Writing

Commentary on Ramana's Forty Verses: Verse Seven

Continued from Verse Six

7. Although the world and knowledge thereof rise and set together, it is by knowledge alone that the world is made apparent. That Perfection wherein the world and knowledge thereof rise and set, and which shines without rising and setting, is alone the Reality.

Commentary: So we have this twin idea of the world and the knowledge of the world. This knowledge comes through the mind. The mind is what we use to perceive the world; there is no other access to the world.

Where there is a world, there is a mind which says that is the case. And where there is a mind, there has to be a world, since what it means to be a mind is to have knowledge of something. That something is simply what we call the world. Even someone hallucinating sees the world — it may be a distorted vision of the world from someone else’s perspective, but it is the world for the hallucinator. In a dream it’s a dream world.

The idea of a mind requires the experience of thought. Thought is always of things, and things have boundaries: this is an apple because it is not an orange or a giraffe or anything else. Its limits make it what it is.

Without a something ‘out there’ there could be no perception of a something ‘in here,’ and vice-versa. That something ‘in here’ is the ego. So the mind is rooted in egoic identification, which is the sense that “I am a thinking, doing, experiencing entity.” Without that sense, you couldn’t have a world. Without the world, however, you couldn’t have that sense either.

Ego & world are like the two ends of a pole. When one comes, they both must come. They imply and require each other. The egoic mind is what seems to know the world.

Both the egoic mind and the world are established in something superior to them both, which does not come and go. The mind and the world are both just objects. Neither are really aware. They are, rather, in truth known by something else. They are both merely modifications of or forms of that something else. That something else in which they are both rooted, and by which they are both known, and which unlike them does not come and go, is deemed Perfection, the Self, Truth, Awareness, or Reality. It has many names.

At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here.

Commentary on Ramana's Forty Verses: Verse Six

Continued from Verse Five

6. The world is nothing more than an embodiment of the objects perceived by the five sense-organs. Since, through these five sense-organs, a single mind perceives the world, the world is nothing but the mind. Apart from the mind can there be a world?

Commentary: The world is what perceived by the senses, but the senses are themselves cognized by the mind (the deeper sheaths within that five-sheathed body/mind). The world is, as we know it, put together, organized, synthesized by the mind. The raw sense data are put together into this thing we call experience only because of the mind.

We cannot imagine a world without a body-mind there to perceive it. Everything we know about the world comes through our senses brought together through the mind. The idea of a world apart from our ideas about it, that is, apart from the organizing function of the mind, is literally inconceivable. Every possible idea of what the world could be like without the mind would have to first be filtered through the mind’s categories. In other words, we have no evidence, capacity, or justification for believing in a world that is entirely independent of mind.

This is not necessarily to say that any one individual mind creates all of reality. There may be a global mind which integrates all the individual minds into a common reality. We can call that global mind God. Regardless, the point is that one way or another, the world is always mind-dependent.

At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here.

Commentary on Ramana's Forty Verses: Verse Five

Continued from Verse Four

5. The body is a form composed of the five-fold sheath; therefore, all the five sheaths are implied in the term, body. Apart from the body does the world exist? Has anyone seen the world without the body?

Commentary: The five-fold sheath is a Vedantic idea that understands the body-mind to be a complex which includes five layers, like an onion. Each layer in some sense is the product of the layers within it, and in some sense produces the layers outside it. The outer-most layer is the physical organs. Then comes the prana, or physiological energy. Then is said to be the seat of the emotions. Then, within that is our ability to reason and to decide. And finally within that is the ego, the sense that “I am.” Note that this sense, too, is actually just a layer, just as insentient as all the other layers. It claims to be conscious, claims to be deciding and feeling and all the other layers, but it can no more do those things than a piece of paper can actually think and feel. It is only when the light of consciousness hits that insentient “I am” thought that the reflected consciousness appears to experience the world.

The body, however, is a kind of instrument for seeing the world, much like a novel is an instrument for experiencing a fictional universe. When readers read a book, they project an imaginary landscape peopled by imaginary people. Both the reader and the book are required for this to happen.

So the body establishes boundaries and mental concepts which are the tools by which everything else seems to be experienced. The world as we know it is always the world as perceived and cognized by the body (where the body is understood to include all the mental and emotional instruments together).

At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here.

Commentary on Ramana's Forty Verses: Verse Four

Continued from Verse Three

4. If one has form oneself, the world and God also will appear to have form, but if one is formless, who is it that sees those forms, and how? Without the eye can any object be seen? The seeing Self is the Eye, and that Eye is the Eye of Infinity.

Commentary: A form is a boundary. If you have a form, it means that you have a boundary. Other things, like the world and God, are contrasted to that boundary. They are the not-you. It is by the creation of mental boundaries that we have experiences. Without a form, without those boundaries, there is no way to differentiate self and other. There is therefore no way to use concepts, no way to use language, no way to say “individual,” “world,” “God.”

The eye is the form of the instrument of knowing, and it differentiates things into forms with boundaries. This eye can be regarded both as physical or as metaphorical — i.e. as the egoic mind, the mind which says “I” and “not-I.”

But in reality what sees is no physical or even mental I. Rather, the Self sees, and that Self is infinite — meaning boundless, meaning formless. There is no actual space in it for I and not-I. For that Eye, the true Eye, its Seeing is no seeing. Ordinary seeing can be understood. But the Seeing of that Eye, when inquired into, leads straight into the silence of the incomprehensible. It stuns the mind into silence.

At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here.

Commentary on Ramana's Forty Verses: Verse Three

Continued from Verse Two

3. 'The world is real.' 'No, it is a mere illusory appearance.' 'The world is conscious.' 'No.' 'The world is happiness.' 'No.' What use is it to argue thus? That State is agreeable to all, wherein, having given up the objective outlook, one knows one's Self and loses all notions either of unity or duality, of oneself and the ego.

Commentary: The questions of philosophy about the exact relationship of the world to consciousness are impossible to answer in language. That’s because language & concepts are themselves based on the idea that the ego is real, that is, that the sense that “I am separate” is true. Only when you say “I am in here and separate” can you look out at the world and say “out there is not me,” and then divide the not-me into names and forms. From these names and forms we get language, and from language we get philosophical debates about the nature of the world. It all starts with that me/not-me distinction.

But the problem is that the very base assumption of the ego that “I am in here and separate” is incorrect. That is merely a thought, whereas what you actually are is beyond thought; you are the unthinkable Reality. That Reality is cannot be said to be in here, cannot be said to be separate, cannot be said to create any kind of boundary by which names and forms may be drawn.

Since the base assumption of the ego is incorrect, then “I am not in here and separate.” So all the stuff out there is not the not-me, and so all the names and forms based on those assumptions are in some profound sense incorrect — or, more accurately, meaningless. This is because names and forms are based on boundaries, but the original boundary that would allow them — again, the me/not-me boundary — is invalid.

This makes language, in a very certain and deep sense, meaningless, and that then makes philosophical debate about these concepts ultimately meaningless as well. Even ‘meaningless’ is too meaningful a word to be used, technically. It too is a child of language.

A philosophical framework can be useful provisionally for a seeker, but ultimately it has to be realized that Reality cannot be proven in language one way or another, since what is being indicated is beyond language.

From a practical standpoint, it’s wise not to get too bogged down in philosophical debates about the exact status of the world. The key point is that if there is abidance without the ego — that is, without the “objective outlook” to which Ramana refers, since the ego enables us to experience objects by assuming it is itself the subject — that is happiness. That state is beyond concepts of either unity or duality, beyond the concepts of the self and ego. All that vanishes, or rather, more than vanishes: whether it is there or it isn’t there is itself seen to be a meaningless point.

“Ego” and “existence,” are themselves concepts, and saying that they are false is also a concept. There is something beyond concepts, which can only be pointed to by language, but not actually described.

At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here.

Commentary on Ramana's Forty Verses: Verse Two

Continued from Verse One

2. All religions postulate the three fundamentals: the world, the soul, and God, but it is only the one Reality that manifests Itself as these three. One can say, 'The three are really three' only so long as the ego lasts. Therefore, to inhere in one's own Being, where the 'I', or ego, is dead, is the perfect State.

Commentary: Religions tend to assume three basic divisions. First there’s the world of objects, then ones who see them (those are individual souls), and finally there’s the God who creates, maintains, and destroys the whole system. But this is all only from the standpoint of thought — which is the standpoint of the ego. The ego is that which says “I am in here, separate from out there. I experience the world and my thoughts and feelings.” The ego is that sense of distinction that arises from and is mixed with the body and mind.

It’s only when the light of Reality appears to be split through the prism of ego that there seems to be this thing called the experience of changing objects, and it’s only from that experience that religions then put forth the self-world-God system.

But this ego is a kind of illusion. It is the thought that says that “I am a thought.” But that thought is wrong. The true I — Reality — is not a thought. The egoic I is a kind of illusion that drives and is driven by a cycle of identification with the body and mind, and the actions based on desires and fears that come from that identification. When we feel that “I am” — that’s the ego at work. And this ego is what enables normal perception. Without the sense that “I am,” we cannot have the sense “out there are the things I experience, which I am not.”

If that ego is dead and we are without that sense of differentiation, of ‘in here’ and ‘out there’ — that’s the perfect State. That’s the contemplation of Reality.

At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here.

Commentary on Ramana's Forty Verses: Verse One

Continued from Invocatory Part Two of Two

1. From our perception of the world there follows acceptance of a unique First Principle possessing various powers. Pictures of name and form, the person who sees, the screen on which one sees, and the light by which one sees: one oneself is all of these.

Commentary: When we see the world, logic dictates that the world itself arises from something which possesses the power to create that seeming seeing. That power itself appears to be split into the various objects of the world, the seer, the act of seeing, awareness itself, and so on. These are all nothing other than Reality, however, and Reality is what you actually are — not any of these divisions.

At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here.

Commentary on Ramana's Forty Verses: Invocatory Part Two of Two

Continued from Invocatory Part One of Two

ii. Those who know intense fear of death seek refuge only at the feet of the Lord Who has neither death nor birth. Dead to themselves and their possessions, can the thought of death occur to them again? Deathless are they.

Commentary: All fear is rooted in the fear of death. But death can only afflict what is born, that is, what is changing: that is, what is thought. We have just seen that what is Real is unchanging, and that what is Real is us.

The Lord who has neither birth nor death is none other than this very Reality, the Heart. This Lord may go by many other names — Shiva or Vishnu or God or the Goddess, for example. But ultimately they all refer to this unchanging Reality.

In order to take refuge at the feet of this Lord, all else must be given up. This giving up is a kind of death. By dying to what is changing — to what one thought one was, but in fact is not — one realizes oneself to actually be the unchanging. What seems mortal has in fact never been born to begin with, and what is immortal cannot die. And the thought of death cannot occur to the immortals, which are those who have given up their stake in everything changing.

At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here.

Commentary on Ramana's Forty Verses: Invocatory Part One of Two

Over the next few weeks I’ll be posting a commentary on Ramana Maharshi’s seminal Forty Verses, verse by verse.

Introduction

Forty Verses is one of Ramana Maharshi’s most famous works. It is one of his own chief and briefest summaries of his teachings, compiled at the request of one of his devotees. It explains the philosophy and the essence of that true knowledge which is beyond the changing things of the world, knowledge of the real Self.

It goes by other names as well: Ulladu Narpadu, Sad-Vidya, and Truth Revealed. The translation of the text is taken from The Collected Works of Ramana Maharshi.

Invocation

i. If Reality did not exist, could there be any knowledge of existence? Free from all thoughts, Reality abides in the Heart, the Source of all thoughts. It is, therefore, called the Heart. How then is one to contemplate it? To be as it is in the Heart, is Its contemplation.

Commentary: This invocation, which has two parts, starts before the forty verses themselves. Reality means that which is unchanging, whereas knowledge of existence is always in thought (or feeling, or perception, etc., which are all forms of thought). Reality is that which permits thought, that which is aware of it. Thought always implies a background which is itself not simply a thought. That which is beyond thought is beyond change, since changes are themselves in thought — in order to say something has changed, you have to think and make a comparison. In other words, changes are always cognized. Without concepts, you cannot say that something has changed. So the knowledge of existence — which is thought — implies something which is beyond change, and which is that which is aware of thought. That awareness which is beyond change we call Reality.

This background to thought — though phrasing it this way is of course itself a thought, and that’s inevitable, since any language that talks about Reality is going to have to use thought, and so be imprecise and imperfect — shines in what Ramana calls the Heart. While Reality is an abstract concept, the Heart is simply the ground of our own awareness. It is the background of thoughts that each of us can access. It does not refer to the physical heart. It refers to the background of thought that we can seek by turning our attention towards whoever it is that is witnessing all our experiences. That witness is “inside” all the other experience, which is on the “outside.” That inmost point is called the Heart. When this inmost “point” is reached, it turns out not to be a point at all, and to be entirely beyond the distinctions of inside and outside.

What we call Reality, which is a grand word which seems to be “out there” and “universal,” is equally in us. It is not merely in us, actually, but rather we are it.

It is the grand concept of Vedanta and of Ramana that the unchanging essence of the “out there” is also none other than the unchanging essence that is “in here.” When stripped of the inessential & the changing, which stuff is actually just a bunch of thoughts of those things, the out there and the in here are not merely similar — they are exactly one and the same.

This Heart is what is behind thought, and it is that from which all thought comes, and to which it all returns. So it is not itself a thought. But only thought can be the object of contemplation. So how are we to turn our attention towards the Heart? We simply have to just be the Heart. Which of course we already are.

“To be as it is in the Heart” means that we are to be just and only as it is in the Heart, meaning to be without thought. It means we have to abandon our delusions of being in thought — of having things to do, goals, doings, experiences. To turn away from thought, to stop pretending to be anything other than the Heart, is the way to contemplate it.

At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here.

Clarifications on Ramana Maharshi, samadhi, self-inquiry, surrender, and Self-Realization

07-10-2020 many-layered-yellow-flower_800.jpg

In this essay I want to clarify certain ambiguous terms and states with respect to the teachings of Ramana Maharshi and advaita vedanta. Some (but not all of the terms) that I will clarify include the below.

Bliss sheath

Samadhi

Laya

The Self

The “I am” thought / the ego

Knowledge / aham sphurana / the I-I / the Self ‘as distinguished from non-Self’

The Self vs. the self (or ego)

First let’s distinguish between the self and the Self — the self is the “I am“ thought and everything that that thought is attached to. That I am thought is the sense of being an experiencer and a doer, of being a person, a body, someone who has memories, etc. It is the ego, it is that which enables any experience, because it is only when there is an “I that experiences” that there can be experience. Experience is dualistic by nature. It requires an I and a not-I. The ego is the subject that enables the object of experience; it is the ‘in here’ that enables the ‘out there’ (and everything experienced, including thoughts and feelings, is ‘out there’).

At the core the ego is that sense of simply being a separate entity at all. But if that thought is sufficiently isolated from all the things it is confused with, it disappears; it can only be a separate entity when confused with other things. That is the notion of ‘superimposition’ or abhyasa

When the I thought disappears, that doesn’t mean that the true I disappears, just the thought that “I am.”

That ego thought is not in words; it’s not a conscious belief. It is a deep seated structure in the mind that organizes our perception, indeed that allows our perception.

The ego is what Maharshi calls the “I.” The ego is the reflection of the true Self, which is what he calls by many names: Self, brahman, “I-I,” jnana or “aham sphurana,” and there are others. The aham sphurana is the sort of root of the I, the impersonality of the I (a paradox in words, but it is not a paradox in reality!). Ultimately all the categories which point to the Self are really just other names for the Self. Even the practices that “lead” to the Self, like surrender and self-inquiry, are themselves nothing but other names for the Self.

So the goal of spiritual practice is to examine the ego and see its illusory nature, piercing the veil that it is through to the recognition of the I-I as one’s “real identity.” Indeed, it is not even exactly that, because ‘identity’ suggests a ‘one who identifies as,’ whereas the true Self is not of this nature. There are not-two (this is what advaita means). But life can be lived without the mistake of ignorant identification with the experiencer/doer/separate entity.

The Self is beyond all adjectives. It is not an object. It is, however, despite that, complete, perfect, stainless, and of the nature of consciousness and bliss — although not quite in the ways in which we know these terms. It is the true source of happiness and the end to all existential questions.

When non-identification with the ego becomes totally natural, it is called sahaja samadhi (constant, natural absorption of the mind) or jagrat sushupti (waking sleep). These are all terms Maharshi used. It is also Knowledge or jnana

In sahaja samadhi, Self alone then lives. More on samadhi later on.

Sheaths (or koshas)

Next, let’s talk a bit about sheaths. In vedanta, the mind-body complex is said to be composed of five “sheaths,” each outer one holding the others within it, sort of like Russian dolls. So the outer-most is the literal physical body, including its sense organs and limbs. Then comes the ‘prana,’ which is the sort of pumping life force that makes the body work, the body’s energy. Then within that is what is called the manas or ’mind,’ though that can be a misleading English translation. It is that which registers impressions, but doesn’t really judge them. It is fairly instinctive. Then within that is the intellect, which is the organ of discernment, that which judges. Then within that is the ahamkara, or the thought that “I am,” which is also the seat of the will, that is, the sense of choice. That, again, is the ego thought, or self.

This last sheath is also called the bliss sheath. It is the nature of pure bliss or happiness. Why is that? Because it is the reflection of the Self. All pleasure is the thought descending to and meditating on this sheath. This happens briefly whenever we get a desire fulfilled, and it also happens in deep sleep. The problem is that this experience of the bliss sheath is temporary.

Another way of putting the goal of spiritual practice is to pierce all five of these sheaths to the Self, which sits within them all, and which simultaneously holds them all within it. It is smaller than the smallest and simultaneously larger than the universe.

The entire world of thought, meaning, and change is merely a wave within the Self; in fact, not even quite that, for the very concept of ‘wave’ is within the thought-world. The Self is beyond the thought-world.

The gateless gate, ignorance, and suffering

Now let’s think about this from another angle, in the terms of the gateless gate, which is a useful Zen metaphor. On one side of the gate is the seeker. The seeker’s sight is clouded by this thing called ignorance. What is ignorance? Ignorance is a very special and illusory thought, a thought of the nature of forgetfulness, that is, its only function is to hide something else — namely, the Self. That is its ‘veiling’ function, or avarana. This is ignorance is what ‘makes up’ the bliss sheath and the ego. Ignorance is like a cloud; it simultaneously veils the Self, but also cannot help but reflect it. That is why it is of the nature of (temporary, changing) bliss — because of that reflective property.

Ignorance is also known as what is called identification. Identification means a belief that “I am” some particular thing — an experiencer, a doer, a body, a mind, a set of memories, one who has relationships and career prospects, etc. Identification is the natural result of ignorance. That is, ignorance causes identification to go beyond the simple “I am” and attach itself to many other things which “I am.” All these things have to be sorted out and seen past before the ego thought can be noticed in its purity as merely a thought, and not reality.

The ego and its identifications are fueled and maintained by networks of desire and fear that are created as a result of such identification. Because the mind is believes it is a person, it becomes agitated and looks for what is pleasurable and tries to avoid what is painful. It tries to exceed all the limitations that afflict people: death, loss, limitations of knowledge and of control, and so on. This is, of course, a hopeless quest. 

In the process, the mind becomes restless and cannot really focus. It darts here and there. This is the ‘manifestation’ or vikshepa or ‘restlessness’ effect of ignorance. It’s a secondary effect; it can be said to last after ignorance disappears — although this is debatable. This restlessness is basically what causes suffering. It blocks us from seeing the reflection of the Self in the bliss sheath, in the same way that waves on a lake prevent us from clearly seeing the reflection of the Sun in it.

If the veil of ignorance is there, then the mind suffers if there is also restlessness. But if, for whatever reason, there is no restlessness, then there is no suffering, even if the veiling ‘remains.’ Restlessness can be temporarily halted. This happens very briefly any time a desire is fulfilled. It also happens in deep sleep; there is still ignorance, but the mind is absolutely still. Therefore there is no suffering — temporarily. When the mind awakens, restlessness returns, and so with it, suffering.

The only way out of this situation is to pierce the veil of ignorance/identification — to pierce the ego by examining it. For this, it helps to reduce restlessness as much as possible, since that allows for the concentration that enables veil-piercing.

So on one side of the gateless gate, the seeker seeks to get rid of ignorance. In order to do that, the mental restlessness has to be quieted. That is, the entire structure and framework that has been built on top of ignorance has to be slowly hacked away at. This happens most easily by undermining its foundation in the ego. By undermining the ego through self-inquiry or surrender, the entire structure is destroyed.

However, there may be some prerequisites to effective self-inquiry or surrender. A seeker needs a combination of an intellectual framework — that is, learning the basics of the philosophy of Self-realization — and also to deal with emotional baggage, which is essentially becoming increasingly honest about one’s desires. There are many ways to do this latter, but I recommend artistic/emotional expression and psychoanalysis/psychoanalytic psychotherapy (this is a particular kind of therapy). These steps may vary from person to person. Some have much less emotional baggage than others. Some require more intellectual explanations than others in order to believe. It depends.

Either way, the mental restlessness is quieted eventually, and then concentration can be established, and the I am thought, or ego — which is the site of the ignorance — can be examined carefully. This is what happens in self-inquiry or surrender. When the I am thought is examined carefully, first the mind quiets further, but in fits and starts, then that quietness becomes relatively smooth, and then it becomes absolutely smooth. That last is the waking samadhi we’re looking for (more on that in the next section), and is concurrent with a glimpse of Knowledge or sphurana — the Knowledge that the I am thought is a total illusion. Not only does it disappear, it becomes apparent that it never existed.

This Knowledge is the “gate” part of the gateless gate.

But passing through that gate, on the other side, there is no gate at all. There was no I am thought, no ignorance, and thus no Knowledge!

So on the other side of the gateless gate, there is a perspective-less perspective… there is a kind of paradox in all this that cannot be stated in words. Ignorance disappears, and its disappearance is also the knowledge that it was never there in the first place to disappear.

But then one seems to fall back. Who falls back? Actually, no one falls back. This is part of the illusion of the “I am” thought, that there is ever any falling back. When one goes back to waking samadhi, it is again seen that there was nobody who could fall back.

Samadhi, self-inquiry, and surrender

Self-inquiry and surrender are the spear tips of the spiritual process. In brief, self-inquiry is continuously chasing the clear, natural sense that “I am” and trying to locate it. Surrender is ignoring all thought and totally relaxing, maintaining only the thought of surrender. Both are to be practiced every waking moment, not in some formal sitting session. Much more on self-inquiry here. More on surrender here. And more on both in my books.

So one does self-inquiry or surrender and gets to a state where “I am aware of emptiness” — this is a relatively still mind. Would this emptiness be the same as experiencing bliss? It might be, because it’s a relatively relaxed mind.

Now when this keeps getting interrupted over and over again, in quick succession, this is one stage of things. It’s also what may be called dharana in the Patanjali yoga sutras.

When it becomes relatively smooth, it becomes what might be called dhyana in the meditation sutras, and it becomes a state of bliss… but a state of experienced bliss, such that one may say “I am experiencing bliss.” Still here there is some bumpiness. That bumpiness is the restlessness that allows one to make that statement, to still experience the “I am” thought as something separate. Again, the ego can only be experienced as separate when it is attached to something for contrast. When the contrasts are eliminated, there is no separate experience of the ego as such.

If it becomes so absolutely smooth that one’s identity is totally lost, then that is samadhi in yoga terminology. Samadhi means total absorption. Samadhi is only recognized in retrospect. That is, only when looking back do you say “Oh, I felt like I wasn’t even there, but of course I was.” It’s the dream-like state of what is called in Western psychology “flow” or “being in the zone.”

There is no sense that “I am” in samadhi. If that thought occurs, one is out of samadhi. Samadhi is the experience of the bliss sheath but in waking life.

Is there an “I am” thought when one is in samadhi? The answer is that it cannot be said one way or the other. Theoretically, it might be said that the “I am” thought is experienced in its absolute purity, which is totally transparent. Or it might be said not to be there at all, and therefore no experience to be experienced. The “I am” thought is required for a sense of separation and thus of experience. This is why the Zen koan, “if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?” refers to. If the ego exists, but it is not attached to anything, does the ego exist? If experience exists, but there cannot be said to be an ego, does experience exist? These questions are all intertwined.

 

If samadhi is experienced with eyes closed and the senses essentially shut off to the world, it is essentially a yogically activated deep sleep. That becomes the problematic laya that Maharshi warns against. That is, it can simply become a pleasant state to which one succumbs. It does not lead to the knowledge that destroys mental tendencies any more than deep sleep does. One can, as Maharshi says, be in this state for lifetimes without accomplishing anything. One’s underlying mental tendencies simply sit there and return when one returns from that state. This too is said to be what happens, for example, when one takes part in holy rituals or bathes in holy rivers; for a moment, the mind is stilled. But one’s ‘sins’ (one’s underlying mental structure which supports and is supported by ignorance - these are called the vasanas in Sanskrit) lie sitting a little distance away. After the ritual or the bath, they come right back. The only solution is to pierce the veil of the ego once and for all, and in that piercing, the very idea that there was anything ever to pierce, or anyone to pierce it, will also be destroyed.

Laya, or the yogic deep sleep, is also known as nirvikalpa samadhi (samadhi without any thought disturbances or perceptions). Nirvikalpa samadhi in this sleep or laya form is not to be confused with what Maharshi calls sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi, which is when this “yogic sleep” happens naturally when the mind and body appear to be awake and doing! This is nothing other than Knowledge, living in one’s true nature.

Now, if samadhi is activated with the eyes open, then its significance depends on what is being done to get to it. If the samadhi is connected with a particular activity — say, a sport — then it’s ‘flow’ or ‘being in the zone.’ It doesn’t bring Self-knowledge. The same is true simply of that state when one wakes up but hasn’t quite remembered where or who you are yet. That’s samadhi for a split second, but because it isn’t attained in a disciplined away, it doesn’t do much.

This is also true if one enters samadhi unwittingly or unknowingly, simply by accidentally letting the mind relax.

But if the waking samadhi is entered through a process of self-inquiry or surrender, then it eventually leads to knowledge. This is because those processes basically closely examine the ego, and eventually separate it from all its supports. In doing so, they activate sporadically its blissful nature. The mind, attracted by this bliss, does it more and more and more. Eventually, the tendencies of ego-attachment are weakened and destroyed. The ego is seen for what it actually is, once and for all.

Waking samadhi is the experience of purest bliss while still being ‘able,’ at least from the external point of view, to think and feel, etc.

The experience of waking samadhi is only enabled when one unlocks what is called “Knowledge,” or the “aham sphurana” — this is what Maharshi also calls the “I-I.” This I-I is actually nothing other than the enlightenment that is and always was, but one seems to slip away from it and ‘back into’ ignorance — this is the state of unsteady Knowledge. So one goes through the whole sequence of motions again. 

This waking samadhi, when merely glimpsed or touched on, has the sense of what Maharshi calls “like gazing into vacancy or a dazzling crystal or light.” This is, again, already a kind of vision of it. Persisting in it, one gets a kind of Knowledge experience, which is the gateless gate, and which can feel like a sense of ‘inversion’: what you thought was “the self in here” is actually inside the real You. All that was outside is actually Inside What You Really Are.

This is passing through the gateless gate, though one can be summoned back if the structural habits of the mind have not been fully conquered yet. But by repeating this over and over through self-inquiry or surrender, those structural habits get burned up, and eventually, clarity becomes permanent and steady. But you can’t desire to revisit waking samadhi. Any idea of “place” or even a state called waking samadhi is just a memory. Memories are not It. It is not a thought.

One gets “there” through self-inquiry or surrender again, without intending to revisit a particular place. And, ironically, this place is the revelation, once more, that ignorance never existed, and that this place is all that there ever was, and you’ve always been here.

Let’s again note what Knowledge is. When Knowledge is is an experience in time that occurs to a person — that is, the seeker’s thinking “I was ignorant, and now I know,” then Knowledge is actually what is considered the last gasp of duality, the last gasp of wrong thinking, the last gasp of ego. Knowledge, whose form is the nature of the brahmakara or akhandakara vritti (terms meaning ‘thought in the form of Brahman,’ or ‘the formless thought’) burns up ignorance, by altering the mental habits that sustain it, and then ends up destroying itself. It is, just as Maharshi says, a stick which is used to start the funeral pyre but eventually burns itself up.