Bhagwan Raman Maharshi says: Take Vedanta, for instance: it
speaks of 15 pranas the names and functions of it which the student is asked to commit memory.
Will it not be sufficient if he thought only one prana does the whole work of
maintaining the body? Again the antakaran is said to think, to desire, to will,
to reason etc. Why all these details? Has anyone seen antakarana, or all these
pranas? Do they really exist? They are conceptual divisions invented by
teachers of philosophy by their excessive analysis. Where do all these concepts
end? Why should confusion created and then explained away? Fortunate is the man
who does not lose himself in the labyrinths of philosophy, but goes straight to
the source from which they all arise. (GURU RAMANA .By S.S Cohen -vii Danger of philosophy-Page
-58-59)
And it is very true.
The truth has to be
proved without the scriptural authorities. The scriptural authorities cannot be
accepted as proof until it is verified thoroughly in pursuit of truth. Intellectually
knowing the truth is only an imagination, whereas realizing the truth knows it
as such.
Ultimate Truth or Brahman is not only that which is beyond contradiction, but
also that in which is no possibility of contradiction. Such a state can only be
realized as non-duality, where there are no second thing. The illustration for
that is deep sleep but sleep is not the ultimate reality. It is merely an
analogy. "If one thinks there is another entity whether man or God there
is no truth." This is the truth of those who have inquired and reasoned on
the true base.
What is ‘I’? The ‘I’ disappears in deep sleep, so what is
the use of being attached to it? It is illusory.
There is really no ‘I’. It dies in deep sleep. But the
notion of its unreality will gradually grasp by the serious and receptive
seekers. Individuality is illusory.
One is ignorant of the fact that the ‘I’ o mind comes and goes as waking or dream and
has no permanent existence, is only a mirage after all.
Atman cannot be known in the sense in which one knows
objects of thought. It can be known only to the extent to which one knows them,
for he can only think of the knower when he is in the presence of the known,
i.e. objects, for the latter make him aware that a knower must exist. Thus
duality makes one think of the knower, but it cannot make him know the knower.
The knower is known in the world or waking only by implication, as one cannot
think without a knower. The knower is a concept, and cannot be known in itself.
The witness is only one. Why and how? The word seer or witness
is got at by eliminating the seen (universe or waking or dream) mentally. There
never have been two seers/witnesses; if there be two one becomes seen to the
other.
When one thinks seer or witness is the ego; he is mistaking
the Atman, for the ego which appears and disappears. This is the great stumble
block in understanding and assimilation the nondual truth. Everyone thinks that when the ego is not,
nothing remains. When one is aware of the ego, there must be the formless knower,
which is Atman, which is in the form of consciousness. This directly opposed to
all other systems. How can one talk of ego unless there is something which
witnesses it as known.
The seeker has to analyze the whole mental experiences
[dual or nondual].Psychology does not go beyond duality or mind or the universe.
But who sees this analysis? The one which is conscious of the relation between
subject and object is the Atman or consciousness the innermost self. It is that
of which everyone is absolutely certain and it cannot be proved. It is
self-evident.
