442

[31]:

鈥淥n account of some arbitrary standards about the duration of experience and so on, we call one experience dream experience and another waking experience. With reference to Reality, both the experiences are unreal.鈥� [Day by Day with Bhagavan] p. 159

[32]:

鈥淭丑别 Realised鈥� will not say that the world, which has no existence in the view of the Supreme Brahman, is real.鈥� [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.23, 27

[33]:

鈥淧ermanence is one of the marks of Reality鈥� Wholeness is also a mark of Reality鈥� Ibid I.63-64

[34]:

鈥淯nless something permanent is held, the transitory nature of the world cannot be understood.鈥� [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 332;See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 640

[35]:

鈥淭hough that which ever exists is truly only one [namely Self] and though Its nature is non-becoming, what a wonder it is that It appears to have become many jivas鈥︹�� [Guru Vachaka Kovai] II.621; See also [Guru Vachaka Kovai] II.425, 535

[36]:

鈥淪o see the Self and realise that there has been no creation.鈥� [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 450

[37]:

鈥淪elf Itself is seen [due to Maya] appearing as the many names and forms of this universe, but It does not act as the cause or the doer, creating, sustaining and destroying this universe.鈥� [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.85

[38]:

鈥淭丑别 creation is said to have an origin. How? Like a tree and the seed from which it has grown. How was the seed produced? From a similar tree. Where is the end to the series of questions?鈥� [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 536

[39]:

鈥溾��in fact the effect is not really produced by the cause, since both are produced only by the imagination of the ignorant mind.鈥� [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.89; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 426

[40]:

[Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 363; See also [Guru Vachaka Kovai] III.1227 (B-28); [Miscellaneous Verses] 9; [骋补耻岣峚辫腻诲补-办腻谤颈办腻蝉] II.32

[41]:

鈥淚t is said in the second chapter of Gita that no one is born or dies: but in the fourth chapter Sri Krishna says that numerous incarnations of His and of Arjuna had taken place鈥� Which of these statements is true? Both statements are true, but from different standpoints.鈥� [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p 426; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p 46, 130, 161-162, 228-229 鈥淚t is this same 鈥�Ajata鈥� that Sri Krishna revealed to Arjuna in an early Chapter [two] of the Gita, and know that it was only because of the latter鈥檚 bewilderment and inability to grasp the Truth, that other doctrines were then taught in the remaining sixteen chapters.鈥� [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.101

[42]:

鈥淎lthough Guru Ramana taught various doctrines according to the level of understanding of those who came to Him, we heard from Him that 鈥�Ajata鈥� alone is truly His own experience.鈥� Ibid I.100

[43]:

[艢r墨-rama峁嘺-驳墨迟腻] XII.11

[44]:

鈥淭丑别 blissful silent real principle [Self or Brahman] alone is the stage or base for Maya鈥搘ho is the great power of consciousness [maha-chit-sakti]鈥︹�� [Guru Vachaka Kovai] III.1215; See also [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.103;[Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 390

[45]:

鈥溾��the cosmic maya which is nescience, of the nature of sheer darkness鈥︹�� [Self Enquiry], Q. 16, p. 17

[46]:

鈥�Jiva is not independent of Isvara; nor ignorance of maya.鈥� [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 557

[47]:

鈥淭his world of empty names and forms鈥� should be understood to be the mysterious play of Maya, the mind鈥︹�� [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.22; See also [Guru Vachaka Kovai] II.560-561; [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 418; [Day by Day with Bhagavan] p. 94

[48]:

鈥�Maya is that which makes us regard as nonexistent the Self, the Reality, which is always and everywhere present, all pervasive and Self-luminous, and as existent the individual soul (jiva), the world (jagat), and God (para)鈥︹�� [Spiritual Instruction]-II, Q. 5, p. 56; See also [Ramana Puranam] lines 292-294

[49]:

鈥�Maya is ya ma (maya is what is not).鈥� [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 129; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 17, 426; See -II.100, p. 43

[50]:

鈥淭o say that the destructible, non-existent [asat] and insentient [jada] Maya had once bound under its sway Self, the Light of knowledge鈥� is more foolish and ridiculous than to say that a small mosquito had swallowed the vast sky and then vomited it.鈥� [Guru Vachaka Kovai] II.596

[51]:

鈥淚f you realise the Self the possessions are not perceived. That is getting rid of Maya.鈥� [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 248; See also [Guru Vachaka Kovai] II.831; [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 473

[52]:

鈥淭丑别 tantriks and others of the kind condemn Sri Sankara鈥檚 philosophy as maya vada without understanding him aright鈥� If the world appears, yet to whom does it appear, he asks鈥� The phenomena are real as the Self and are myths apart from the Self.鈥� [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 289-290

[53]:

鈥淭o limit the Self and regard it as these names and form is mithya. To regard all as Self is the Reality.鈥� [Day by Day with Bhagavan] pp. 307-308; See also [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.20, 50-54; [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 42; [Day by Day with Bhagavan] p. 269

[54]:

鈥�Shankara says maya does not exist. He who denies the existence of maya and calls it mithya or non-existent cannot be called a mayavadi.鈥� [Day by Day with Bhagavan] p. 191; See also [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] pp. 258-259

[55]:

[艢r墨-rama峁嘺-驳墨迟腻] XII.8 Ibid XII.10

[56]:

Ibid XII.12 Ibid XII.13; Ibid XII.15; See also [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.48; cf. [Guru Vachaka Kovai] I.58, I.201, I.434; [Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi] p. 458

[57]:

鈥� [艢r墨-rama峁嘺-驳墨迟腻-辫谤补办腻艣补] XII.15

[58]:

[艢r墨-rama峁嘺-驳墨迟腻] XII.35

[59]:

[艢r墨-rama峁嘺-驳墨迟腻-辫谤补办腻艣补] XII.35