Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi Complete ... - BrahminVoice.org

Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi
D.: The scriptures hold him up as the ideal.
M.: Certainly. He is the ideal. You should realise the Self. Even if his state
be now described, your understanding of it will be only according to
your capacity. You admit that your capacity is limited.
The scriptures say that the realised state admits of no limits. So
then, the only way to understand his state is to realise the Self and
experience the state. If the question arises afterwards the answer
will be found.
Another visitor asked: There is differentiation made between the
sentient and the insentient (chit and jada) in the opening verse of
Upadesa Sara.
M.: The Upadesa is from the standpoint of the hearer. There is no
truth in the insentient (jada). One whole consciousness (chit)
prevails all alone.
24th January, 1938
Talk 446.
Mr. Grant Duff was in the hall. Sri Bhagavan was mentioning some
new publications and Maha Yoga among others. He also remarked
that Mr. G. D. having read Sat Darsana Bhashya would be surprised
at the different view of Maha Yoga. Both claim to represent Sri
Bhagavan’s philosophy; but they differ so much that Maha Yoga
actually condemns the other.
Someone cited the curious claim of Sat Darsana Bhashya that
individuality is retained even after the loss of ego.
Sri Bhagavan remarked:
What is to be done? The Upanishads say: Brahmavid Brahmaiva
bhavati (Knower of Brahman becomes Brahman). There are more
than one Brahmavid at a time. “Are all of them the same? Are they not
separate?” So ask some persons. They look to the bodies only. They
do not look to the realisation. There is no difference in the realisation
of the Brahmavid. That is the Truth. But when the question is raised
from the standpoint of the body the reply is necessarily bound to be
“Yes. They are different”. This is the cause of the confusion.
431