The Beginningless Begins Forever
The other day I was asking you about the two ways of growth
-- renunciation and
enjoyment (yoga and bhoga). The difference is not so great
as it looks -- the Yogi
renounces to enjoy; the Bhogi enjoys to renounce. The Yogi
So what? Leave the Yogi to his Yoga and the Bhogi to Bhoga.
The way of Bhoga seems to me the better one. The Yogi is
like a green mango, separated from
tree prematurely and kept to open in a basket of straw.
Airless and overheated, it does get ripe,
the true flavour and fragrance are lost. The mango left on
the tree grows to full size, colour and
A joy in every way. Yet somehow Yoga gets all the praises,
and Bhoga -- all the curses.
I see it, Bhoga is the better of the two.
What makes you say so?
I watched the Yogis and their enormous efforts. Even when
they realise, there is something
or astringent about it. They seem to spend much of their
time in trances and when they speak,
merely voice their scriptures. At their best such jnanis are
like flowers -- perfect, but just little
shedding their fragrance within a short radius. There are
some others, who are like forests
rich, varied, immense, full of surprises, a world in
themselves. There must be a reason for this
Well, you said it. According to you one got stunted in his
Yoga , while the other flourished in
Is it not so? The Yogi is afraid of life and seeks peace,
while the Bhogi is adventurous, full of
forward going. The Yogi is bound by an ideal, while the
Bhogi is ever ready to explore.
It is a matter of wanting much or being satisfied with
little. The Yogi is ambitious while the Bhogi
merely adventurous. Your Bhogi seems to be richer and more
interesting, but it is not so in reality.
Yogi is narrow as the sharp edge of the knife. He has to be
-- to cut deep and smoothly, to
unerringly the many layers of the false. The Bhogi worships
at many altars; the Yogi
none but his own true Self.
is no purpose in opposing the Yogi to the Bhogi. The way of
precedes the way of returning ( nivritti). To sit in
judgement and allot marks is ridiculous.
contributes to the ultimate perfection. Some say there are
three aspects of reality --
He who seeks Truth becomes a Yogi , he who seeks wisdom
jnani; he who seeks happiness becomes the man of action.
We are told of the bliss of non-duality.
Such bliss is more of the nature of a great peace. Pleasure
and pain are the fruits of actions --
What makes the difference?
The difference is between giving and grasping. Whatever the
way of approach, in the end all
If there be no difference in the goal, why discriminate
between various approaches?
Let each act according to his nature. The ultimate purpose
will be served in any case. All your
and classifications are quite all right, but they do not
exist in my case. As the
of a dream may be detailed and accurate, though without
having any foundation, so
your pattern fit nothing but your own assumptions. You begin
with an idea and you end with
same idea under a different garb.
How do you see things?
One and all are the same to me. The same consciousness
(chit) appears as being (sat) and as
(ananda): Chit in movement is Ananda; Chit motionless is
Still you are making a distinction between motion and
Non-distinction speaks in silence. Words carry distinctions.
The unmanifested (nirguna) has no
all names refer to the manifested (saguna). It is useless to
struggle with words to express
is beyond words. Consciousness (chidananda) is spirit
(purusha), consciousness is matter
Imperfect spirit is matter, perfect matter is spirit. In the
beginning as in the end, all is one.
division is in the mind (chitta); there is none in reality
(chit). Movement and rest are states of
and cannot be without their opposites. By itself nothing
moves, nothing rests. It is a grievous
to attribute to mental constructs absolute existence.
Nothing exists by itself.
You seem to identify rest with the Supreme State?
There is rest as a state of mind (chidaram) and there is
rest as a state of being (atmaram). The
comes and goes, while the true rest is the very heart of
action. Unfortunately, language is a
tool and works only in opposites.
As a witness, you are working or at rest?
Witnessing is an experience and rest is freedom from
Can't they co-exist, as the tumult of the waves and the
quiet of the deep co-exist in the ocean.
Beyond the mind there is no such thing as experience.
Experience is a dual state. You cannot
of reality as an experience. Once this is understood, you
will no longer look for being and
as separate and opposite. In reality they are one and
inseparable, like roots and
of the same tree. Both can exist only in the light of
consciousness, which again, arises in
wake of the sense 'I am'. This is the primary fact. If you
miss it, you miss all.
Is the sense of being a product of experience only? The
great saying (Mahavakya) tat-sat
is it a mere mode of mentation?
Whatever is spoken is speech only. Whatever is thought is
thought only. The real meaning is
though experienceable. The Mahavakya is true, but your ideas
are false, for all ideas
Is the conviction: 'I am That' false?
Of course. Conviction is a mental state. In 'That' there is
no 'I am'. With the sense 'I am'
'That' is obscured, as with the sun rising the stars are
wiped out. But as with the sun
light, so with the sense of self comes bliss (chidananda).
The cause of bliss is sought in the
and thus the bondage begins.
In your daily life are you always conscious of your real
Neither conscious, nor unconscious. I do not need
convictions. I live on courage. Courage is my
which is love of life. I am free of memories and
anticipations, unconcerned with what I am
what I am not. I am not addicted to self-descriptions, soham
and brahmasmi ('I am He', 'I am
Supreme') are of no use to me, I have the courage to be as
nothing and to see the world as it is:
It sounds simple, just try it!
But what gives you courage?
How perverted are your views! Need courage be given? Your
question implies that anxiety is
normal state and courage is abnormal. It is the other way
round. Anxiety and hope are born of
-- I am free of both. I am simple being and I need nothing
to rest on.
Unless you know yourself, of what use is your being to you?
To be happy with what you are,
must know what you are.
Being shines as knowing, knowing is warm in love. It is all
one. You imagine separations and
yourself with questions. Don't concern yourself overmuch
with formulations. Pure being
Unless a thing is knowable and enjoyable, it is of no use to
me. It must become a part of my
first of all.
You are dragging down reality to the level of experience.
How can reality depend on
when it is the very ground (adhar) of experience. Reality is
in the very fact of
not in its nature. Experience is, after all, a state of
mind, while being is definitely not a
Again I am confused! Is being separate from knowing?
The separation is an appearance. Just as the dream is not
apart from the dreamer, so is
not apart from being. The dream is the dreamer, the
knowledge is the knower, the
is merely verbal.
I can see now that sat and chit are one. But what about
bliss (ananda)? Being and
are always present together, but bliss flashes only
The undisturbed state of being is bliss; the disturbed state
is what appears as the world. In non-
there is bliss; in duality -- experience. What comes and
goes is experience with its duality of
and pleasure. Bliss is not to be known. One is always bliss,
but never blissful. Bliss is not an
I have another question to ask: Some Yogis attain their
goal, but it is of no use to others. They
not know, or are not able to share. Those who can share out
what they have, initiate others.
lies the difference?
There is no difference. Your approach is wrong. There are no
others to help. A rich man, when
hands over his entire fortune to his family, has not a coin
left to give a beggar. So is the wise
(jnani) stripped of all his powers and possessions. Nothing,
literally nothing, can be said about
He cannot help anybody for he is everybody. He is the poor
and also his poverty, the thief and
his thievery. How can he be said to help, when he is not
apart? Who thinks of himself as
from the world, let him help the world.
Still, there is duality, there is sorrow, there is need of
help. By denouncing it as mere dream
The only thing that can help is to wake up from the dream.
An awakener is needed.
Who again is in the dream. The awakener signifies the
beginning of the end. There are no
Even when it is beginningless?
Everything begins with you. What else is beginningless?
I began at birth.
That is what you are told. Is it so? Did you see yourself
I began just now. All else is memory.
Quite right. The beginningless begins forever. In the same
way, I give eternally, because I have
To be nothing, to have nothing, to keep nothing for oneself
is the greatest gift, the highest
Is there no self-concern left?
Of course I am self-concerned, but the self is all. In
practice it takes the shape of goodwill,
and universal. You may call it love, all-pervading,
all-redeeming. Such love is supremely
-- without the sense of doing.