Be as you are
The teachings of sri Ramana Maharishi

[Entry page] [Table of contents]

Introduction 
In I896 a sixteen-year-old schoolboy walked out on his family and, 
driven by an inner compulsion, slowly made his way to Arunachala, 
a holy mountain and pilgrimage centre in South India. On his arrival 
he threw away all his money and possessions and abandoned himself 
to a newly-discovered awareness that his real nature was formless, 
immanent consciousness. His absorption in this awareness was so 
intense that he was completely oblivious of his body and the world; 
insects chewed away portions of his legs, his body wasted away 
because he was rarely conscious enough to eat and his hair and 
fingernails grew to unmanageable lengths. After two or three years 
in this state he began a slow return to physical normality, a process 
that was not finally completed for several years. His awareness of 
himself as consciousness was unaffected by this physical transition 
and it remained continuous and undimmed for the rest of his life. In 
Hindu parlance he had `realized the Self'; that is to say, he had 
realized by direct experience that nothing existed apart from an 
indivisible and universal consciousness which was experienced in its 
unmanifest form as beingness or awareness and in its manifest form 
as the appearance of the universe. 
Normally this awareness is only generated after a long and arduous 
period of spiritual practice but in this case it happened 

spontaneously, without prior effort or desire. Venkataraman, the 
sixteen-year-old schoolboy, was alone in an upstairs room of his 
uncle's house in Madurai (near the southern tip of India) when he 
was suddenly gripped by an intense fear of death. In the following 
few minutes he went through a simulated death experience during 
which he became consciously aware for the first time that his real 
nature was imperishable and that it was unrelated to the body, the 
mind or the personality. Many people have reported similar 
unexpected experiences but they are almost invariably temporary. In 
Venkataraman's case the experience was permanent and irreversible. 
From that time on his consciousness of being an individual person 
ceased to exist and it never functioned in him again. 
Venkataraman told no one about his experience and for six weeks he 
kept up the appearance of being an ordinary schoolboy. However, he 
found it an increasingly difficult posture to maintain and at the end 
of this six week period he abandoned his family and went directly to 
the holy mountain of Arunachala. 
The choice of Arunachala was far from random. Throughout his 
brief life he had always associated the name of Arunachala with God 
and it was a major revelation to him when he discovered that it was 
not some heavenly realm but a tangible earthly entity. The mountain 
itself had long been regarded by Hindus as a manifestation of Siva, a 
Hindu God, and in later years Venkataraman often said that it was 
the spiritual power of Arunachala which had brought about his Self-
realization. His love for the mountain was so great that from the day 

he arrived in I896 until his death in I950 he could never be 
persuaded to go more than two miles away from its base. 
After a few years of living on its slopes his inner awareness began to 
manifest as an outer spiritual radiance. This radiance attracted a 
small circle of followers and, although he remained silent for most of 
the time, he embarked upon a teaching career. One of his earliest 
followers, impressed by the evident saintliness and wisdom of the 
young man, decided to rename him Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi 
- Bhagavan means Lord or God, Sri is an Indian honorific title, 
Ramana is a contraction of Venkataraman and Maharshi means 
`great seer' in Sanskrit. The name found favor with his other 
followers and it soon became the title by which he became known to 
the world. 
At this stage of his life Sri Ramana was speaking very little and so 
his teachings were transmitted in an unusual fashion. Instead of 
giving out verbal instructions he constantly emanated a silent force 
or power which stilled the minds of those who were attuned to it and 
occasionally even gave them a direct experience of the state that he 
himself was perpetually immersed in. In later years he became more 
willing to give out verbal teachings, but even then, the silent 
teachings were always available to those who were able to make 
good use of them. Throughout his life Sri Ramana insisted that this 
silent flow of power represented his teachings in their most direct 
and concentrated form. The importance he attached to this is 
indicated by his frequent statements to the effect 

that his verbal teachings were only given out to those who were 
unable to understand his silence. 
As the years passed he became more and more famous. A 
community grew up around him, thousands of visitors flocked to 
see him and for the last twenty years of his life he was widely 
regarded as India's most popular and revered holy man. Some of 
these thousands were attracted by the peace they felt in his 
presence, others by the authoritative way in which he guided 
spiritual seekers and interpreted religious teachings, and some 
merely came to tell him their problems. Whatever their reasons for 
coming almost everyone who came into contact with him was 
impressed by his simplicity and his humbleness. He made himself 
available to visitors twenty-four hours a day by living and sleeping 
in a communal hall which was always accessible to everyone, and 
his only private possessions were a loin-cloth, a water-pot and a 
walking-stick. Although he was worshipped by thousands as a 
living God, he refused to allow anyone to treat him as a special 
person and he always refused to accept anything which could not be 
shared equally by everyone in his ashram. He shared in the 
communal work and for many years he rose at 3 a.m. in order to 
prepare food for the residents of the ashram. His sense of equality 
was legendary. When visitors came to see him - it made no 
difference whether they were VIPs, peasants or animals - they 
would all be treated with equal respect and consideration. His 
egalitarian concern even extended to the local trees; he discouraged 

his followers from picking flowers or leaves off them and he tried 
to ensure that whenever fruit was taken from the ashram trees it was 
always done in such a way that the tree only suffered a minimum 
amount of pain. 
Throughout this period (I925-50) the centre of ashram life was the 
small hall where Sri Ramana lived, slept and held court. He spent 
most of his day sitting in one corner radiating his silent power and 
simultaneously fielding questions from the constant flow of visitors 
who descended on him from every corner of the globe. He rarely 
committed his ideas to paper and so the verbal replies given out 
during this period (by far the most well documented of his life) 
represent the largest surviving source of his teachings. 
These verbal teachings flowed authoritatively from his direct 
knowledge that consciousness was the only existing reality. 
Consequently, all his explanations and instructions were geared to 
convincing his followers that this was their true and natural state. 
Few of his followers were capable of assimilating this truth in its 
highest and most undiluted form and so he often adapted his 
teachings to conform to the limited understanding of the people 
who came to him for advice. Because of this tendency it is possible 
to distinguish many different levels of his teachings. At the highest 
level that could be expressed in words he would say that 
consciousness alone exists. If this was received with skepticism he 
would say that awareness of this truth is obscured by the self-
limiting ideas of the mind and that if these ideas were abandoned 

then the reality of consciousness would be revealed. Most of his 
followers found this high-level approach a little too theoretical - 
they were so immersed in the self-limiting ideas that Sri Ramana 
was encouraging them to drop that they felt that the truth about 
consciousness would only be revealed to them if they underwent a 
long period of spiritual practice. To satisfy such people Sri Ramana 
prescribed an innovative method of self-attention which he called 
self-enquiry. He recommended this technique so often and so 
vigorously that it was regarded by many people as the most 
distinctive motif in his teachings. 
Even then, many people were not satisfied and they would continue 
to ask for advice about other methods or try to engage him in 
theoretical philosophical discussions. With such people Sri Ramana 
would temporarily abandon his absolute standpoint and give 
appropriate advice on whatever level it was asked. If he appeared 
on these occasions to accept and endorse many of the 
misconceptions which his visitors had about themselves it was only 
to draw their attention to some aspect of his teachings that he felt 
would help them to better understand his real views. 
Inevitably, this policy of modifying his teachings to meet the needs 
of different people led to many contradictions. He might, for 
example, tell one person that the individual self is non-existent and 
then turn to another person and give a detailed description of how 
the individual self functions, accumulates karma and reincarnates. It 
is possible for an observer to say that such opposing statements may 

both be true when seen from different standpoints, but the former 
statement clearly has more validity when it is viewed from the 
absolute standpoint of Sri Ramana's own experience. This 
standpoint, summarized by his statement that consciousness alone 
exists, is ultimately the only yardstick by which one can 
realistically assess the relative truth of his widely 
differing and contradictory statements. To whatever extent his other 
statements deviate from this it may be assumed that to that extent 
they are dilutions of the truth. 
Bearing this in mind I have tried to arrange the material in this book 
in such a way that his highest teachings come first and his least 
important or most diluted ones last. The only exception is a chapter 
in which he talks about his silent teachings. It ought to be 
somewhere near the beginning but I found it more expedient for a 
variety of reasons to fit it into a section about half-way through the 
book. 
I decided on this overall structure for two reasons. Firstly it gives 
the reader a chance to gauge the relative importance of the various 
ideas presented, and secondly, and more importantly, it was Sri 
Ramana's own preferred method of teaching. When visitors came to 
see him he would always try to convince them of the truth of his 
higher teachings and only if they seemed unwilling to accept them 
would he tone down his answers and speak from a more relative 
level. 

The teachings have been presented in the form of a series of 
questions and answers in which Sri Ramana outlines his views on 
various subjects. Each chapter is devoted to a different topic and 
each topic is prefaced by a few introductory or explanatory remarks. 
The questions and answers which form the bulk of each chapter 
have been taken from many sources and assembled in such a way 
that they give the appearance of being a continuous conversation. I 
was forced to adopt this method because there are no continuous 
lengthy conversations available which cover the full spectrum of his 
views on any particular subject. For those who are interested, the 
sources of the quotations which make up the conversations are all 
listed at the end of the book. 
Sri Ramana usually answered questions in one of the three 
vernacular languages of South India: Tamil, Telugu and Malayalam. 
No tape-recordings were ever made and most of his answers were 
hurriedly written down in English by his official interpreters. 
Because some of the interpreters were not completely fluent in 
English some of the transcriptions were either ungrammatical or 
written in a kind of stilted English which occasionally makes Sri 
Ramana sound like a pompous Victorian. I have deviated from the 
published texts by correcting a few of the worst examples of this 
kind; in such cases the meaning has not been tampered with, only 
the mode of expression. I have also contracted some of the 
questions and answers in order to eliminate material which digressed 
too far from the subject under discussion. Throughout the book the 

questions are prefaced by a `Q:' and Sri Ramana's answers by an 
`A:'. 
The original texts from which these conversations are taken are 
characterized by a luxuriant profusion of capital letters. I have 
eliminated most of them, leaving only three terms, Guru, Self and 
Heart, consistently capitalized. Sri Ramana often used these terms as 
synonyms for consciousness and wherever this meaning is implied I 
have retained the capitalization to avoid confusion. 
David Godman 

The Self 
That in which all these worlds seem to exist steadily, that of which 
all these worlds are a possession, that from which all these worlds 
rise, that for which all these exist, that by which all these worlds 
come into existence and that which is indeed all these - that alone is 
the existing reality. Let us cherish that Self, which is the reality, in 
the Heart. 

The nature of the Self 
The essence of Sri Ramana's teachings is conveyed in his frequent 
assertions that there is a single immanent reality, directly experienced 
by everyone, which is simultaneously the source, the substance and 
the real nature of everything that exists. He gave it a number of 
different names, each one signifying a different aspect of the same 
indivisible reality. The following classification includes all of his 
more common synonyms and explains the implications of the various 
terms used. 
1. The Self This is the term that he used the most frequently. He 
defined it by saying that the real Self or real `I' is, contrary to 
perceptible experience, not an experience of individuality but a non-
personal, all-inclusive awareness. It is not to be confused with the 
individual self which he said was essentially non-existent, being a 
fabrication of the mind which obscures the true experience of the real 
Self. He maintained that the real Self is always present and always 
experienced but he emphasized that one is only consciously aware of 
it as it really is when the self-limiting tendencies of the mind have 
ceased. Permanent and continuous Self-awareness is known as Self-
realization. 

2. Sat-chit-ananda This is a Sanskrit term which translates as 
being-consciousness-bliss. Sri Ramana taught that the Self is pure 
being, a subjective awareness of `I am' which is completely devoid of 
the feeling `I am this' or `I am that'. There are no subjects or objects in 
the Self, there is only an awareness of being. Because this awareness 
is conscious it is also known as consciousness. The direct experience 
of this consciousness is, according to Sri Ramana, a state of unbroken 
happiness and so the term ananda or bliss is also used to describe it. 
These three aspects, being, consciousness and bliss, are experienced 
as a unitary whole and not as separate attributes of the Self. They are 
inseparable in the same way that wetness, transparency and liquidity 
are inseparable properties of water. 
3. God Sri Ramana maintained that the universe is sustained by the 
power of the Self. Since theists normally attribute this power to God 
he often used the word God as a synonym for the Self. He also used 
the words Brahman, the supreme being of Hinduism, and Siva, a 
Hindu name for God, in the same way. Sri Ramana's God is not a 
personal God, he is the formless being which sustains the universe. 
He is not the creator of the universe, the universe is merely a 
manifestation of his inherent power; he is inseparable from it, but he 
is not affected by its appearance or its disappearance. 
4. The Heart Sri Ramana frequently used the Sanskrit word 
hridayam when he was talking about the Self. It is usually translated 

as `the Heart' but a more literal translation would be `this is the 
centre'. In using this particular term he was not implying that there 
was a particular location or centre for the Self, he was merely 
indicating that the Self was the source from which all appearances 
manifested. 
5. Jnana The experience of the Self is sometimes called jnana or 
knowledge. This term should not be taken to mean that there is a 
person who has knowledge of the Self, because in the state of Self-
awareness there is no localized knower and there is nothing that is 
separate from the Self that can be known. True knowledge, or jnana, 
is not an object of experience, nor is it an understanding of a state 
which is different and apart from the subject knower; it is a direct 
and knowing awareness of the one reality in which subjects and 
objects have ceased to exist. One who is established in this state is 
known as a jnani. 
6.Turiya and turyatita Hindu philosophy postulates three 
alternating levels of relative consciousness - waking, dream and deep 
sleep. Sri Ramana stated that the Self was the underlying reality 
which supported the appearance of the other three temporary states. 
Because of this he sometimes called the Self turiya avastha or the 
fourth state. He also occasionally used the word turiyatita, meaning 
`transcending the fourth', to indicate that there are not really four 
states but only one real transcendental state. 

7. Other terms Three other terms for the Self are worth noting. Sri 
Ramana often emphasized that the Self was one's real and natural 
state of being, and for this reason, he occasionally employed the 
terms sahaja sthiti, meaning the natural state, and swarupa, 
meaning real form or real nature. He also used the word `silence' to 
indicate that the Self was a silent thought-free state of undisturbed 
peace and total stillness. 

The conversations 
Q: What is reality? 
A: Reality must be always real. It is not with forms and names. 
That which underlies these is the reality. It underlies limitations, 
being itself limitless. It is not bound. It underlies unrealities, itself 
being real. Reality is that which is. It is as it is. It transcends speech. 
It is beyond the expressions `existence, non-existence', etc. 
The reality which is the mere consciousness that remains when 
ignorance is destroyed along with knowledge of objects, alone is the 
Self [atma]. In that Brahma-swarupa [real form of Brahman], 
which is abundant Self-awareness, there is not the least ignorance. 
The reality which shines fully, without misery and without a body, 
not only when the world is known but also when the world is not 
known, is your real form [nija-swarupa]. 
The radiance of consciousness-bliss, in the form of one awareness 
shining equally within and without, is the supreme and blissful 
primal reality. Its form is silence and it is declared by jnanis to be 
the final and unobstructable state of true knowledge [jnana]. 

Know that jnana alone is non-attachment; jnana alone is purity; 
jnana is the attainment of God; jnana which is devoid of 
forgetfulness of Self alone is immortality; jnana alone is everything. 
Q: What is this awareness and how can one obtain and cultivate 
it? 
A: You are awareness. Awareness is another name for you. 
Since you are awareness there is no need to attain or cultivate it. All 
that you have to do is to give up being aware of other things, that is 
of the not-Self. If one gives up being aware of them then pure 
awareness alone remains, and that is the Self. 
Q: If the Self is itself aware, why am I not aware of it even now? 
A: There is no duality. Your present knowledge is due to the ego 
and is only relative. Relative knowledge requires a subject and an 
object, whereas the awareness of the Self is absolute and requires 
no object. 
Remembrance also is similarly relative, requiring an object to be 
remembered and a subject to remember. When there is no duality, 
who is to remember whom? 
The Self is ever-present. Each one wants to know the Self. What 
kind of help does one require to know oneself ? People want to see 
the Self as something new. But it is eternal and remains the same all 
along. They desire to see it as a blazing light etc. How can it be so? 
It is not light, not darkness. It is only as it is. It cannot be defined. 

The best definition is `I am that I am'. The srutis [scriptures] speak 
of the Self as being the size of one's thumb, the tip of the hair, an 
electric spark, vast, subtler than the subtlest, etc. They have no 
foundation in fact. It is only being, but different from the real and 
the unreal; it is knowledge, but different from knowledge and 
ignorance. How can it be defined at all? It is simply being. 
Q: When a man realizes the Self, what will he see? 
A: There is no seeing. Seeing is only being. The state of Self-
realization, as we call it, is not attaining something new or reaching 
some goal which is far away, but simply being that which you 
always are and which you always have been. All that is needed is 
that you give up your realization of the not-true as true. All of us 
are regarding as real that which is not real. We have only to give up 
this practice on our part. Then we shall realize the Self as the Self; 
in other words, `Be the Self'. At one stage you will laugh at yourself 
for trying to discover the Self which is so self-evident. So, what can 
we say to this question? 
That stage transcends the seer and the seen. There is no seer there to 
see anything. The seer who is seeing all this now ceases to exist and 
the Self alone remains. 
Q: How to know this by direct experience? 
A: If We talk of knowing the Self, there must be two selves, 

one a knowing self, another the self which is known, and the 
process of knowing. The state we call realization is simply being 
oneself, not knowing anything or becoming anything. If one has 
realized, one is that which alone is and which alone has always 
been. One cannot describe that state. One can only be that. Of 
course, we loosely talk of Self-realization, for want of a better term. 
How to `real-ize' or make real that which alone is real ? 
Q: You sometimes say the Self is silence. Why is this? 
A: For those who live in Self as the beauty devoid of thought, 
there is nothing which should be thought of. That which should be 
adhered to is only the experience of silence, because in that 
supreme state nothing exists to be attained other than oneself. 
Q: What is mouna [silence]? 
A: That state which transcends speech and thought is mouna. That 
which is, is mouna. How can mouna be explained in words? 
Sages say that the state in which the thought `I' [the ego] does not 
rise even in the least, alone is Self [swarupa] which is silence 
[mouna]. That silent Self alone is God; Self alone is the jiva 
[individual soul]. Self alone is this ancient world. 
All other knowledge are only petty and trivial knowledge; the 
experience of silence alone is the real and perfect knowledge. Know 
that the many objective differences are not real but are mere 
superimpositions on Self, which is the form of true knowledge. 

Q: As the bodies and the selves animating them are everywhere 
actually observed to be innumerable how can it be said that the Self is 
only one? 
A: If the idea `I am the body' is accepted, the selves are multiple. 
The state in which this idea vanishes is the Self since in that state 
there are no other objects. It is for this reason that the Self is 
regarded as one only. 
Since the body itself does not exist in the natural outlook of the real 
Self, but only in the extroverted outlook of the mind which is 
deluded by the power of illusion, to call Self, the space of 
consciousness, dehi [the possessor of the body] is wrong. 
The world does not exist without the body, the body never exists 
without the mind, the mind never exists without consciousness and 
consciousness never exists without the reality. 
For the wise one who has known Self by divining within himself, 
there is nothing other than Self to be known. Why? 
Because since the ego which identifies the form of a body as `I' has 
perished, he [the wise one] is the formless existence-consciousness. 
The jnani [one who has realized the Self] knows he is the Self and 
that nothing, neither his body nor anything else, exists but the Self. 
To such a one what difference could the presence or absence of a 
body make? 
It is false to speak of realization. What is there to realize? The real is 
as it is always. We are not creating anything new or achieving 
something which we did not have before. The illustration given in 

books is this. We dig a well and create a huge pit. The space in the 
pit or well has not been created by us. We have just removed the 
earth which was filling the space there. The space was there then and 
is also there now. Similarly we have simply to throw out all the age-
long samskaras [innate tendencies] which are inside us. When all of 
them have been given up, the Self will shine alone. 
Q: But how to do this and attain liberation? 
A: Liberation is our very nature. We are that. The very fact that we 
wish for liberation shows that freedom from all bondage is our real 
nature. It is not to be freshly acquired. All that is necessary is to get 
rid of the false notion that we are bound. When we achieve that, 
there will be no desire or thought of any sort. So long as one desires 
liberation, so long, you may take it, one is in bondage. 
Q: For one who has realized his Self, it is said that he will not have 
the three states of wakefulness, dream and deep sleep. Is that a fact? 
A: What makes you say that they do not have the three states? In 
saying `I had a dream; I was in deep sleep; I am awake', you must 
admit that you were there in all the three states. That makes it dear 
that you were there all the time. If you remain as you are now, you 
are in the wakeful state; this becomes hidden in the dream state; and 
the dream state disappears when you are in deep sleep. You were 
there then, you are there now, and you are there at all times. The 
three states come and go, but you are always there. It is like a 

cinema. The screen is always there but several types of pictures 
appear on the screen and then disappear. Nothing sticks to the 
screen, it remains a screen. Similarly, you remain your own Self in 
all the three states. If you know that, the three states will not trouble 
you, just as the pictures which appear on the screen do not stick to it. 
On the screen, you sometimes see a huge ocean with endless waves; 
that disappears. Another time, you see fire spreading all around; that 
too disappears. The screen is there on both occasions. Did the screen 
get wet with the water or did it get burned by the fire? Nothing 
affected the screen. In the same way, the things that happen during 
the wakeful, dream and sleep states do not affect you at all; you 
remain your own Self. 
Q: Does that mean that, although people have all three states, 
wakefulness, dream and deep sleep, these do not affect them? 
A: Yes, that is it. All these states come and go. The Self is not 
bothered; it has only one state. 
Q: Does that mean that such a person will be in this world merely 
as a witness? 
A: That is so; for this very thing, Vidyaranya, in the tenth chapter 
of the Panchadasi, gives as example the light that is kept on the stage 
of a theatre. When a drama is being played, the light is there, which 
illuminates, without any distinction, all the actors, whether they be 
kings or servants or dancers, and also all the audience. That light will 
be there before the drama begins, during the performance and also 

after the performance is over. Similarly, the light within, that is, the 
Self, gives light to the ego, the intellect, the memory and the mind 
without itself being subject to processes of growth and decay. 
Although during deep sleep and other states there is no feeling of the 
ego that Self remains attribute less, and continues to shine of itself. 
Actually, the idea of the Self being the witness is only in the mind; it 
is not the absolute truth of the Self. Witnessing is relative to objects 
witnessed. Both the witness and his object are mental creations. 
Q: How are the three states of consciousness inferior in degree of 
reality to the fourth [turiya]? What is the actual relation between 
these three states and the fourth? 
A: There is only one state, that of consciousness or awareness or 
existence. The three states of waking, dream and sleep cannot be 
real. They simply come and go. The real will always exist. The `I' 
or existence that alone persists in all the three states is real. The 
other three are not real and so it is not possible to say they have 
such and such a degree of reality. We may roughly put it like this. 
Existence or consciousness is the only reality. Consciousness plus 
waking, we call waking. Consciousness plus sleep, we call sleep. 
Consciousness plus dream, we call dream. Consciousness is the 
screen on which all the pictures come and go. The screen is real, 
the pictures are mere shadows on it. Because by long habit we have 
been regarding these three states as real, we call the state of mere 

awareness or consciousness the fourth. There is however no fourth 
state, but only one state. 
There is no difference between dream and the waking state except 
that the dream is short and the waking long. Both are the result of the 
mind. Because the waking state is long, we imagine that it is our real 
state. But, as a matter of fact, our real state is turiya or the fourth 
state which is always as it is and knows nothing of the three states of 
waking, dream or sleep. Because we call these three avasthas [states] 
we call the fourth state also turiya avastha. But is it not an avastha, 
but the real and natural state of the Self. When this is realized, we 
know it is not a turiya or fourth state, for a fourth state is only 
relative, but turiyatita, the transcendent state. 
Q: But why should these three states come and go on the real state 
or the screen of the Self? 
A: Who puts this question? Does the Self say these states come and 
go? It is the seer who says these come and go. The seer and the seen 
together constitute the mind. See if there is such a thing as the mind. 
Then, the mind merges in the Self, and there is neither the seer nor 
the seen. So the real answer to your question is, `They neither come 
nor go.' The Self alone remains as it ever is. The three states owe 
their existence to non-enquiry and enquiry puts an end to them. 
However much one may explain, the fact will not become clear till 
one attains Self-realization and wonders how one was blind to the 
self-evident and only existence so long. 

Q: What is the difference between the mind and the Self ? 
A: There is no difference. The mind turned inwards is the Self; 
turned outwards, it becomes the ego and all the world. Cotton made 
into various clothes we call by various names. Gold made into 
various ornaments, we call by various names. But all the clothes are 
cotton and all the ornaments gold. The one is real, the many are mere 
names and forms. 
But the mind does not exist apart from the Self, that is, it has no 
independent existence. The Self exists without the mind, never the 
mind without the Self. 
Q: Brahman is said to be sat-chit-ananda. What does that mean? 
A: Yes. That is so. That which is, is only sat. That is called 
Brahman. The luster of sat is chit and its nature is ananda. These 
are not different from sat. All the three together are known as satchit-
ananda. 
Q: As the Self is existence (sat) and consciousness (chit) what is the 
reason for describing it as different from the existent and the non-
existent, the sentient and the insentient? 
A: Although the Self is real, as it comprises everything, it does not 
give room for questions involving duality about its reality or 
unreality. Therefore it is said to be different from the real and the 
unreal. Similarly, even though it is consciousness, since there is 

nothing for it to know or to make itself known to, it is said to be 
different from the sentient and the insentient. 
Sat-chit-ananda is said to indicate that the supreme is not asat 
(different from being), not achit (different from consciousness) and 
not an anananda (different from happiness). Because we are in the 
phenomenal world we speak of the Self as sat-chitananda. 
Q: In what sense is happiness or bliss (ananda) our real nature? 
A: Perfect bliss is Brahman. Perfect peace is of the Self. That 
alone exists and is consciousness. That which is called happiness is 
only the nature of Self; Self is not other than perfect happiness. That 
which is called happiness alone exists. Knowing that fact and 
abiding in the state of Self, enjoy bliss eternally. 
If a man thinks that his happiness is due to external causes and his 
possessions, it is reasonable to conclude that his happiness must 
increase with the increase of possessions and diminish in proportion 
to their diminution. Therefore if he is devoid of possessions, his 
happiness should be nil. What is the real experience of man? Does it 
conform to this view? 
In deep sleep man is devoid of possessions, including his own body. 
Instead of being unhappy he is quite happy. Everyone desires to 
sleep soundly. The conclusion is that happiness is inherent in man 
and is not due to external causes. One must realize the Self in order 
to open the store of unalloyed happiness. 

Q: Sri Bhagavan speaks of the Heart as the seat of consciousness 
and as identical with the Self. What does the Heart exactly signify ? 
A: Call it by any name, God, Self, the Heart or the seat of 
consciousness, it is all the same. The point to be grasped is this, that 
Heart means the very core of one's being, the centre, without which 
there is nothing whatever. 
The Heart is not physical, it is spiritual. Hridayam equals hrit plus 
ayam; it means `this is the centre'. It is that from which thoughts 
arise, on which they subsist and where they are resolved. The 
thoughts are the content of the mind and they shape the universe. 
The Heart is the centre of all. That from which beings come into 
existence is said to be Brahman in the Upanishads. That is the 
Heart. Brahman is the Heart. 
Q: How to realize the Heart? 
A: There is no one who even for a moment fails to experience the 
Self. For no one admits that he ever stands apart from the Self. He 
is the Self. The Self is the Heart. 
The Heart is the centre from which everything springs. Because you 
see the world, the body and so on, it is said that there is a centre for 
these, which is called the Heart. When you are in the Heart, the 
Heart is known to be neither the centre nor the circumference. 
There is nothing else apart from it. 
The consciousness which is the real existence and which does not 
go out to know those things which are other than Self, alone is the 

Heart. Since the truth of Self is known only to that consciousness, 
which is devoid of activity, that consciousness which always 
remains attending to Self alone is the shining of clear knowledge. 
Self-awareness and 
Self-ignorance 
Sri Ramana occasionally indicated that there were three classes of 
spiritual aspirants. The most advanced realize the Self as soon as 
they are told about its real nature. Those in the second class need to 
reflect on it for some time before Self-awareness becomes firmly 
established. Those in the third category are less fortunate since they 
usually need many years of intensive spiritual practice to achieve 
the goal of Self-realization. Sri Ramana sometimes used a metaphor 
of combustion to describe the three levels: gunpowder ignites with a 
single spark, charcoal needs the application of heat for a short time, 
and wet coal needs to dry out and heat up over a long period of time 
before it will begin to burn. 
For the benefit of those in the top two categories Sri Ramana taught 
that the Self alone exists and that it can be directly and consciously 
experienced merely by ceasing to pay attention to the wrong ideas 
we have about ourselves. These wrong ideas he collectively called 
the 'not-Self' since they are an imaginary accretion of wrong notions 
and misperceptions which effectively veil the true experience of the 

real Self. The principal misperception is the idea that the Self is 
limited to the body and the mind. As soon as one ceases to imagine 
that one is an individual person, inhabiting a particular body, the 
whole superstructure of wrong ideas collapses and is replaced by a 
conscious and permanent awareness of the real Self. 
At this level of the teaching there is no question of effort or 
practice. All that is required is an understanding that the Self is not 
a goal to be attained, it is merely the awareness that prevails when 
all the limiting ideas about the not-Self have been discarded. 
Q: How can I attain Self- realization? 
A: Realization is nothing to be gained afresh; it is already there. 
All that is necessary is to get rid of the thought `I have not realized'. 
Stillness or peace is realization. There is no moment when the 
Self is not. So long as there is doubt or the feeling of 
non-realization, the attempt should be made to rid oneself of these 
thoughts. They are due to the identification of the Self with the 
not-Self. When the not-Self disappears, the Self alone remains. To 
make room, it is enough that objects be removed. Room is not 
brought in from elsewhere. 
Q: Since realization is not possible without vasana-kshaya 
[destruction of mental tendencies], how am I to realize that state in 
which the tendencies are effectively destroyed? 
A: You are in that state now. 

Q: Does it mean that by holding on to the Self, the vasanas [mental 
tendencies] should be destroyed as and when they emerge? 
A: They will themselves be destroyed if you remain as you are. 
Q: How shall I reach the Self? 
A: There is no reaching the Self. If Self were to be reached, it 
would mean that the Self is not here and now and that it is yet to be 
obtained. What is got afresh will also be lost. So it will be 
impermanent. What is not permanent is not worth striving for. So I 
say the Self is not reached. You are the Self, you are already that. 
The fact is, you are ignorant of your blissful state. Ignorance 
supervenes and draws a veil over the pure Self which is bliss. 
Attempts are directed only to remove this veil of ignorance which is 
merely wrong knowledge. The wrong knowledge is the false 
identification of the Self with the body and the mind. This false 
identification must go, and then the Self alone remains. 
Therefore realization is for everyone; realization makes no 
difference between the aspirants. This very doubt, whether you can 
realize, and the notion `I-have-not-realized' are themselves the 
obstacles. Be free from these obstacles also. 
Q: How long does it take to reach mukti [liberation]? 
A: Mukti is not to be gained in the future. It is there for ever, 
here and now. 
Q: I agree, but I do not experience it. 

A: The experience is here and now. One cannot deny one's own 
Self. 
Q: That means existence and not happiness. 
A: Existence is the same as happiness and happiness is the same 
as being. The word mukti is so provoking. Why should one seek it? 
One believes that there is bondage and therefore seeks liberation. 
But the fact is that there is no bondage but only liberation. Why call 
it by a name and seek it? 
Q: True - but we are ignorant. 
A: Only remove ignorance. That is all there is to be done. All 
questions relating to mukti are inadmissible. Mukti means release 
from bondage which implies the present existence of bondage. 
There is no bondage and therefore no mukti either. 
Q: Of what nature is the realization of westerners who relate that 
they have had flashes of cosmic consciousness? 
A: It came as a flash and disappeared as such. That which has a 
beginning must also end. Only when the ever-present consciousness is 
realized will it be permanent. Consciousness is indeed always with us. 
Everyone knows `I am'. No one can deny his own being. The man in 
deep sleep is not aware; while awake he seems to be aware. But it is 
the same person. There is no change in the one who slept and the one 
who is now awake. In deep sleep he was not aware of his body and so 
there was no body-consciousness. In the wakeful state he is aware of 
his body and so there is body-consciousness. Therefore the difference 

lies in the emergence of body-consciousness and not in any change in 
the real consciousness. 
The body and body-consciousness arise together and sink 
together. All this amounts to saying that there are no limitations in 
deep sleep, whereas there are limitations in the waking state. These 
limitations are the bondage. The feeling `The body is I' is the error. 
This false sense of `I' must go. The real `I' is always there. It is here 
and now. It never appears anew and disappears again. That which is 
must also persist for ever. That which appears anew will also be 
lost. Compare deep sleep and waking. The body appears in one state 
but not in the other. Therefore the body will be lost. The 
consciousness was pre-existent and will survive the body. 
There is no one who does not say `I am'. The wrong knowledge of 
`I am the body' is the cause of all the mischief. This wrong 
knowledge must go. That is realization. Realization is not 
acquisition of anything new nor is it a new faculty. It is only 
removal of all camouflage. 
The ultimate truth is so simple. It is nothing more than being in 
the pristine state. This is all that need be said. 
Q: Is one nearer to pure consciousness in deep sleep than in the 
waking state? 
A: The sleep,dream and waking states are mere phenomena 
appearing on the Self which is itself stationary. It is also a state of 
simple awareness. Can anyone remain away from the Self at any 
moment ? This question can arise only if that were possible. 

Q: Is it not often said that one is nearer pure consciousness in deep 
sleep than in the waking state? 
A: The question may as well be `Am I nearer to myself in my 
sleep than in my waking state?' 
The Self is pure consciousness. No one can ever be away from the 
Self. The question is possible only if there is duality. But there is no 
duality in the state of pure consciousness. 
The same person sleeps, dreams and wakes up. The waking state is 
considered to be full of beautiful and interesting things. The absence 
of such experience makes one say that the sleep state is dull. Before 
we proceed further let us make this point clear. Do you not admit 
that you exist in your sleep? 
Q: Yes, I do. 
A: You are the same person that is now awake. Is it not so? 
Q: Yes. 
A: So there is a continuity in the sleep and the waking states. What 
is that continuity ? It is only the state of pure being. 
There is a difference in the two states. What is that difference? The 
incidents, namely, the body, the world and objects appear in the 
waking state but they disappear in sleep. 
Q: But I am not aware in my sleep. 
A: True, there is no awareness of the body or of the world. But 
you must exist in your sleep in order to say now `I was not aware in 
my sleep'. Who says so now ? It is the wakeful person. The sleeper 
cannot say so. That is to say, the individual who is now identifying 

the Self with the body says that such awareness did not exist in 
sleep. 
Because you identify yourself with the body, you see the world 
around you and say that the waking state is filled with beautiful and 
interesting things. The sleep state appears dull because you were not 
there as an individual and therefore these things were not. But what 
is the fact? There is the continuity of being in all the three states, but 
no continuity of the individual and the objects. 
Q: Yes. 
A: That which is continuous is also enduring, that is permanent. 
That which is discontinuous is transitory. 
Q: Yes. 
A: Therefore the state of being is permanent and the body and 
the world are not. They are fleeting phenomena passing on the screen 
of being-consciousness which is eternal and stationary. 
Q: Relatively speaking, is not the sleep state nearer to pure 
Consciousness than the waking state ? 
A: Yes, in this sense: when passing from sleep to waking the `I'-
thought [individual self] must start and the mind must come into 
play. Then thoughts arise and the functions of the body come into 
operation. All these together make us say that we are awake. The 
absence of all this evolution is the characteristic of sleep and 
therefore it is nearer to pure consciousness than the waking state. 
But one should not therefore desire to be always in sleep. In the 
first place it is impossible, for it will necessarily alternate with the 

other states. Secondly it cannot be the state of bliss in which the 
jnani is, for his state is permanent and not alternating. Moreover, the 
sleep state is not recognized to be one of awareness by people, but 
the sage is always aware. Thus the sleep state differs from the state 
in which the sage is established. 
Still more, the sleep state is free from thoughts and their 
impression on the individual. It cannot be altered by one's will 
because effort is impossible in that condition. Although nearer to 
pure consciousness, it is not fit for efforts to realize the Self. 
Q: Is not the realization of one's absolute being, that is, Brahma-
jnana, something quite unattainable for a layman like me? 
A: Brahma-jnana is not a knowledge to be acquired, so that 
acquiring it one may obtain happiness. It is one's ignorant outlook 
that one should give up. The Self you seek to know is truly yourself. 
Your supposed ignorance causes you needless grief like that of the 
ten foolish men who grieved at the loss of the tenth man who was 
never lost. 
The ten foolish men in the parable forded a stream and on 
reaching the other shore wanted to make sure that all of them had 
in fact safely crossed the stream. One of the ten began to count, 
but while counting the others left himself out. `I see only nine; sure 
enough, we have lost one. Who can it be?' he said. `Did you count 
correctly?' asked another, and did the counting himself. But he too 
counted only nine. One after the other each of the ten counted only 
nine, missing himself. `We are only nine', they all agreed, `but who 

is the missing one?' they asked themselves. Every effort they made 
to discover the `missing' individual failed. `Whoever he is that is 
drowned', said the most sentimental of the ten fools, `we have lost 
him.' So saying he burst into tears, and the others followed suit. 
Seeing them weeping on the river bank, a sympathetic wayfarer 
enquired about the cause. They related what had happened and said 
that even after counting themselves several times they could find no 
more than nine. On hearing the story, but seeing all the ten before 
him, the wayfarer guessed what had happened. In order to make them 
know for themselves they were really ten, that all of them had 
survived the crossing, he told them, `Let each of you count for himself 
but one after the other serially, one, two, three and so on, while I shall 
give you each a blow so that all of you may be sure of having been 
included in the count, and included only once. The tenth missing man 
will then be found.' Hearing this they rejoiced at the prospect of 
finding their `lost' comrade and accepted the method suggested by the 
wayfarer. 
While the kind wayfarer gave a blow to each of the ten in turn, he 
that got the blow counted himself aloud. `Ten,' said the last man as he 
got the last blow in his turn. Bewildered they looked at one another, 
`We are ten,' they said with one voice and thanked the wayfarer for 
having removed their grief. 
That is the parable. From where was the tenth man brought in ? Was 
he ever lost ? By knowing that he had been there all the while, did they 
learn anything new ? The cause of their grief was not the real loss of 

anyone, it was their own ignorance, or rather, their mere supposition 
that one of them was lost. 
Such is the case with you. Truly there is no cause for you to be 
miserable and unhappy. You yourself impose limitations on your true 
nature of infinite being, and then weep that you are but a finite creature. 
Then you take up this or that spiritual practice to transcend the non-
existent limitations. But if your spiritual practice itself assumes the 
existence of the limitations, how can it help you to transcend them ? 
Hence I say know that you are really the infinite pure being, the Self. 
You are always that Self and nothing but that Self. Therefore, you can 
never be really ignorant of the Self. Your ignorance is merely an 
imaginary ignorance, like the ignorance of the ten fools about the lost 
tenth man. It is this ignorance that caused them grief. 
Know then that true knowledge does not create a new being for you, it 
only removes your ignorant ignorance. Bliss is not added to your nature, 
it is merely revealed as your true natural state, eternal 
and imperishable. The only way to be rid of your grief is to know and be 
the Self. How can this be unattainable ? 
Q: However often Bhagavan teaches us, we are not able to 
understand. 
A: People say that they are not able to know the Self that is all 
pervading. What can I do ? Even the smallest child says, `I exist; I do; 
this is mine.' So, everyone understands that the thing `I' is always 
existent. It is only when that `I' is there that there is the feeling that you 
are the body, he is Venkanna, this is Ramanna and so on. To know that 

the one that is always visible is one's own Self, is it necessary to search 
with a candle ? To say that we do not know the atma swarupa [the 
real nature of the Self] which is not different but which is in one's own 
Self is like saying, `I do not know myself.` 
Q: But how is one to reach this state? 
A: There is no goal to be reached. There is nothing to be attained. 
You are the Self. You exist always. Nothing more can be predicated of 
the Self than that it exists. Seeing God or the Self is only being the Self 
or yourself. Seeing is being. You, being the Self, want to know how to 
attain the Self. It is something like a man being at Ramanasramam 
asking how many ways there are to reach Ramanasramam and which is 
the best way for him. All that is required of you is to give up the thought 
that you are this body and to give up all thoughts of the external things 
or the not-Self. 
Q: What is the ego-self ? How is it related to the real Self ? 
A: The ego-Self appears and disappears and is transitory, whereas the 
real Self is permanent. Though you are actually the true Self you 
wrongly identify the real Self with the ego-self. 
Q: How does the mistake come about? 
A: See if it has come about. 
Q: One has to sublimate the ego-self into the true Self. 
A: The ego-self does not exist at all. 
Q: Why does it give us trouble? 
A: To whom is the trouble ? The trouble also is imagined. Trouble 
and pleasure are only for the ego. 

Q: Why is the world so wrapped up in ignorance? 
A: Take care of yourself. Let the world take care of itself. See your 
Self. If you are the body there is the gross world also. If you are spirit all 
is spirit alone. 
Q: It will hold good for the individual, but what of the rest? 
A: Do it first and then see if the question arises afterwards. 
Q: Is there avidya [ignorance]? 
A: For whom is it? 
Q: For the ego-self. 
A: Yes, for the ego. Remove the ego and avidya is gone. Look for 
it, the ego vanishes and the real Self alone remains. The ego 
professing avidya is not to be seen. There is no avidya in reality. All 
sastras [scriptures] are meant to disprove the existence of avidya. 
Q: How did the ego arise? 
A: Ego is not. Otherwise do you admit of two selves? How can 
there be avidya in the absence of the ego? If you begin to enquire, 
the avidya, which is already non-existent, will be found not to be, or 
you will say it has fled away. 
Ignorance pertains to the ego. Why do you think of the ego and also 
suffer? What is ignorance again? It is that which is nonexistent. 
However the worldly life requires the hypothesis of avidya. Avidya 
is only our ignorance and nothing more. It is ignorance or 
forgetfulness of the Self. Can there be darkness before the sun? 
Similarly, can there be ignorance before the self-evident and self-

luminous Self ? If you know the Self there will be no darkness, no 
ignorance and no misery. 
It is the mind which feels the trouble and the misery. Darkness 
never comes nor goes. See the sun and there is no darkness. 
Similarly, see the Self and avidya will be found not to exist. 
Q: How has the unreal come? Can the unreal spring from the 
real? 
A: See if it has sprung. There is no such thing as the unreal, from 
another standpoint. The Self alone exists. When you try to trace the 
ego, which is the basis of the perception of the world and 
everything else, you find the ego does not exist at all and neither 
does all this creation that you see. 
Q: It is cruel of God's leela (play) to make the knowledge of the 
Self so hard. 
A: Knowing the Self is being the Self, and being means existence, 
one's own existence. No one denies one's existence any more than 
one denies one's eyes, although one cannot see them. The trouble 
lies with your desire to objectify the Self, in the same way as you 
objectify your eyes when you place a mirror before them. You have 
been so accustomed to objectivity that you have lost the knowledge 
of yourself, simply because the Self cannot be objectified. Who is 
to know the Self ? Can the insentient body know it? All the time 
you speak and think of your `I', yet when questioned you deny 
knowledge of it. You are the Self, yet you ask how to know the 
Self. Where then is God's leela and where is its cruelty ? Because of 

this denial of the Self by people the sastras speak of maya, leela, 
etc. 
Q: Does my realization help others? 
A: Yes, certainly. It is the best help possible. But there are no 
others to be helped. For a realized being sees only the Self, just like 
a goldsmith estimating the gold in various items of jewellery sees 
only gold. When you identify yourself with the body then only the 
forms and shapes are there. But when you transcend your body the 
others disappear along with your body-consciousness. 
Q: Is it so with plants, trees, etc.? 
A: Do they exist at all apart from the Self ? Find it out. You think 
that you see them. The thought is projected out from the Self. Find 
out from where it rises. Thoughts will cease to rise and the Self 
alone will remain. 
Q: I understand theoretically. But they are still there. 
A: Yes. It is like a cinema-show. There is the light on the screen 
and the shadows flitting across it impress the audience as the 
enactment of some piece. If in the same play an audience also is 
shown on the screen as part of the performance, the seer and the 
seen will then both be on the screen. Apply it to yourself. You are 
the screen, the Self has created the ego, the ego has its accretions of 
thoughts which are displayed as the world, the trees and the plants 
of which you are asking. In reality, all these are nothing but the 
Self. If you see the Self, the same will be found to be all, 
everywhere and always. Nothing but the Self exists. 

Q: Yes, I still understand only theoretically. Yet the answers are 
simple, beautiful and convincing. 
A: Even the thought `I do not realize' is a hindrance. In fact, the 
Self alone is.
Our real nature is mukti. But we are imagining we are bound and 
are making various, strenuous attempts to become free, while we 
are all the while free. This will be understood only when we reach 
that stage. We will be surprised that we were frantically trying to 
attain something which we have always been and are. An 
illustration will make this clear. A man goes to sleep in this hall. He 
dreams he has gone on a world tour, is roaming over hill and dale, 
forest and country, desert and sea, across various continents and 
after many years of weary and strenuous travel, returns to this 
country, reaches Tiruvannamalai, enters the ashram and walks into 
the hall. Just at that moment he wakes up and finds he has not 
moved an inch but was sleeping where he lay down. He has not 
returned after great effort to this hall, but is and always has been in 
the hall. It is exactly like that; If it is asked, `Why being free do we 
imagine that we are bound?' I answer, `Why being in the hall did 
you imagine you were on a world adventure, crossing hill and dale, 
desert and sea? It is all mind or maya [illusion]. 
Q: How then does ignorance of this one and only reality 
unhappily arise in the case of the ajnani [one who has not realized 
the Self]? 

A: The ajnani sees only the mind which is a mere reflection of 
the light of pure consciousness arising from the Heart. Of the 
Heart itself he is ignorant. Why? Because his mind is extroverted 
and has never sought its source. 
Q: What prevents the infinite, undifferentiated light of con-
sciousness arising from the Heart from revealing itself to the 
ajnani? 
A: Just as water in a pot reflects the enormous sun within the 
narrow limits of the pot, even so the vasanas or latent tendencies 
of the mind of the individual, acting as the reflecting medium, 
catch the all-pervading, infinite light of consciousness arising from 
the Heart. The form of this reflection is the phenomenon called the 
mind. Seeing only this reflection, the ajnani is deluded into the 
belief that he is a finite being, the jiva, the individual self. 
Q: What are the obstacles which hinder realization o f the Self? 
A: They are habits of mind [vasanas]. 
Q: How to overcome the mental habits (vasanas]? 
A: By realizing the Self. 
Q: This is a vicious circle. 
A: It is the ego which raises such difficulties, creating obstacles 
and then suffering from the perplexity of apparent paradoxes. Find 
out who makes the enquiries and the Self will be found. 
Q: Why is this mental bondage so persistent ? 

A: The nature of bondage is merely the rising, ruinous thought `I 
am different from the reality'. Since one surely cannot remain 
separate from the reality, reject that thought whenever it rises. 
Q: Why do I never remember that I am the Self ? 
A: People speak of memory and oblivion of the fullness of the 
Self. Oblivion and memory are only thought-forms. They will 
alternate so long as there are thoughts. But reality lies beyond these. 
Memory or oblivion must be dependent on something. 
That something must be foreign to the Self as well, 
otherwise there would not be oblivion. That upon which 
memory and oblivion depend is the idea of the individual 
self. When one looks for it, this individual `I' is not found 
because it is not real. Hence this `I' is synonymous with 
illusion or ignorance (maya, avidya or ajnana]. To know 
that there never was ignorance is the goal of all the 
spiritual teachings. Ignorance must be of one who is 
aware. Awareness is jnana. Jnana is eternal and natural, 
ajnana is unnatural and unreal. 
Q: Having heard this truth, why does not one remain content? 
A: Because samskaras [innate mental tendencies] have not been 
destroyed. Unless the samskaras cease to exist, there will always be 
doubt and confusion. All efforts are directed to destroying doubt and 
confusion. To do so their roots must be cut. Their roots are the 
samskaras. These are rendered ineffective by practice as prescribed 
by the Guru. The Guru leaves it to the seeker to do this much so that 

he might himself find out that there is no ignorance. Hearing the 
truth [sravana] is the first stage. If the understanding is not firm one 
has to practise reflection [manana] and uninterrupted contemplation 
[nididhyasana] on it. These two processes scorch the seeds of 
samskaras so that they are rendered ineffective. 
Some extraordinary people get unshakable jnana after hearing the 
truth only once. These are the advanced seekers. Beginners take 
longer to gain it. 
Q: How did ignorance (avidya] arise at all? 
A: Ignorance never arose. It has no real being. That which is, is 
only vidya [knowledge]. 
Q: Why then do I not realize it? 
A: Because of the samskaras. However, find out who does not 
realize and what he does not realize. Then it will be clear that there is 
no avidya. 
Q: So, it is wrong to begin with a goal, is it? 
A: If there is a goal to be reached it cannot be permanent. The 
goal must already be there. We seek to reach the goal with the 
ego, but the goal exists before the ego. What is in the goal is 
even prior to our birth, that is, to the birth of the ego. Because 
we exist the ego appears to exist too. 
If we look on the Self as the ego then we become the ego, if 
as the mind we become the mind, if as the body we become the 
body. 

It is the thought which builds up sheaths in so many ways. The 
shadow on the water is found to be shaking. Can anyone stop the 
shaking of the shadow? If it would cease to shake you would not 
notice the water but only the light. Similarly take no notice of the ego 
and its activities, but see only the light behind. The ego is the thought 
`I'. The true `I' is the Self. 
Q: If it is just a question of giving up ideas then it is only one step 
to realization. 
A: Realization is already there. The state free from thoughts is the 
only real state. There is no such action as realization. Is there anyone 
who is not realizing the Self ? Does anyone deny his own existence? 
Speaking of realization, it implies two selves - the one to realize, the 
other to be realized. What is not already realized is sought to be 
realized. Once we admit our existence, how is it that we do not know 
our Self ? 
Q: Because of the thoughts,the mind. 
A: Quite so. It is the mind that veils our happiness. How do we 
know that we exist ? If you say because of the world around us, then 
how do you know that you existed in deep sleep? 
Q: How to get rid of the mind? 
A: Is it the mind that wants to kill itself ? The mind cannot kill 
itself. So your business is to find the real nature of the mind. Then 
you will know that there is no mind. When the Self is sought, the 
mind is nowhere. Abiding in the Self, one need not worry about the 
mind. 

Q: Is mukti the same as realization? 
A: Mukti or liberation is our nature. It is another name for us. Our 
wanting mukti is a very funny thing. It is like a man who is in the 
shade, voluntarily leaving the shade, going into the sun, feeling the 
severity of the heat there, making great efforts to get back into the 
shade and then rejoicing, `How sweet is the shade! I have reached 
the shade at last!' We are all doing exactly the same. We are not 
different from the reality. We imagine we are different, that is we 
create the bheda bhava [the feeling of difference] and then undergo 
great sadhana [spiritual practices] to get rid of the bheda bhava and 
realize the oneness. Why imagine or create bheda bhava and then 
destroy it? 
Q: This can be realized only by the grace of the master. I was 
reading Sri Bhagavata. It says that bliss can be had only by the dust 
of the master's feet. I pray for grace. 
A: What is bliss but your own being ? You are not apart from 
being which is the same as bliss. You are now thinking that you are 
the mind or the body which are both changing and transient. But you 
are unchanging and eternal. That is what you should know. 
Q: It is darkness and I am ignorant. 
A: This ignorance must go. Again, who says `I am ignorant '? He 
must be the witness of ignorance. That is what you are. Socrates 
said, `I know that I do not know.' Can it be ignorance? It is wisdom. 
Q: Why then do I feel unhappy when I am in Vellore and feel peace 
in your presence? 

A: Can the feeling in this place be bliss? When you leave this place 
you say you are unhappy. Therefore this peace is not permanent, it is 
mixed with unhappiness which is felt in another place. Therefore you 
cannot find bliss in places and in periods of time. It must be 
permanent in order that it may be useful. It is your own being which 
is permanent. Be the Self and that is bliss. You are always that. 
The Self is always realized. It is not necessary to seek to realize what 
is already and always realized. For you cannot deny your own 
existence. That existence is consciousness, the Self. 
Unless you exist you cannot ask questions. So you must admit your 
own existence. That existence is the Self. It is already realized. 
Therefore the effort to realize results only in your realizing your 
present mistake - that you have not realized your Self. There is no 
fresh realization. The Self becomes revealed. 
Q: That will take some years. 
A: Why years ? The idea of time is only in your mind. It is not in 
the Self. There is no time for the Self. Time arises as an idea after the 
ego arises. But you are the Self beyond time and space. You exist 
even in the absence of time and space. 
Were it true that you realize it later it means that you are not 
realized now. Absence of realization in the present moment may be 
repeated at any moment in the future, for time is infinite. So too, 
such realization is impermanent. But that is not true. It is wrong to 
consider realization to be impermanent. It is the true eternal state 
which cannot change. 

Q: Yes, I shall understand it in course of time. 
A: You are already that. Time and space cannot affect the Self. 
They are in you. So also all that you see around you is in you. There 
is a story to illustrate this point. A lady had a precious necklace 
round her neck. Once in her excitement she forgot it and thought 
that the necklace was lost. She became anxious and looked for it in 
her home but could not find it. She asked her friends and neighbors 
if they knew anything about the necklace. They did not. At last a 
kind friend of hers told her to feel the necklace round her neck. She 
found that it had all along been round her neck and she was happy. 
When others asked her later if she had found the necklace which 
was lost, she said, `Yes, I have found it.' She still felt that she had 
recovered a lost jewel. 
Now did she lose it at all ? It was all along round her neck. But 
judge her feelings. She was as happy as if she had recovered a lost 
jewel. Similarly with us, we imagine that we will realize that Self 
some time, whereas we are never anything but the Self. 
Q: There must be something that I can do to reach this state. 
A: The conception that there is a goal and a path to it is wrong. 
We are the goal or peace always. To get rid of the notion that we 
are not peace is all that is required. 
Q: All books say that the guidance of a Guru is necessary. 
A: The Guru will say only what I am saying now. He will not 
give you anything you have not already got. It is impossible for 
anyone to get what he has not got already. Even if he gets any such 

thing, it will go as it came. What comes will also go. What always 
is will alone remain. The Guru cannot give you anything new, 
which you don't have already. Removal of the notion that we have 
not realized the Self is all that is required. We are always the Self 
only we don't realize it. 
We go round and round in search of atma [Self] saying, `Where 
is atma? Where is it ? till at last the dawn of jnana drishti [vision 
of knowledge] is reached, and we say, `This is atma this is me.' We 
should acquire that vision. When once that vision is reached, there 
will be no attachments even if one mixes with the world and moves 
about in it. When once you put on shoes your feet do not feel the 
pain of walking on any number of stones or thorns on the way. You 
walk about without fear or care, even if there are mountains on the 
way. In the same way, everything will be natural to those who have 
attained jnana drishti. What is there apart from one's own Self ? 
Q: The natural state can be known only after all this worldly 
vision Subsides. But how is it to subside ? 
A: If the mind subsides, the whole world subsides. Mind is the 
cause of all this. If that subsides, the natural state presents itself. 
The Self proclaims itself at all times as `I, I'. It is self- luminous. It 
is here. All this is that. We are in that only. Being in it, why search 
for it ? The ancients say: `Making the vision absorbed in jnana one 
sees the world as Brahman.` 

The jnani 
Many of the Sri Ramana's visitors appeared to have an insatiable 
curiosity about the state of Self-realization and they were particularly 
interested to know how a jnani experienced himself and the world 
around him. Some of the questions he was asked on the subject 
reflected the bizarre notions that many people had about this state, 
but most of them tended to be variations of one of the four following 
questions: 
1. How can a jnani function without any individual awareness of 
consciousness? 
2. How can he say that he `does nothing' (a statement which Sri 
Ramana often made) when others see him active in the world? 
3. How does he perceive the world? Does he perceive the world at 
all? 
4. How does the jnani's awareness of pure consciousness relate to the 
alternating states of body and mind consciousness experienced in 
waking, dreaming and sleeping? 
The hidden premise behind all such questions is the belief that 
there is a person (the jnani) who experiences a state he calls the Self. 
This assumption is not true. It is merely a mental construct devised 
by those who have not realized the Self (ajnanis) to make sense of 
the jnani's experience. Even the use of the word jnani is indicative 
of this erroneous belief since it literally means a knower of jnana, 
the reality. The ajnani uses this term because he imagines that the 

world is made up of seekers of reality and knowers of reality; the 
truth of the Self is that there are neither jnanis nor ajnanis, there is 
only jnana. 
Sri Ramana pointed this out both directly and indirectly on many 
occasions, but few of his questioners were able to grasp, even 
conceptually, the implications of such a statement. Because of this 
he usually adapted his ideas in such a way that they conformed to the 
prejudices of his listeners. 
In most of the conversations in this chapter he accepts that his 
questioners perceive a distinction between the jnani and the 
ajnani,and without challenging the basis of that assumption, he 
assumes the role of the jnani and attempts to explain the implications 
of being in that state. 
Q: Then what is the difference between the baddha and the 
mukta, the bound man and the one liberated? 
A: The ordinary man lives in the brain unaware of himself in the 
Heart. The jnana siddha (jnani] lives in the Heart. When he 
moves about and deals with men and things, he knows that what 
he sees is not separate from the one supreme reality, the Brahman 
which he realized in the Heart as his own Self, the real. 
Q: What about the ordinary man? 
A: I have just said that he sees things outside himself. He is 
separate from the world, from his own deeper truth, from the truth 
that supports him and what he sees. The man who has realized the 

supreme truth of his own existence realizes the one supreme reality 
that is there behind him, behind the world. In fact, he is aware of 
the one, as the real, the Self in selves, in all things, eternal and 
immutable, in all that is impermanent and mutable. 
Q: What is the relation between the pure consciousness realized 
by the jnani and the `I am'-ness which is accepted as the primary 
datum of experience? 
A: The undifferentiated consciousness of pure being is the Heart or 
hridayam, which is what you really are. From the heart arises the `I 
am'-ness as the primary datum of one's experience.By itself it is 
completely pure [suddha-sattva] in character. It is in this form of 
pristine purity [suddha-sattva-swarupa], uncontaminated by rajas 
and tamas [activity and inertia], that the `I' appears to subsist in the 
jnani. 
Q: In the jnani the ego subsists in the pure form and therefore it 
appears as something real. Am I right? 
A: The existence of the ego in any form, either in the jnani or 
ajnani, is itself an experience. But to the ajnani who is deluded into 
thinking that the waking state and the world are real, the ego also 
appears to be real. Since he sees the jnani act like other individuals, 
he feels constrained to posit some notion of individuality with 
reference to the jnani also. 
Q: How then does the aham-vritti [`I'-thought, the sense of 
individuality] function in the jnani? 

A: It does not function in him at all. The jnani's real nature is the 
Heart itself, because he is one and identical with the undifferentiated, 
pure consciousness referred to by the Upanishads as the prajnana 
[full consciousness]. Prajnana is truly Brahman, the absolute, and 
there is no Brahman other than prajnana. 
Q: Does a jnani have sankalpas [desires]? 
A: The main qualities of the ordinary mind are tamas and rajas 
[sloth and excitement]; hence it is full of egoistic desires and 
weaknesses. But the jnani's mind is suddha-sattva [pure harmony] 
and formless, functioning in the subtle vijnanamayakosha [the 
sheath of knowledge], through which he keeps contact with the 
world. His desires are therefore also pure. 
Q: I am trying to understand the jnani's point of view about the 
world. Is the world perceived after Self-realization? 
A: Why worry yourself about the world and what happens to it after 
Self-realization? First realize the Self. What does it matter if the world 
is perceived or not ? Do you gain anything to help you in your quest 
by the non-perception of the world during sleep? Conversely, what 
would you lose now by the perception of the world? It is quite 
immaterial to the jnani or ajnani if he perceives the world or not. It is 
seen by both, but their view-points differ. 
Q: If the jnani and the ajnani perceive the world in like manner, 
where is the difference between them? 

A: Seeing the world, the jnani sees the Self which is the substratum 
of all that is seen; the ajnani, whether he sees the world or not, is 
ignorant of his true being, the Self. 
Take the instance of moving pictures on the screen in the cinema-
show. What is there in front of you before the play begins ? Merely the 
screen. On that screen you see the entire show, and for all appearances 
the pictures are real. But go and try to take hold of them. What do you 
take hold of ? Merely the screen on which the pictures appeared. After 
the play, when the pictures disappear, what remains ? The screen 
again. 
So with the Self. That alone exists, the pictures come and go. If you 
hold on to the Self, you will not be deceived by the appearance of the 
pictures. Nor does it matter at all if the pictures appear or disappear. 
Ignoring the Self the ajnani thinks the world is real, just as ignoring 
the screen he sees merely the pictures, as if they existed apart from it. 
If one knows that without the seer there is nothing to be seen, just as 
there are no pictures without the screen, one is not deluded. The jnani 
knows that the screern and its pictures are only the Self. With the 
pictures the Self is in its manifest form; without the pictures it remains 
in the unmanifest form. To the jnani it is quite immaterial if the Self is 
in one form or the other. He is always the Self. But the ajnani seeing 
the jnani active gets confounded. 
Q: Does Bhagavan see the world as part and parcel of himself ? 
How does he see the world? 

A: The Self alone is and nothing else. However it is differentiated 
owing to ignorance. Differentiation is threefold : 
(I) of the same kind; 
(2) of a different kind; and 
(3) as parts in itself. 
The world is not another Self similar to the Self. It is not different 
from the Self; nor is it part of the Self. 
Q: Is not the world reflected on the Self ? 
A: For reflection there must be an object and an image. But the 
Self does not admit of these differences. 
Q: Does a jnani have dreams? 
A: Yes, he does dream, but he knows it to be a dream, in the 
same way as he knows the waking state to be a dream. You may 
call them dream no. l and dream no.2. The jnani being 
established in the fourth state - turiya, the supreme reality - he 
detachedly witnesses the three other states, waking, dreaming 
and dreamless sleep, as pictures superimposed on it. 
For those who experience waking, dream and sleep, the state 
of wakeful sleep, which is beyond those three states, is named 
turiya [the fourth]. But since that turiya alone exists and since 
the seeming three states do not exist, know for certain that turiya 
is itself turiyatita [that which transcends the fourth]. 
Q: For the jnani then, there is no distinction between the three 
states of mind? 

A: How can there be, when the mind itself is dissolved and lost in 
the light of consciousness? 
For the jnani all the three states are equally unreal. But the 
ajnani is unable to comprehend this, because for him the standard 
of reality is the waking state, whereas for the jnani the standard of 
reality is reality itself. 
This reality of pure consciousness is eternal by its nature and 
therefore subsists equally during what you call waking, dreaming 
and sleep. To him who is one with that reality there is neither the 
mind nor its three states and, therefore, neither introversion nor 
extroversion. 
His is the ever-waking state, because he is awake to the eternal Self; 
his is the ever-dreaming state, because to him the world is no better 
than a repeatedly presented dream phenomenon; his is the ever-
sleeping state, because he is at all times without the 'body-am-I' 
consciousness. 
Q: Is there no dehatma buddhi [I-am-the-body idea] for the jnani? 
If, for instance, Sri Bhagavan is bitten by an insect, is there no 
sensation? 
A: There is the sensation and there is also the dehatma buddhi. The 
latter is common to both jnani and ajnani with this difference, that 
the ajnani thinks only the body is myself, whereas the jnani knows 
all is of the Self, or all this is Brahman. If there be pain let it be. It is 
also part of the Self. The Self is poorna [perfect]. 

After transcending dehatma buddhi one becomes a jnani. In the 
absence of that idea there cannot be either kartritva [doership] or 
karta [doer]. So a jnani has no karma [that is, a jnani performs no 
actions]. That is his experience. Otherwise he is not a jnani. 
However the ajnani identifies the jnani with his body, which the 
jnani does not do. 
Q: I see you doing things. How can you say that you never perform 
actions? 
A: The radio sings and speaks, but if you open it you will find no 
one inside. Similarly, my existence is like the space; thou this body 
speaks like the radio, there is no one inside as a doer. 
Q: I find this hard to understand. Could you please elaborate on 
this? 
A: Various illustrations are given in books to enable us to 
understand how the jnani can live and act without the mind, although 
living and acting require the use of the mind. The potter's wheel goes 
on turning round even after the potter has ceased to turn it because 
the pot is finished. In the same way, the electric fan goes on 
revolving for some minutes after we switch off the current. The 
prarabdha [predestined karma] which created the body will make it 
go through whatever activities it was meant for. But the jnani goes 
through all these activities without the notion that he is the doer of 
them. It is hard to understand how this is possible. The illustration 
generally given is that the jnani performs actions in some such way 
as a child that is roused from sleep to eat eats but does not remember 

next morning that it ate. It has to be remembered that all these 
explanations are not for the jnani. He knows and has no doubts. He 
knows that he is not the body and he knows that he is not doing 
anything even though his body may be engaged in some activity. 
These explanations are for the onlookers who think of the jnani as 
one with a body and cannot help identifying him with his body. 
Q: It is said that the shock of realization is so great that the body 
cannot survive it. 
A: There are various controversies or schools of thought as to 
whether a jnani can continue to live in his physical body after 
realization. Some hold that one who dies cannot be a jnani because 
his body must vanish into air, or some such thing. They put forward 
all sorts of funny notions. If a man must at once leave his body when 
he realizes the Self, I wonder how any knowledge of the Self or the 
state of realization can come down to other men. And that would 
mean that all those who have given us the fruits of their Self-
realization in books cannot be considered jnanis because they went 
on living after realization. And if it is held that a man cannot be 
considered a jnani so long as he performs actions in the world (and 
action is impossible without the mind), then not only the great sages 
who carried on various kinds of work after attaining jnana must be 
considered ajnanis but the gods also, and Iswara [the supreme 
personal God of Hinduism] himself, since he continues looking after 
the world. The fact is that any amount of action can be performed, 
and performed quite well, by the jnani, without his identifying 

himself with it in any way or ever imagining that he is the doer. 
Some power acts through his body and uses his body to get the work 
done. 
Q: Is a jnani capable of or likely to commit sins? 
A: An ajnani sees someone as a jnani and identifies him with the 
body. Because he does not know the Self and mistakes his body for 
the Self, he extends the same mistake to the state of the jnani. The 
jnani is therefore considered to be the physical frame. 
Again since the ajnani, though he is not the doer, imagines himself 
to be the doer and considers the actions of the body his own, he 
thinks the jnani to be similarly acting when the body is active. But 
the jnani himself knows the truth and is not confounded. The state of 
a jnani cannot be determined by the ajnani and therefore the question 
troubles only the ajnani and never arises for the jnani. If he is a doer 
he must determine the nature of the actions. The Self cannot be the 
doer. Find out who is the doer and the Self is revealed. 
Q: So it amounts to this. To see a jnani is not to understand him. You 
see the jnani's body and not his jnana. One must therefore be a jnani 
to know a jnani. 
A: The jnani sees no one as an ajnani. All are only jnanis in his 
sight. In the ignorant state one superimposes one's ignorance on a 
jnani and mistakes him for a doer. In the state of jnana, the jnani 
sees nothing separate from the Self. The Self is all shining and only 
pure jnana. So there is no ajnana in his sight. There is an illustration 
for this kind of illusion or superimposition. Two friends went to 

sleep side by side. One of them dreamt that both of them had gone 
on a long journey and that they had had strange experiences. On 
waking up he recapitulated them and asked his friend if it was not so. 
The other one simply ridiculed him saying that it was only his dream 
and could not affect the other. 
So it is with the ajnani who superimposes his illusory ideas on 
others. 
Q: You have said that the jnani can be and is active, and deals with 
men and things. I have no doubt about it now. But you say at the same 
time that he sees no differences; to him all is one, he is always in the 
consciousness. If so, how does he deal with differences, with men, 
with things which are surely different? 
A: He sees these differences as but appearances, he sees them as 
not separate from the true, the real, with which he is one. 
Q: The jnani seems to be more accurate in his expressions, he 
appreciates the differences better than the ordinary man. If sugar is 
sweet and wormwood is bitter to me, he too seems to realize it so. In 
fact, all forms, all sounds, all tastes, etc., are the same to him as they 
are to others. If so, bow can it be said that these are mere 
appearances? Do they not form part of his life-experience? 
A: I have said that equality is the true sign of jnana. The very term 
equality implies the existence of differences. It is a unity that the 
jnani perceives in all differences, which I call equality. Equality does 
not mean ignorance of distinctions. When you have the realization 
you can see that these differences are very superficial, that they are 

not at all substantial or permanent, and what is essential in all these 
appearances is the one truth, the real. That I call unity. You referred 
to sound, taste, form, smell, etc. True, the jnani appreciates the 
distinctions, but he always perceives and experiences the one reality 
in all of them. That is why he has no preferences. Whether he moves 
about, or talks, or acts, it is all the one reality in which he acts or 
moves or talks. He has nothing apart from the one supreme truth. 
Q: They say that the jnani conducts himself with absolute equality 
towards all? 
A: Yes. 
Friendship, kindness, happiness and such other bhavas [attitudes] 
become natural to them. Affection towards the good, kindness 
towards the helpless, happiness in doing good deeds, forgiveness 
towards the wicked, all such things are natural characteristics of the 
jnani (Patanjali, Yoga Sutras, I:37). 
You ask about jnanis: they are the same in any state or condition, as 
they know the reality, the truth. In their daily routine of taking food, 
moving about and all the rest, they, the jnanis, act only for others. 
Not a single action is done for themselves. I have already told you 
many times that just as there are people whose profession is to 
mourn for a fee, so also the jnanis do things for the sake of others 
with detachment, without themselves being affected by them. 
The jnani weeps with the weeping, laughs with the laughing, plays 
with the playful, sings with those who sing, keeping time to the song. 

What does he lose? His presence is like a pure, transparent mirror. It 
reflects the image exactly as it is. But the jnani, who is only a mirror, 
is unaffected by actions. How can a mirror, or the stand on which it 
is mounted, be affected by the reflections? Nothing affects them as 
they are mere supports. On the other hand, the actors in the world - 
the doers of all acts, the ajnanis - must decide for themselves what 
song and what action is for the welfare of the world, what is in 
accordance with the sastras, and what is practicable. 
Q: There are said to be sadeha mukta (liberated while still in the 
body) and videha mukta [liberated at the time of death]. 
A: There is no liberation, and where are muktas? 
Q: Do not Hindu sastras speak of mukti? 
A: Mukti is synonymous with the Self. Jivan mukti [liberated while 
still in the body] and videha mukti are all for the ignorant. The jnani 
is not conscious of mukti or bandha [bondage]. Bondage, liberation 
and orders of mukti are all said for an ajnani in order that ignorance 
might be shaken off. There is only mukti and nothing else. 
Q: It is all right from the standpoint of Bhagavan. But what about 
us? 
A: The difference `he' and `I' are the obstacles to jnana. 
Q: You once said: `The liberated man is free indeed to act as he 
pleases, and when he leaves the mortal coil, he attains absolution, but 
returns not to this birth which is actually death.' 

This statement gives the impression that although the jnani takes no 
birth again on this plane, he may continue to work on subtler planes, 
if he so chooses. Is there any desire left in him to choose? 
A: No, that was not my intention. 
Q: Further, an Indian philosopher, in one of his books, interpreting 
Sankara, says that there is no such thing as videha mukti, for after his 
death, the mukta takes a body of light in which he remains till the 
whole of humanity becomes liberated. 
A: That cannot be Sankara's view. In verse 566 of Vivekachudamani 
he says that after the dissolution of the physical sheath the liberated 
man becomes like `water poured into water and oil into oil'. It is a 
state in which there is neither bondage nor liberation. Taking another 
body means throwing a veil, however subtle, upon reality, which is 
bondage. Liberation is absolute and irrevocable. 
Q: How can we say the jnani is not in two planes? He moves about 
with us in the world and sees the various objects we see. It is not as if 
he does not see them. For instance he walks along. He sees the path 
he is treading. Suppose there is a chair or table placed across that 
path; he sees it, avoids it and goes round. So, have we not to admit he 
sees the world and the objects there, while of course he sees the Self ? 
A: You say the jnani sees the path, treads it, comes across 
obstacles, avoids them, etc. In whose eye-sight is all this, in the 
jnani's or yours? He sees only the Self and all in the Self. 
Q: Are there not illustrations given in our books to explain this 
sahaja [natural] state clearly to us? 

A: There are. For instance you see a reflection in the mirror and the 
mirror. You know the mirror to be the reality and the picture in it a 
mere reflection. Is it necessary that to see the mirror we should cease 
to see the reflection in it ? 
Q: What are the fundamental tests for discovering men of great 
spirituality, since some are reported to behave like insane people? 
A: The jnani's mind is known only to the jnani. One must be a jnani 
oneself in order to understand another jnani. However the peace of 
mind which permeates the saint's atmosphere is the only means by 
which the seeker understands the greatness of the saint. 
His words or actions or appearance are no indication of his 
greatness, for they are ordinarily beyond the comprehension of 
common people. 
Q: Why is it said in scriptures that the sage is like a child? 
A: A child and a jnani are similar in a way. Incidents interest a 
child only so long as they last. It ceases to think of them after they 
have passed away. So then, it is apparent that they do not leave any 
impression on the child and it is not affected by them mentally. So it 
is with a jnani. 
Q: You are Bhagavan. So you should know when I shall get jnana. 
Tell me when I shall be a jnani. 
A: If I am Bhagavan there is no one besides the Self - therefore no 
jnani or ajnani. If otherwise, I am as good as you are and know as 
much as yourself. Either way I cannot answer your question. 

Coming here, some people do not ask about themselves. They ask: 
`Does the jivan mukta see the world ? Is he affected by karma? What 
is liberation after being disembodied ? Is one liberated only after 
being disembodied or even while alive in the body ? Should the body 
of the sage resolve itself in light or disappear from view in any other 
manner? Can he be liberated though the body is left behind as a 
corpse?' 
Their questions are endless. Why worry oneself in so many ways? 
Does liberation consist in knowing these things ? Therefore I say to 
them, `Leave liberation alone. Is there bondage ? Know this. See 
yourself first and foremost.` 
Enquiry and surrender 
`I exist ' is the only permanent self-evident experience of everyone. 
Nothing else is so self-evident as `I am'. What people call self-evident, 
that is, the experience they get through the senses, is far from self-
evident. The Self alone is that. So to do self-enquiry and be that `I am' is 
the only thing to do. `I am' is reality. I am this or that is unreal. `I am' is 
truth, another name for Self. 
Devotion is nothing more than knowing oneself. 
On scrutiny, supreme devotion and jnana are in nature one and the 
same. To say that one of these two is a means to the other is due to not 
knowing the nature of either of them. Know that the path of jnana and 

the path of devotion are interrelated. Follow these inseparable two paths 
without dividing one from the other. 
Self-enquiry - theory 
It will be remembered that in the chapter on Self-awareness and Self-
ignorance Sri Ramana maintained that Self-realization could be 
brought about merely by giving up the idea that there is an individual 
self which functions through the body and the mind. A few of his 
advanced devotees were able to do this quickly and easily, but the 
others found it virtually impossible to discard the ingrained habits of 
a lifetime without undertaking some form of spiritual practice. Sri 
Ramana sympathized with their predicament and whenever he was 
asked to prescribe a spiritual practice which would facilitate Self-
awareness he would recommend a technique he called self-enquiry. 
This practice was the cornerstone of his practical philosophy and the 
next three chapters will be devoted to a detailed presentation of all 
its aspects. 
Before embarking on a description of the technique itself it will be 
necessary to explain Sri Ramana's views on the nature of the mind 
since the aim of self-enquiry is to discover, by direct experience, that 
the mind is non-existent. According to Sri Ramana, every conscious 
activity of the mind or body revolves around the tacit assumption 
that there is an `I' who is doing something. The common factor in `I 
think', `I remember', `I am acting' is the `I' who assumes that it is 

responsible for all these activities. Sri Ramana called this common 
factor the `I'-thought (aham-vritti). Literally aham-vritti means 
`mental modification of I'. The Self or real `I' never imagines that it 
is doing or thinking anything; the `I' that imagines all this is a mental 
fiction and so it is called a mental modification of the Self. Since this 
is a rather cumbersome translation of aham-vritti it is usually 
translated as `I'-thought. 
Sri Ramana upheld the view that the notion of individuality is only 
the `I'-thought manifesting itself in different ways. Instead of 
regarding the different activities of the mind (such as ego, intellect 
and memory) as separate functions he preferred to view them all as 
different forms of the `I'-thought. Since he equated individuality with 
the mind and the mind with the `I'-thought it follows that the 
disappearance of the sense of individuality (i.e. Self-realization) 
implies the disappearance of both the mind and the `I'-thought. This 
is confirmed by his frequent statements to the effect that after Self-
realization there is no thinker of thoughts, no performer of actions 
and no awareness of individual existence. 
Since he upheld the notion that the Self is the only existing reality he 
regarded the `I'-thought as a mistaken assumption which has no real 
existence of its own. He explained its appearance by saying that it 
can only appear to exist by identifying with an object. When 
thoughts arise the `I'-thought claims ownership of them - `I think', `I 
believe', `I want', `I am acting' - but there is no separate `I'-thought 
that exists independently of the objects that it is identifying with. It 

only appears to exist as a real continuous entity because of the 
incessant flow of identifications which are continually taking place. 
Almost all of these identifications can be traced back to an initial 
assumption that the `I' is limited to the body, either as an owner-
occupant or co-extensive with its physical form. This `I am the body' 
idea is the primary source pf all subsequent wrong identifications 
and its dissolution is the principal aim of self-enquiry. 
Sri Ramana maintained that this tendency towards self-limiting 
identifications could be checked by trying to separate the subject `I' 
from the objects of thought which it identified with. Since the 
individual `I'-thought cannot exist without an object, if attention is 
focused on the subjective feeling of `I' or `I am' with such intensity 
that the thoughts `I am this' or `I am that' do not arise, then the 
individual `I' will be unable to connect with objects. If this 
awareness of `I' is sustained, the individual `I' (the `I'-thought) will 
disappear and in its place there will be a direct experience of the 
Self. This constant attention to the inner awareness of ` I ' or `I am' 
was called self-enquiry (vichara) by Sri Ramana and he constantly 
recommended it as the most efficient and direct way of discovering 
the unreality of the `I'-thought. 
In Sri Ramana's terminology the `I'-thought rises from the Self or the 
Heart and subsides back into the Self when its tendency to identify 
itself with thought objects ceases. Because of this he often tailored 
his advice to conform to this image of a rising and subsiding `I'. He 
might say `trace the "I"-thought back to its source', or `find out 

where the "I" rises from', but the implication was always the same. 
Whatever the language used he was advising his devotees to 
maintain awareness of the `I'-thought until it dissolved in the source 
from which it came. 
He sometimes mentioned that thinking or repeating `I' mentally 
would also lead one in the right direction but it is important to note 
that this is only a preliminary stage of the practice. The repetition of 
`I' still involves a subject (the `I'-thought) having a perception of an 
object (the thoughts `I, I') and while such duality exists the `I'-
thought will continue to thrive. It only finally disappears when the 
perception of all objects, both physical and mental, ceases. This is 
not brought about by being aware of an `I', but only by being the `I'. 
This stage of experiencing the subject rather than being aware of an 
object is the culminating phase of self-enquiry and it will be 
explained in greater detail in the following chapter. 
This important distinction is the key element which distinguishes 
self-enquiry from nearly all other spiritual practices and it explains 
why Sri Ramana consistently maintained that most other practices 
were ineffective. He often pointed out that traditional meditations 
and yoga practices necessitate the existence of a subject who 
meditates on an object and he would usually add that such a 
relationship sustained the `I'-thought instead of eliminating it. In his 
view such practices may effectively quieten the mind, and they may 
even produce blissful experiences, but they will never culminate in 

Self-realization because the `I'-thought is not being isolated and 
deprived of its identity. 
The conversations which comprise this chapter mostly deal with 
Sri Ramana's views on the theoretical background of self enquiry. 
Q: What is the nature of the mind? 
A: The mind is nothing other than the `I'-thought. The mind and 
the ego are one and the same. The other mental faculties such as the 
intellect and the memory are only this. Mind [manas], intellect 
[buddhi], the storehouse of mental tendencies [chittam], and ego 
[ahamkara]; all these are only the one mind itself. This is like 
different names being given to a man according to his different 
functions. The individual soul [jiva] is nothing but this soul or ego. 
Q: How shall we discover the nature of the mind, that is, its 
ultimate cause, or the noumenon of which it is a manifestation? 
A: Arranging thoughts in the order of value, the `I'-thought is the 
all-important thought. Personality-idea or thought is also the root or 
the stem of all other thoughts, since each idea or thought arises only 
as someone's thought and is not known to exist independently of the 
ego. The ego therefore exhibits thought activity. The second and the 
third persons [he, you, that, etc.] do not appear except to the first 
person [I]. Therefore they arise only after the first person appears, so 
all the three persons seem to rise and sink together. Trace, then, the 
ultimate cause of `I' or personality. 

From where does this `I' arise? Seek for it within; it then vanishes. 
This is the pursuit of wisdom. When the mind unceasingly 
investigates its own nature, it transpires that there is no such thing as 
mind. This is the direct path for all. The mind is merely thoughts. Of 
all thoughts the thought `I' is the root. Therefore the mind is only the 
thought `I'. 
The birth of the `I'-thought is one's own birth, its death is the 
person's death. After the `I'-thought has arisen, the wrong identity 
with the body arises. Get rid of the `I'-thought. So long as `I' is alive 
there is grief. When `I' ceases to exist there is no grief. 
Q: Yes, but when I take to the `I'-thought, other thoughts arise 
and disturb me. 
A: See whose thoughts they are. They will vanish. They have their 
root in the single `I'-thought. Hold it and they will disappear. 
Q: How can any enquiry initiated by the ego reveal its own 
unreality? 
A: The ego's phenomenal existence is transcended when you dive 
into the source from where the `I'-thought rises. 
Q: But is not the aham-vritti only one of the three forms in which 
the ego manifests itself. Yoga Vasishtha and other ancient texts 
describe the ego as having a threefold form. 
A: It is so. The ego is described as having three bodies, the gross, 
the subtle and the causal, but that is only for the purpose of 
analytical exposition. If the method of enquiry were to depend on the 
ego's form, you may take it that any enquiry would become 

altogether impossible, because the forms the ego may assume are 
legion. Therefore, for the purposes of self-enquiry you have to 
proceed on the basis that the ego has but one form, namely that of 
aham-vritti. 
Q: But it may prove inadequate for realising jnana. 
A: Self-enquiry by following the clue of aham-vritti is just like the 
dog tracing his master by his scent. The master may be at some 
distant unknown place, but that does not stand in the way of the dog 
tracing him. The master's scent is an infallible clue for the animal, 
and nothing else, such as the dress he wears, or his build and stature, 
etc., counts. To that scent the dog holds on undistractedly while 
searching for him, and finally it succeeds in tracing him. 
Q: The question still remains why the quest for the source of 
aham-vritti, as distinguished from other vrittis [modifications of the 
mind], should be considered the direct means to Self-realization. 
A: Although the concept of `I'-ness or `I am'-ness is by usage 
known as aham-vritti it is not really a vritti [modification] like 
other vrittis of the mind. Because unlike the other vrittis which have 
no essential interrelation, the aham-vritti is equally and essentially 
related to each and every vritti of the mind. Without the aham-vritti 
there can be no other vritti, but the aham-vritti can subsist by itself 
without depending on any other vritti of the mind. The aham-vritti 
is therefore fundamentally different from other vrittis. 
So then, the search for the source of the aham-vritti is not merely 
the search for the basis of one of the forms of the ego but for the 

very source itself from which arises the `I am'-ness. In other words, 
the quest for and the realization of the source of the ego in the form 
of aham-vritti necessarily implies the transcendence of the ego in 
every one of its possible forms. 
Q: Conceding that the aham-vritti essentially comprises all the 
forms o f the ego, why should that vritti alone be chosen as the 
means for self-enquiry? 
A: Because it is the one irreducible datum of your experience and 
because seeking its source is the only practicable course you can 
adopt to realize the Self. The ego is said to have a causal body [the 
state of the `I' during sleep], but how can you make it the subject of 
your investigation? When the ego adopts that form, you are 
immersed in the darkness of sleep. 
Q: But is not the ego in its subtle and causal forms too intangible 
to be tackled through the enquiry into the source of aham-vritti 
conducted while the mind is awake? 
A: No. The enquiry into the source of aham-vritti touches the 
very existence of the ego. Therefore the subtlety of the ego's form is 
not a material consideration. 
Q: While the one aim is to realize the unconditioned, pure being of 
the Self, which is in no way dependent on the ego, how can enquiry 
pertaining to the ego in the form of aham-vritti be of any use? 
A: From the functional point of view the ego has one and only one 
characteristic. The ego functions as the knot between the Self which 
is pure consciousness and the physical body which is inert and 

insentient. The ego is therefore called the chit-jada-granthi [the knot 
between consciousness and the inert body]. In your investigation into 
the source of aham-vritti, you take the essential chit [consciousness] 
aspect of the ego. For this reason the enquiry must lead to the 
realization of pure consciousness of the Self. 
You must distinguish between the `I', pure in itself, and the `I'-
thought. The latter, being merely a thought, sees subject and object, 
sleeps, wakes up, eats and thinks, dies and is reborn. But the pure `I' 
is the pure being, eternal existence, free from ignorance and thought-
illusion. If you stay as the `I', your being alone, without thought, the 
`I'-thought will disappear and the delusion will vanish for ever. In a 
cinema-show you can see pictures only in a very dim light or in 
darkness. But when all the lights are switched on, the pictures 
disappear. So also in the floodlight of the supreme atman all objects 
disappear. 
Q: That is the transcendental state. 
A: No. Transcending what, and by whom? You alone exist. 
Q: It is said that the Self is beyond the mind and yet the realization 
is with the mind. `The mind cannot think it. It cannot be thought of 
by the mind and the mind alone can realize it.' How are these 
contradictions to be reconciled? 
A: Atman is realized with mruta manas [dead mind], that is, mind 
devoid of thoughts and turned inward. Then the mind sees its own 
source and becomes that [the Self]. It is not as the subject perceiving 
an object. 

When the room is dark a lamp is necessary to illumine and eyes to 
cognize objects. But when the sun has risen there is no need of a 
lamp to see objects. To see the sun no lamp is necessary, it is enough 
that you turn your eyes towards the self-luminous sun. 
Similarly with the mind. To see objects the reflected light of the 
mind is necessary. To see the Heart it is enough that the mind is 
turned towards it. Then mind loses itself and Heart shines forth. 
The essence of mind is only awareness or consciousness. When the 
ego, however, dominates it, it functions as the reasoning, thinking or 
sensing faculty. The cosmic mind, being not limited by the ego, has 
nothing separate from itself and is therefore only aware. This is what 
the Bible means by `I am that I am'. When the mind perishes in the 
supreme consciousness of one's own Self, know that all the various 
powers beginning with the power of liking [and including the power 
of doing and the power of knowing] will entirely disappear, being 
found to be an unreal imagination appearing in one's own form of 
consciousness. The impure mind which functions as thinking and 
forgetting, alone is samsara, which is the cycle of birth and death. 
The real `I' in which the activity of thinking and forgetting has 
perished, alone is the pure liberation. It is devoid of pramada 
[forgetfulness of Self] which is the cause of birth and death. 
Q: How is the ego to be destroyed? 
A: Hold the ego first and then ask how it is to be destroyed. Who 
asks the question? It is the ego. This question is a sure way to cherish 

the ego and not to kill it. If you seek the ego you will find that it does 
not exist. That is the way to destroy it. 
Q: How is realization made possible? 
A: There is an absolute Self from which a spark proceeds as from 
a fire. The spark is called the ego. In the case of an ignorant man it 
identifies itself with an object simultaneously with its rise. It cannot 
remain independent of such association with objects. The association 
is ajnana or ignorance and its destruction is the object of our efforts. 
If its objectifying tendency is killed it remains pure, and also merges 
into the source. The wrong identification with the body is dehatma 
buddhi [`I am the body' idea]. This must go before good results 
follow. 
The `I` in its purity is experienced in intervals between the two states 
or two thoughts. Ego is like that caterpillar which leaves its hold 
only after catching another. Its true nature can be found when it is 
out of contact with objects or thoughts. 
This ghostly ego which is devoid of form comes into existence by 
grasping a form; grasping a form it endures; feeding upon forms 
which it grasps it waxes more; leaving one form it grasps another 
form, but when sought for it takes to flight. 
Only if that first person, the ego, in the form `I am the body', exists 
will the second and third persons [you, he, they, etc.] exist. If by 
one's scrutinizing the truth of the first person the first person is 
destroyed, the second and third persons will cease to exist and one's 

own nature which will then shine as one will truly be the state of 
Self. 
The thought `l am this body of flesh and blood' is the one thread on 
which are strung the various other thoughts. Therefore, if we turn 
inwards enquiring `Where is this I?' all thoughts (including the `I'-
thought) will come to an end and Self-knowledge will then 
spontaneously shine forth. 
Q: When I read Sri Bhagavan's works I find that investigation is 
said to be the one method for realization. 
A: Yes, that is vichara [self-enquiry]. 
Q: How is that to be done? 
A: The questioner must admit the existence of his Self. `I am' is 
the realization. To pursue the clue till realization is vichara. Vichara 
and realization are the same. 
Q: It is elusive. What shall I meditate upon? 
A: Meditation requires an object to meditate upon, whereas there 
is only the subject without the object in vichara. Meditation differs 
from vichara in this way. 
Q: Is not dhyana [meditation] one of the efficient processes for 
realization? 
A: Dhyana is concentration on an object. It fulfils the purpose of 
keeping away diverse thoughts and fixing the mind on a single 
thought, which must also disappear before realization. But 

realization is nothing new to be acquired. It is already there, but 
obstructed by a screen of thoughts. All our attempts are directed to 
lifting this screen and then realization is revealed. 
If seekers are advised to meditate, many may go away satisfied with 
the advice. But someone among them may turn round and ask, 
`Who am I to meditate on an object ?' Such a one must be told to 
find the Self. That is the finality. That is vichara. 
Q: Will vichara alone do in the absence of meditation? 
A: Vichara is the process and the goal also. `I am' is the goal and 
the final reality. To hold to it with effort is vichara. When 
spontaneous and natural it is realization." If one leaves aside 
vichara, the most efficacious sadhana, there are no other adequate 
means whatsoever to make the mind subside. If made to subside by 
other means, it will remain as if subsided but will rise again. Self-
enquiry is the one infallible means, the only direct one, to realize 
the unconditioned, absolute being that you really are. 
Q: Why should self-enquiry alone be considered the direct means to 
jnana? 
A: Because every kind of sadhana except that of atma-vichara 
[self-enquiry] presupposes the retention of the mind as the 
instrument for carrying on the sadhana, and without the mind it 
cannot be practised. The ego may take different and subtler forms at 
the different stages of one's practice, but is itself never destroyed. 

When Janaka exclaimed, `Now I have discovered the thief who has 
been ruining me all along. He shall be dealt with summarily', the 
king was really referring to the ego or the mind. 
Q: But the thief may well be apprehended by the other sadhanas as 
well. 
A: The attempt to destroy the ego or the mind through sedans 
other than atma-vichara is just like the thief pretending to be a 
policeman to catch the thief, that is, himself. Atma-vichara alone 
can reveal the truth that neither the ego nor the mind really exists, 
and enable one to realize the pure, undifferentiated being of the Self 
or the absolute. 
Having realized the Self, nothing remains to be known, because it 
is perfect bliss, it is the all. 
Q: Why is self-enquiry more direct than other methods? 
A: Attention to one's own Self, which is ever shining as `I', the 
one undivided and pure reality, is the only raft with which the 
individual, who is deluded by thinking `I am the body', can cross 
the ocean of unending births. 
Reality is simply the loss of ego. Destroy the ego by seeking its 
identity. Because the ego is no entity it will automatically vanish 
and reality will shine forth by itself. This is the direct method, 
whereas all other methods are done only by retaining the ego. In 
those paths there arise so many doubts and the eternal question 
`Who am I ?' remains to be tackled finally. But in this method the 

final question is the only one and it is raised from the beginning. No 
sedans are necessary for engaging in this quest. 
There is no greater mystery than this - that being the reality we seek 
to gain reality. We think that there is something hiding our reality 
and that it must be destroyed before the reality is gained. It is 
ridiculous. A day will dawn when you will yourself laugh at your 
past efforts. That which will be on the day you laugh is also here and 
now. 
Self-enquiry – practice 
Beginners in self-enquiry were advised by Sri Ramana to put their 
attention on the inner feeling of `I' and to hold that feeling as long 
as possible. They would be told that if their attention was distracted 
by other thoughts they should revert to awareness of the `I'-thought 
whenever they became aware that their attention had wandered. He 
suggested various aids to assist this process - one could ask oneself 
`Who am I ?' or `Where does this I come from ?' - but the ultimate 
aim was to be continuously aware of the `I' which assumes that it is 
responsible for all the activities of the body and the mind. 
In the early stages of practice attention to the feeling `I' is a mental 
activity which takes the form of a thought or a perception. As the 
practice develops the thought `I' gives way to a subjectively 
experienced feeling of `I', and when this feeling ceases to connect 
and identify with thoughts and objects it completely vanishes. What 

remains is an experience of being in which the sense of 
individuality has temporarily ceased to operate. The experience may 
be intermittent at first but with repeated practice it becomes easier 
and easier to reach and maintain. When self-enquiry reaches this 
level there is an effortless awareness of being in which individual 
effort is no longer possible since the `I' who makes the effort has 
temporarily ceased to exist. It is not Self-realization since the `I'-
thought periodically reasserts itself but it is the highest level of 
practice. Repeated experience of this state of being weakens and 
destroys the vasanas (mental tendencies) which cause the `I'-
thought to rise, and, when their hold has been sufficiently 
weakened, the power of the Self destroys the residual tendencies so 
completely that the `I'-thought never rises again. This is the final 
and irreversible state of Self-realization. 
This practice of self-attention or awareness of the `I'-thought is a 
gentle technique which bypasses the usual repressive methods of 
controlling the mind. It is not an exercise in concentration, nor does 
it aim at suppressing thoughts; it merely invokes awareness of the 
source from which the mind springs. The method and goal of self-
enquiry is to abide in the source of the mind and to be aware of 
what one really is by withdrawing attention and interest from what 
one is not. In the early stages effort in the form of transferring 
attention from the thoughts to the thinker is essential, but once 
awareness of the `I'-feeling has been firmly established, further 

effort is counter-productive. From then on it is more a process of 
being than doing, of effortless being rather than an effort to be. 
Being what one already is effortless since beingness is always 
present and always experienced. On the other hand, pretending to 
be what one is not (i.e. the body and the mind) requires continuous 
mental effort, even though the effort is nearly always at a 
subconscious level. It therefore follows that in the higher stages of 
self-enquiry effort takes attention away from the experience of 
being while the cessation of mental effort reveals it. Ultimately, the 
Self is not discovered as a result of doing anything, but only by 
being. As Sri Ramana himself once remarked: 
`Do not meditate - be! 
Do not think that you are - be! 
Don't think about being - you are!` 
Self-enquiry should not be regarded as a meditation practice that 
takes place at certain hours and in certain positions; it should 
continue throughout one's waking hours, irrespective of what one is 
doing. Sri Ramana saw no conflict between working and self-
enquiry and he maintained that with a little practice it could be done 
under any circumstances. He did sometimes say that regular periods 
of formal practice were good for beginners, but he never advocated 
long periods of sitting meditation and he always showed his 

disapproval when any of his devotees expressed a desire to give up 
their mundane activities in favour of a meditative life. 
Q: You say one can realize the Self by a search for it. What is the 
character of this search? 
A: You are the mind or think that you are the mind. The mind is 
nothing but thoughts. Now behind every particular thought there is 
a general thought, which is the `I', that is yourself. Let us call this 
`I' the first thought. Stick to this `I'-thought and question it to find 
out what it is. When this question takes strong hold on you, you 
cannot think of other thoughts. 
Q: When I do this and cling to my self, that is, the `I'-thought, other 
thoughts come and go, but I say to myself `Who am I ?' and there is 
no answer forthcoming. To be in this condition is the practice. Is it 
so? 
A: This is a mistake that people often make. What happens when 
you make a serious quest for the Self is that the `I'-thought 
disappears and something else from the depths takes hold of you and 
that is not the `I' which commenced the quest. 
Q: What is this something else? 
A: That is the real Self, the import of `I'. It is not the ego. It is the 
Supreme Being itself. 
Q: But you have often said that one must reject other thoughts 
when one begins the quest but the thoughts are endless. If one 
thought is rejected, another comes and there seems to be no end at 
all. 

A: I do not say that you must go on rejecting thoughts. Cling to 
yourself, that is, to the `I'-thought. When your interest keeps you to 
that single idea, other thoughts will automatically get rejected and 
they will vanish. 
Q: And so rejection of thoughts is not necessary? 
A: No. It may be necessary for a time or for some. You fancy that 
there is no end if one goes on rejecting every thought when it rises. It 
is not true, there is an end. If you are vigilant and make a stern effort 
to reject every thought when it rises you will soon find that you are 
going deeper and deeper into your own inner self. At that level it is 
not necessary to make an effort to reject thoughts. 
Q: Then it is possible to be without effort, without strain. 
A: Not only that, it is impossible for you to make an effort beyond 
a certain extent. 
Q: I want to be further enlightened. Should I try to make no effort 
at all? 
A: Here it is impossible for you to be without effort. When you go 
deeper, it is impossible for you to make any effort. 
If the mind becomes introverted through enquiry into the source of 
aham-vritti, the vasanas become extinct. The light of the Self falls on 
the vasanas and produces the phenomenon of reflection we call the 
mind. Thus, when the vasanas become extinct the mind also 
disappears, being absorbed into the light of the one reality, the Heart. 

This is the sum and substance of all that an aspirant needs to know. 
What is imperatively required of him is an earnest and onepointed 
enquiry into the source of the aham-vritti. 
Q: How should a beginner start this practice? 
A: The mind will subside only by means of the enquiry `Who am 
I?' The thought 'Who am I?', destroying all other thoughts, will itself 
finally be destroyed like the stick used for stirring the funeral pyre. If 
other thoughts rise one should, without attempting to complete them, 
enquire `To whom did they rise?' What does it matter however 
many thoughts rise? At the very moment that each thought rises, if 
one vigilantly enquires `To whom did this rise?', it will be known 
`To me'. If one then enquires `Who am I?', the mind will turn back 
to its source [the Self] and the thought which had risen will also 
subside. By repeatedly practising thus, the power of the mind to 
abide in its source increases. 
Although tendencies towards sense-objects [vishaya vasanas], which 
have been recurring down the ages, rise in countless numbers like 
the waves of the ocean, they will all perish as meditation on one's 
nature becomes more and more intense. Without giving room even to 
the doubting thought, `Is it possible to destroy all these tendencies 
[vasanas] and to remain as Self alone?', one should persistently cling 
fast to self-attention. 
As long as there are tendencies towards sense-objects in the mind, 
the enquiry `Who am I ?' is necessary. As and when thoughts rise, 
one should annihilate all of them through enquiry then and there in 

their very place of origin. Not attending to what-is-other [anya] is 
non-attachment [vairagya] or desirelessness [nirasa]. Not leaving 
Self is knowledge [jnana]. In truth, these two [desirelessness and 
knowledge] are one and the same. Just as a pearl-diver, tying a stone 
to his waist, dives into the sea and takes the pearl lying at the 
bottom, so everyone, diving deep within himself with non-
attachment, can attain the pearl of Self. If one resorts uninterruptedly 
to remembrance of one's real nature [swarupasmarana] until one 
attains Self, that alone will be sufficient. 
Enquiring `Who am I that is in bondage?' and knowing one's real 
nature [swarupa] alone is liberation. Always keeping the mind fixed 
in Self alone is called 'self-enquiry', whereas meditation [dhyana] is 
thinking oneself to be the absolute [Brahman], which is existence-
consciousness-bliss [sat-chit-ananda]. 
Q: The yogis say that one must renounce this world and go off into 
secluded jungles if one wishes to find the truth. 
A: The life of action need not be renounced. If you meditate for an 
hour or two every day you can then carry on with your duties. If you 
meditate in the right manner then the current of mind induced will 
continue to flow even in the midst of your work. It is as though there 
were two ways of expressing the same idea; the same line which you 
take in meditation will be expressed in your activities. 
Q: What will be the result of doing that? 

A: As you go on you will find that your attitude towards people, 
events and objects gradually changes. Your actions will tend to 
follow your meditations of their own accord. 
Q: Then you do not agree with the yogis? 
A: A man should surrender the personal selfishness which binds 
him to this world. Giving up the false self is the true renunciation. 
Q: How is it possible to become selfless while leading a life of 
worldly activity? 
A: There is no conflict between work and wisdom. 
Q: Do you mean that one can continue all the old activities in 
one's profession, for instance, and at the same time get 
enlightenment ? 
A: Why not ? But in that case one will not think that it is the old 
personality which is doing the work, because one's consciousness 
will gradually become transferred until it is centered in that which is 
beyond the little self. 
Q: If a person is engaged in work, there will be little time left for 
him to meditate. 
A: Setting apart time for meditation is only for the merest spiritual 
novices. A man who is advancing will begin to enjoy the deeper 
beatitude whether he is at work or not. While his hands are in 
society, he keeps his head cool in solitude. 
Q: Then you do not teach the way of yoga? 

A: The yogi tries to drive his mind to the goal, as a cowherd drives 
a bull with a stick, but on this path the seeker coaxes the bull by 
holding out a handful of grass. 
Q: How is that done? 
A: You have to ask yourself the question `Who am I ?' This 
investigation will lead in the end to the discovery of something 
within you which is behind the mind. Solve that great problem and 
you will solve all other problems. 
Q: Seeking the `I' there is nothing to be seen. 
A: Because you are accustomed to identify yourself with the body 
and sight with the eyes, therefore you say you do not see anything. 
What is there to be seen? Who is to see? How to see? There is only 
one consciousness which, manifesting as `I '-thought, identifies itself 
with the body, projects itself through the eyes and sees the objects 
around. The individual is limited in the waking state and expects to 
see something different. The evidence of his senses will be the seal 
of authority. But he will not admit that the seer, the seen and the 
seeing are all manifestations of the same consciousness - namely, `I, 
I'. Contemplation helps one to overcome the illusion that the Self 
must be visual. In truth, there is nothing visual. How do you feel the 
`I' now ? Do you hold a mirror before you to know your own being? 
The awareness is the `I'. Realize it and that is the truth. 
Q: On enquiry into the origin of thoughts there is a perception of 
`I'. But it does not satisfy me. 

A: Quite right. The perception of `I' is associated with a form, 
maybe the body. There should be nothing associated with the pure 
Self. The Self is the unassociated, pure reality, in whose light the 
body and the ego shine. On stilling all thoughts the pure 
consciousness remains. 
Just on waking from sleep and before becoming aware of the world 
there is that pure `I, I'. Hold on to it without sleeping or without 
allowing thoughts to possess you. If that is held firm it does not 
matter even if the world is seen. The seer remains unaffected by the 
phenomena. 
What is the ego? Enquire. The body is insentient and cannot say `I'. 
The Self is pure consciousness and non-dual. It cannot say `I'. No 
one says `I' in sleep. What is the ego then? It is something 
intermediate between the inert body and the Self. It has no locus 
standi. If sought for it vanishes like a ghost. At night a man may 
imagine that there is a ghost by his side because of the play of 
shadows. If he looks closely he discovers that the ghost is not really 
there, and what he imagined to be a ghost was merely a tree or a 
post. If he does not look closely the ghost may terrify him. All that is 
required is to look closely and the ghost vanishes. The ghost was 
never there. So also with the ego. It is an intangible link between the 
body and pure consciousness. It is not real. So long as one does not 
look closely at it, it continues to give trouble. But when one looks for 
it, it is found not to exist. 
There is another story which illustrates this. In Hindu marriage 

functions the feasts often continue for five or six days. On one of 
these occasions a stranger was mistaken for the best man by the 
bride's party and they therefore treated him with special regard. 
Seeing him treated with special regard by the bride's party, the 
bridegroom's party considered him to be some man of importance 
related to the bride's party and therefore they too showed him special 
respect. The stranger had altogether a happy time of it. He was also 
all along aware of the real situation. On one occasion the groom's 
party wanted to refer to him on some point and so they asked the 
bride's party about him. Immediately he scented trouble and made 
himself scarce. So it is with the ego. If looked for, it disappears. If 
not, it continues to give trouble. 
Q: If I try to make the 'Who-am I?' enquiry, I fall into sleep. What 
should I do? 
A: Persist in the enquiry throughout your waking hours. That 
would be quite enough. If you keep on making the enquiry till you 
fall asleep, the enquiry will go on during sleep also. Take up the 
enquiry again as soon as you wake up. 
Q: How can I get peace? I do not seem to obtain it through vichara. 
A: Peace is your natural state. It is the mind that obstructs the 
natural state. If you do not experience peace it means that your 
vichara has been made only in the mind. Investigate what the mind 
is, and it will disappear. There is no such thing as mind apart from 
thought. Nevertheless, because of the emergence of thought, you 

surmise something from which it starts and term that the mind. When 
you probe to see what it is, you find there is really no such thing as 
mind. When the mind has thus vanished, you realize eternal peace. 
Q: When I am engaged in enquiry as to the source from which the 
`I' springs, I arrive at a stage of stillness of mind beyond which I find 
myself unable to proceed further. I have no thought of any kind and 
there is an emptiness, a blankness. A mild light pervades and I feel 
that it is myself bodiless. I have neither cognition nor vision of body 
and form. The experience lasts nearly half an hour and is pleasing. 
Would I be correct in concluding that all that was necessary to secure 
eternal happiness, that is freedom or salvation or whatever one calls 
it, was to continue the practice till this experience could be 
maintained for hours, days and months together? 
A: This does not mean salvation. Such a condition is termed 
manolaya or temporary stillness of thought. Manolaya means 
concentration, temporarily arresting the movement of thoughts. As 
soon as this concentration ceases, thoughts, old and new, rush in as 
usual; and even if this temporary lulling of mind should last a 
thousand years, it will never lead to total destruction of thought, 
which is what is called liberation f