The Magician alone is Real
Sri Ramakrishna
Śrī Rāmakṛṣņa said "The magician performs his magic. He produces a mango tree which bears mangoes. But this is all sleight of hand. The magician alone is real". A magician performs his act by first producing a mango seed, planting it in soil and giving it water. A tree immediately starts to grow. Soon it develops into maturity; fruit then appears and ripens. The fruit is plucked from the tree and given to everyone to eat. Everyone tastes it: it is a real mango. But it is not long before the tree disappears. In fact, there never was a tree. The tree is not real, only the magician is real. In the same way, "Brahma alone is real; the world is illusory".
The Vedānta scriptures frequently use the analogy of magic. Śankara, for example, has used this analogy in his commentaries and hymns. The phenomenal world is just like a magic show: many things happening, colourful, even fascinating, but never the same, always changing, in a state of flux.
But who performs all the magic? The magician is God. The Mahānirvāṇa Tantra says that the visible world is a projection of Māyā. The world that we see changes in an instant; today it is, tomorrow it is not, like a dream. I may dream that I am flying through the air and going to a foreign country. Suddenly, the dream breaks and I find myself lying on my bed. The world is as impermanent as that dream. When I have an experience in a dream, it never occurs to me that it is not real. Our experience of the world is like that.
The Master used to tell the story of a Jñānī farmer. The farmer's only son had died. The farmer's wife cried, but the farmer was silent. His wife reproached him saying: Have you no feelings? Our only son has died, and you have not shed a tear! At this the farmer replied: Why am I not crying? Last night I dreamt that I was a king with eight sons. I was very happy. Then I awoke. Now I wonder who should I cry for -for those eight sons, or for this one son? The farmer was convinced that his one son was as illusory as the eight sons of his dream. Śrī Rāmakṛṣņa said "The farmer was Jñānī; therefore he realized that the waking state is as unreal as the dream state. There is only one eternal substance, and that is the Ātmā ".
What is eternal? What is real? That which always exists. Whatever existed in the past, is existing in the present, and will exist in the future; that which is 'uninterrupted in the three divisions of time', is eternal. If we reason in this way, we find that there is nothing lasting in this material world. Brahma or Ātmā alone is eternal, real. God is real and all else is unreal. "God alone is real, the Eternal Substance; all else is unreal, that is, impermanent".
Brahma is said to be Saccidānanda, which Swāmī Vivekānanda defined as "Existence Absolute, Knowledge Absolute and Bliss Absolute." Sat is Existence Absolute. For example, I am now in a house, but I am not always in this house. My presence here is not absolute. While I certainly exist, I exist conditionally, depending on something outside myself. What we regard as our existence is not lasting; it is not absolute.
Brahma is Absolute Existence. We all feel that 'I am'. One sign of life is the consciousness of our existence. Brahma is in us as existence. All of us have an individual, little existence. But it is because of His existence that we all exist. All things exist because Brahma is at the root of their existence. As Sat, Brahma is inherent in everything.
Cit is pure knowledge, or consciousness Absolute. In all of us there is the sense of consciousness, or knowledge. Because of that, we are able to understand various ideas; we are aware of happiness and misery. But that knowledge is not perfect knowledge, because it is dependent on many factors. For example, I see a flower. One can say that I have 'knowledge' of the flower. This is knowledge, but it is dependent on two things: the eye and the flower. If I am blind, then even though the flower exists, my eyes are unable to perceive it. Again, if there is no flower, I cannot see it. Thus my knowledge of the flower is relative. It is not independent of my sense organs; it is not absolute.
Brahma as Cit, or Consciousness Absolute, if reflected in everything, in both animate and inanimate objects. There is, however, a greater manifestation of consciousness in animate objects, and a lesser degree in inanimate objects. Brahma as consciousness is manifest in everything: there can be nothing outside of Brahma.
Brahma is Ānanda, Bliss Absolute. We generally feel happy under certain conditions. For example, I may eat a piece of candy: as long as I eat it, it tastes sweet and I enjoy it. But this happiness lasts only for a short time. After a little while my pleasure is gone, because it is limited to a particular time and to a particular object. Such is all worldly happiness: it is limited by something or other.
Brahma as Ānanda is the source of all the bliss that exist in the world. The Taittiriya Upaniṣad defines Brahma with the phrase "He is of the nature of sweetness. He is condensed, unalloyed joy. It is said in the same Upaniṣad that the sage Bhrgu discovered the nature of Brahma in meditation. He said-
Brahma is of the nature of Bliss
From Bliss all beings are created
In Bliss all things abide
Into Bliss they enter after death.
All happiness in the world comes from Brahma. We are happy when we eat something sweet or when we go to the movies. There is even greater happiness when we live for a noble ideal. Yet all happiness comes from one source, Brahma, whose nature is bliss.
This world is always changing, but how can we understand something that always changes? In order to understand movement, we need to have something stationary alongside it. How can we know when a train is moving? If the ground is firm, and the track and platform are stationary, we can tell that it is the train that moves. In the same way, behind this changing world there is something that never changes. That is Brahma; He is the substratum of this world. Because he exists, everything exists.
A story from the Upaniṣads tells of the father who sent his two sons to a spiritual preceptor to study the scriptures. When they returned home, the father asked them to describe Brahma. One son quoted many verses from the scriptures, describing Brahma's nature and attributes. The other boy remained silent. The father said to him-"You have understood rightly."
Brahma cannot be defined. Brahma is infinite and unlimited: how can words describe the unlimited? When we ascribe any attribute to Brahma, we limit Him. This applies not only to Brahma: how can we express in words any deep emotion-either happiness or sorrow? Speech is always superficial; it cannot express anything profound. Speech is partial incomplete. Brahma is beyond speech and mind. Brahma is "That which words cannot express and the mind cannot reach."
Śrī Rāmakṛṣņa used to say that everything in the world has been 'defiled-that is, since words have been spoken, they have been defiled by being passed through the mouth. "The Vedas, Purānas, Tantras, the six systems of philosophy- have been defiled, like food that has been touched by the tongue, for they have been read or uttered by the tongue. Only one thing has not been defiled in this way, and that is Brahma. No one has ever been able to say what Brahma is". Hearing these words, īśwara Candra Vidyāsāgara, the great educator and philanthropist of Bengal exclaimed- "Oh! That is a remarkable statement. I have learnt something new today."
A verse from the Jñānasaṅkalinī Tantra corroborates Śrī Rāmakṛṣņa's words-
Defiled are all the scriptures,
All that we have learned through the mouth;
Knowledge of Brahma is undefiled, because unrevealed.
It is consciousness beyond expression.
Even a knower of Brahma cannot express the nature of Brahma. He becomes mute. Śrī Rāmakrsna said-"A boat, once reaching the 'black waters' of the ocean cannot come back". In the past, most of the boats that went to the ocean never returned, and the men who did return could not give a proper description of the ocean. In the same way, a knower of Brahma cannot express what he has experienced. If a mute person eats something, he is unable to describe what he tastes. The knower of Brahma is in the same predicament. His words come to a stop; his reasoning ceases. Knowing that he cannot express in words what he has felt and perceived, he remains silent.
Śrī Rāmakṛṣņa has given several examples to illustrate this idea. If you immerse an empty jug in water, it makes a gurgling sound. But when the jug is full, there is no
sound at all. Similarly, when the knowledge of Brahma is attained, there is only silence. Again, when guests are invited to a celebration, there is a great deal of talk and noise before the meal is served. When the eating begins, there is less talk. When everyone is full, there remains only the sound of 'soop, soop' as the guests sip the last item of yogurt. Finally there is sleep, and there is no sound at all. In the same way, there is a great deal of reasoning and discussion of the scriptures until the knowledge of Brahma is attained. Then all reasoning and discussion come to an end.
The Master said that the many words about Brahma in the scriptures are like the words of a man who has returned from seeing the ocean. When he attempts to describe the experience, he can only say-"Oh, how vast it is! What waves! What billows! Books or persons try to give an idea-that's all.
The seers and books that attempt to describe Brahma can give at best only a faint idea of His nature. The Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad says-"He pervades the universe." The opening verse of the īsa Upaniṣad declares-"All this-whatever exists in this changing universe-is covered by Brahma. "Again, the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad asserts: "His hands and feet are everywhere; His eyes, heads and faces are everywhere; His ears are everywhere; He exists encompassing all."
A song from the Gospel says-"On every side-on land below, in sky above, beneath the seas: in every region of this earth-men seek Him tirelessly, and as they seek Him, ever ask: "Where is His limit, where His end?".
He is within, He is without. He is both immanent and transcendent. In His immanent aspect, He is inseparably connected with everything in this world. But He is more than this world: in His transcendent aspect, He exists outside the world as well. Brahma is indivisible: He cannot be divided into parts. He is actionless: He does not perform any action. Brahma is described as 'perfect' because He is flawless and immaculate; He is defined as 'stainless' for there can be no impurity in Brahma, nor does He possess any trace of Māyā or ignorance. Brahma is without qualities, without form and unattached. He is the giver of attributes though He Himself possesses none. We should note that all these attributes are negative. There is no way to describe Brahma except by saying Neti, Neti: He is 'not this, not this.'
In order to speak of Brahma one must use the senses, the mind and the power of speech. But the mind is, by its very nature, limited; how can the limited mind describe the limitless? How can the mind find words to express Brahma? While those who speak of Brahma may speak the truth, they can never express the whole truth. A verse from the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad asks this question- "Through what can one know that by which all is known- through what can one know the Knower?"
How do we know anything? The nature of Brahma is knowledge; we ourselves are that knowledge. I know myself, but I cannot say what constitutes this 'I', I can only know that which is separate or different from myself. Our own nature is Brahma; that is our real Self. We cannot know it as something 'to be known' like any other ordinary object. In order to know something, two things are needed: the knower and the object to be known. When both the knower and the thing to be known are present, there is 'knowledge'. But in the case of the knowledge of Brahma, the Knower, the thing to be known, and knowledge are one and the same. Therefore, one cannot say "I have known Brahma." For this reason the Kena Upaniṣad says-"Не who says, "I don't know," knows it; he who says-"I know", does not know it."
If someone says "I know Brahma, it is an admission that he is different from Brahma, which is equivalent to saying, 'I do not know Brahma'. Brahma cannot be known as an object. Only those who are ignorant can speak about the knowledge of Brahma. Real sages will never claim to have the last word about Brahma.
In this connection we must keep in mind the difference between 'Brahma' and 'Īśvara'. Īśvara is God with attributes, the personal God. Brahma and Īśvara are commonly used interchangeably, but there is a significant difference between them. Śrī Rāmakrsna discussed this point in speaking to Hazra-"Why do you address the pure Ātmā as Īśvara? The pure Ātmā is inactive and is the witness of the three states". The pure Ātmā and Brahma are one and the same. The Ātmā is actionless, without qualities, formless and independent. It is the witness and the observer. It does nothing, but is the witness of the three states of consciousness; waking, dreaming and deep sleep.
In the waking state we are aware of two worlds-the outer, gross world which we see with our eyes, hear with our ears and touch with our hands-and the inner, subtle world of thought. In the dream state, the outer, material world does not exist; we are aware of only the inner, subtle world. In the state of deep sleep, we do not even dream. In that state neither the gross nor the subtle worlds exist. 'Brahma' is the witness-the witness of the three states of waking, dream, and deep sleep".
The Master gave the illustration of the light of a lamp: with this light one person can read the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, and with the same light another person can forge a document. The lamp does not earn merit of reading the Bhāgavatam, nor does it incur sin of forging the document: these belong to the reader and to the forger. The lamp is unconcerned; it is the observer. It is the same with Brahma. In this world there is both good and evil, happiness and misery-but Brahma is unattached, "Brahma is beyond knowledge and ignorance, virtue and vice, merit and demerit, cleanliness and uncleanliness".
In the world Brahma is in everything, but He Himself is unaffected. The master gave another example: "Brahma is like a magnet lying at a great distance from a needle. The needle moves but the magnet lies motionless, inactive".
925 Sri Ramakrishna Sip-KK-1995-07-01 The Magician alone is Real
Śrī Rāmakṛṣņa said "The magician performs his magic. He produces a mango tree which bears mangoes. But this is all sleight of hand. The magician alone is real". A magician performs his act by first producing a mango seed, planting it in soil and giving it water. A tree immediately starts to grow. Soon it develops into maturity; fruit then appears and ripens. The fruit is plucked from the tree and given to everyone to eat. Everyone tastes it: it is a real mango. But it is not long before the tree disappears. In fact, there never was a tree. The tree is not real, only the magician is real. In the same way, "Brahma alone is real; the world is illusory".
The Vedānta scriptures frequently use the analogy of magic. Śankara, for example, has used this analogy in his commentaries and hymns. The phenomenal world is just like a magic show: many things happening, colourful, even fascinating, but never the same, always changing, in a state of flux.
But who performs all the magic? The magician is God. The Mahānirvāṇa Tantra says that the visible world is a projection of Māyā. The world that we see changes in an instant; today it is, tomorrow it is not, like a dream. I may dream that I am flying through the air and going to a foreign country. Suddenly, the dream breaks and I find myself lying on my bed. The world is as impermanent as that dream. When I have an experience in a dream, it never occurs to me that it is not real. Our experience of the world is like that.
The Master used to tell the story of a Jñānī farmer. The farmer's only son had died. The farmer's wife cried, but the farmer was silent. His wife reproached him saying: Have you no feelings? Our only son has died, and you have not shed a tear! At this the farmer replied: Why am I not crying? Last night I dreamt that I was a king with eight sons. I was very happy. Then I awoke. Now I wonder who should I cry for -for those eight sons, or for this one son? The farmer was convinced that his one son was as illusory as the eight sons of his dream. Śrī Rāmakṛṣņa said "The farmer was Jñānī; therefore he realized that the waking state is as unreal as the dream state. There is only one eternal substance, and that is the Ātmā ".
What is eternal? What is real? That which always exists. Whatever existed in the past, is existing in the present, and will exist in the future; that which is 'uninterrupted in the three divisions of time', is eternal. If we reason in this way, we find that there is nothing lasting in this material world. Brahma or Ātmā alone is eternal, real. God is real and all else is unreal. "God alone is real, the Eternal Substance; all else is unreal, that is, impermanent".
Brahma is said to be Saccidānanda, which Swāmī Vivekānanda defined as "Existence Absolute, Knowledge Absolute and Bliss Absolute." Sat is Existence Absolute. For example, I am now in a house, but I am not always in this house. My presence here is not absolute. While I certainly exist, I exist conditionally, depending on something outside myself. What we regard as our existence is not lasting; it is not absolute.
Brahma is Absolute Existence. We all feel that 'I am'. One sign of life is the consciousness of our existence. Brahma is in us as existence. All of us have an individual, little existence. But it is because of His existence that we all exist. All things exist because Brahma is at the root of their existence. As Sat, Brahma is inherent in everything.
Cit is pure knowledge, or consciousness Absolute. In all of us there is the sense of consciousness, or knowledge. Because of that, we are able to understand various ideas; we are aware of happiness and misery. But that knowledge is not perfect knowledge, because it is dependent on many factors. For example, I see a flower. One can say that I have 'knowledge' of the flower. This is knowledge, but it is dependent on two things: the eye and the flower. If I am blind, then even though the flower exists, my eyes are unable to perceive it. Again, if there is no flower, I cannot see it. Thus my knowledge of the flower is relative. It is not independent of my sense organs; it is not absolute.
Brahma as Cit, or Consciousness Absolute, if reflected in everything, in both animate and inanimate objects. There is, however, a greater manifestation of consciousness in animate objects, and a lesser degree in inanimate objects. Brahma as consciousness is manifest in everything: there can be nothing outside of Brahma.
Brahma is Ānanda, Bliss Absolute. We generally feel happy under certain conditions. For example, I may eat a piece of candy: as long as I eat it, it tastes sweet and I enjoy it. But this happiness lasts only for a short time. After a little while my pleasure is gone, because it is limited to a particular time and to a particular object. Such is all worldly happiness: it is limited by something or other.
Brahma as Ānanda is the source of all the bliss that exist in the world. The Taittiriya Upaniṣad defines Brahma with the phrase "He is of the nature of sweetness. He is condensed, unalloyed joy. It is said in the same Upaniṣad that the sage Bhrgu discovered the nature of Brahma in meditation. He said-
Brahma is of the nature of Bliss
From Bliss all beings are created
In Bliss all things abide
Into Bliss they enter after death.
All happiness in the world comes from Brahma. We are happy when we eat something sweet or when we go to the movies. There is even greater happiness when we live for a noble ideal. Yet all happiness comes from one source, Brahma, whose nature is bliss.
This world is always changing, but how can we understand something that always changes? In order to understand movement, we need to have something stationary alongside it. How can we know when a train is moving? If the ground is firm, and the track and platform are stationary, we can tell that it is the train that moves. In the same way, behind this changing world there is something that never changes. That is Brahma; He is the substratum of this world. Because he exists, everything exists.
A story from the Upaniṣads tells of the father who sent his two sons to a spiritual preceptor to study the scriptures. When they returned home, the father asked them to describe Brahma. One son quoted many verses from the scriptures, describing Brahma's nature and attributes. The other boy remained silent. The father said to him-"You have understood rightly."
Brahma cannot be defined. Brahma is infinite and unlimited: how can words describe the unlimited? When we ascribe any attribute to Brahma, we limit Him. This applies not only to Brahma: how can we express in words any deep emotion-either happiness or sorrow? Speech is always superficial; it cannot express anything profound. Speech is partial incomplete. Brahma is beyond speech and mind. Brahma is "That which words cannot express and the mind cannot reach."
Śrī Rāmakṛṣņa used to say that everything in the world has been 'defiled-that is, since words have been spoken, they have been defiled by being passed through the mouth. "The Vedas, Purānas, Tantras, the six systems of philosophy- have been defiled, like food that has been touched by the tongue, for they have been read or uttered by the tongue. Only one thing has not been defiled in this way, and that is Brahma. No one has ever been able to say what Brahma is". Hearing these words, īśwara Candra Vidyāsāgara, the great educator and philanthropist of Bengal exclaimed- "Oh! That is a remarkable statement. I have learnt something new today."
A verse from the Jñānasaṅkalinī Tantra corroborates Śrī Rāmakṛṣņa's words-
Defiled are all the scriptures,
All that we have learned through the mouth;
Knowledge of Brahma is undefiled, because unrevealed.
It is consciousness beyond expression.
Even a knower of Brahma cannot express the nature of Brahma. He becomes mute. Śrī Rāmakrsna said-"A boat, once reaching the 'black waters' of the ocean cannot come back". In the past, most of the boats that went to the ocean never returned, and the men who did return could not give a proper description of the ocean. In the same way, a knower of Brahma cannot express what he has experienced. If a mute person eats something, he is unable to describe what he tastes. The knower of Brahma is in the same predicament. His words come to a stop; his reasoning ceases. Knowing that he cannot express in words what he has felt and perceived, he remains silent.
Śrī Rāmakṛṣņa has given several examples to illustrate this idea. If you immerse an empty jug in water, it makes a gurgling sound. But when the jug is full, there is no
sound at all. Similarly, when the knowledge of Brahma is attained, there is only silence. Again, when guests are invited to a celebration, there is a great deal of talk and noise before the meal is served. When the eating begins, there is less talk. When everyone is full, there remains only the sound of 'soop, soop' as the guests sip the last item of yogurt. Finally there is sleep, and there is no sound at all. In the same way, there is a great deal of reasoning and discussion of the scriptures until the knowledge of Brahma is attained. Then all reasoning and discussion come to an end.
The Master said that the many words about Brahma in the scriptures are like the words of a man who has returned from seeing the ocean. When he attempts to describe the experience, he can only say-"Oh, how vast it is! What waves! What billows! Books or persons try to give an idea-that's all.
The seers and books that attempt to describe Brahma can give at best only a faint idea of His nature. The Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad says-"He pervades the universe." The opening verse of the īsa Upaniṣad declares-"All this-whatever exists in this changing universe-is covered by Brahma. "Again, the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad asserts: "His hands and feet are everywhere; His eyes, heads and faces are everywhere; His ears are everywhere; He exists encompassing all."
A song from the Gospel says-"On every side-on land below, in sky above, beneath the seas: in every region of this earth-men seek Him tirelessly, and as they seek Him, ever ask: "Where is His limit, where His end?".
He is within, He is without. He is both immanent and transcendent. In His immanent aspect, He is inseparably connected with everything in this world. But He is more than this world: in His transcendent aspect, He exists outside the world as well. Brahma is indivisible: He cannot be divided into parts. He is actionless: He does not perform any action. Brahma is described as 'perfect' because He is flawless and immaculate; He is defined as 'stainless' for there can be no impurity in Brahma, nor does He possess any trace of Māyā or ignorance. Brahma is without qualities, without form and unattached. He is the giver of attributes though He Himself possesses none. We should note that all these attributes are negative. There is no way to describe Brahma except by saying Neti, Neti: He is 'not this, not this.'
In order to speak of Brahma one must use the senses, the mind and the power of speech. But the mind is, by its very nature, limited; how can the limited mind describe the limitless? How can the mind find words to express Brahma? While those who speak of Brahma may speak the truth, they can never express the whole truth. A verse from the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad asks this question- "Through what can one know that by which all is known- through what can one know the Knower?"
How do we know anything? The nature of Brahma is knowledge; we ourselves are that knowledge. I know myself, but I cannot say what constitutes this 'I', I can only know that which is separate or different from myself. Our own nature is Brahma; that is our real Self. We cannot know it as something 'to be known' like any other ordinary object. In order to know something, two things are needed: the knower and the object to be known. When both the knower and the thing to be known are present, there is 'knowledge'. But in the case of the knowledge of Brahma, the Knower, the thing to be known, and knowledge are one and the same. Therefore, one cannot say "I have known Brahma." For this reason the Kena Upaniṣad says-"Не who says, "I don't know," knows it; he who says-"I know", does not know it."
If someone says "I know Brahma, it is an admission that he is different from Brahma, which is equivalent to saying, 'I do not know Brahma'. Brahma cannot be known as an object. Only those who are ignorant can speak about the knowledge of Brahma. Real sages will never claim to have the last word about Brahma.
In this connection we must keep in mind the difference between 'Brahma' and 'Īśvara'. Īśvara is God with attributes, the personal God. Brahma and Īśvara are commonly used interchangeably, but there is a significant difference between them. Śrī Rāmakrsna discussed this point in speaking to Hazra-"Why do you address the pure Ātmā as Īśvara? The pure Ātmā is inactive and is the witness of the three states". The pure Ātmā and Brahma are one and the same. The Ātmā is actionless, without qualities, formless and independent. It is the witness and the observer. It does nothing, but is the witness of the three states of consciousness; waking, dreaming and deep sleep.
In the waking state we are aware of two worlds-the outer, gross world which we see with our eyes, hear with our ears and touch with our hands-and the inner, subtle world of thought. In the dream state, the outer, material world does not exist; we are aware of only the inner, subtle world. In the state of deep sleep, we do not even dream. In that state neither the gross nor the subtle worlds exist. 'Brahma' is the witness-the witness of the three states of waking, dream, and deep sleep".
The Master gave the illustration of the light of a lamp: with this light one person can read the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, and with the same light another person can forge a document. The lamp does not earn merit of reading the Bhāgavatam, nor does it incur sin of forging the document: these belong to the reader and to the forger. The lamp is unconcerned; it is the observer. It is the same with Brahma. In this world there is both good and evil, happiness and misery-but Brahma is unattached, "Brahma is beyond knowledge and ignorance, virtue and vice, merit and demerit, cleanliness and uncleanliness".
In the world Brahma is in everything, but He Himself is unaffected. The master gave another example: "Brahma is like a magnet lying at a great distance from a needle. The needle moves but the magnet lies motionless, inactive".
DISCLAIMER:
The views expressed in the Article above are Author’s personal views and kashmiribhatta.in is not in any way responsible for the opinions expressed in the above article. The article belongs to its respective owner or owners and this site does not claim any right over it.
Courtesy: Sri Ramakrishna and July 1995, Kalyana Kalpataru
The Magician alone is Real
Sri Ramakrishna
Śrī Rāmakṛṣņa said "The magician performs his magic. He produces a mango tree which bears mangoes. But this is all sleight of hand. The magician alone is real". A magician performs his act by first producing a mango seed, planting it in soil and giving it water. A tree immediately starts to grow. Soon it develops into maturity; fruit then appears and ripens. The fruit is plucked from the tree and given to everyone to eat. Everyone tastes it: it is a real mango. But it is not long before the tree disappears. In fact, there never was a tree. The tree is not real, only the magician is real. In the same way, "Brahma alone is real; the world is illusory".
The Vedānta scriptures frequently use the analogy of magic. Śankara, for example, has used this analogy in his commentaries and hymns. The phenomenal world is just like a magic show: many things happening, colourful, even fascinating, but never the same, always changing, in a state of flux.
But who performs all the magic? The magician is God. The Mahānirvāṇa Tantra says that the visible world is a projection of Māyā. The world that we see changes in an instant; today it is, tomorrow it is not, like a dream. I may dream that I am flying through the air and going to a foreign country. Suddenly, the dream breaks and I find myself lying on my bed. The world is as impermanent as that dream. When I have an experience in a dream, it never occurs to me that it is not real. Our experience of the world is like that.
The Master used to tell the story of a Jñānī farmer. The farmer's only son had died. The farmer's wife cried, but the farmer was silent. His wife reproached him saying: Have you no feelings? Our only son has died, and you have not shed a tear! At this the farmer replied: Why am I not crying? Last night I dreamt that I was a king with eight sons. I was very happy. Then I awoke. Now I wonder who should I cry for -for those eight sons, or for this one son? The farmer was convinced that his one son was as illusory as the eight sons of his dream. Śrī Rāmakṛṣņa said "The farmer was Jñānī; therefore he realized that the waking state is as unreal as the dream state. There is only one eternal substance, and that is the Ātmā ".
What is eternal? What is real? That which always exists. Whatever existed in the past, is existing in the present, and will exist in the future; that which is 'uninterrupted in the three divisions of time', is eternal. If we reason in this way, we find that there is nothing lasting in this material world. Brahma or Ātmā alone is eternal, real. God is real and all else is unreal. "God alone is real, the Eternal Substance; all else is unreal, that is, impermanent".
Brahma is said to be Saccidānanda, which Swāmī Vivekānanda defined as "Existence Absolute, Knowledge Absolute and Bliss Absolute." Sat is Existence Absolute. For example, I am now in a house, but I am not always in this house. My presence here is not absolute. While I certainly exist, I exist conditionally, depending on something outside myself. What we regard as our existence is not lasting; it is not absolute.
Brahma is Absolute Existence. We all feel that 'I am'. One sign of life is the consciousness of our existence. Brahma is in us as existence. All of us have an individual, little existence. But it is because of His existence that we all exist. All things exist because Brahma is at the root of their existence. As Sat, Brahma is inherent in everything.
Cit is pure knowledge, or consciousness Absolute. In all of us there is the sense of consciousness, or knowledge. Because of that, we are able to understand various ideas; we are aware of happiness and misery. But that knowledge is not perfect knowledge, because it is dependent on many factors. For example, I see a flower. One can say that I have 'knowledge' of the flower. This is knowledge, but it is dependent on two things: the eye and the flower. If I am blind, then even though the flower exists, my eyes are unable to perceive it. Again, if there is no flower, I cannot see it. Thus my knowledge of the flower is relative. It is not independent of my sense organs; it is not absolute.
Brahma as Cit, or Consciousness Absolute, if reflected in everything, in both animate and inanimate objects. There is, however, a greater manifestation of consciousness in animate objects, and a lesser degree in inanimate objects. Brahma as consciousness is manifest in everything: there can be nothing outside of Brahma.
Brahma is Ānanda, Bliss Absolute. We generally feel happy under certain conditions. For example, I may eat a piece of candy: as long as I eat it, it tastes sweet and I enjoy it. But this happiness lasts only for a short time. After a little while my pleasure is gone, because it is limited to a particular time and to a particular object. Such is all worldly happiness: it is limited by something or other.
Brahma as Ānanda is the source of all the bliss that exist in the world. The Taittiriya Upaniṣad defines Brahma with the phrase "He is of the nature of sweetness. He is condensed, unalloyed joy. It is said in the same Upaniṣad that the sage Bhrgu discovered the nature of Brahma in meditation. He said-
Brahma is of the nature of Bliss
From Bliss all beings are created
In Bliss all things abide
Into Bliss they enter after death.
All happiness in the world comes from Brahma. We are happy when we eat something sweet or when we go to the movies. There is even greater happiness when we live for a noble ideal. Yet all happiness comes from one source, Brahma, whose nature is bliss.
This world is always changing, but how can we understand something that always changes? In order to understand movement, we need to have something stationary alongside it. How can we know when a train is moving? If the ground is firm, and the track and platform are stationary, we can tell that it is the train that moves. In the same way, behind this changing world there is something that never changes. That is Brahma; He is the substratum of this world. Because he exists, everything exists.
A story from the Upaniṣads tells of the father who sent his two sons to a spiritual preceptor to study the scriptures. When they returned home, the father asked them to describe Brahma. One son quoted many verses from the scriptures, describing Brahma's nature and attributes. The other boy remained silent. The father said to him-"You have understood rightly."
Brahma cannot be defined. Brahma is infinite and unlimited: how can words describe the unlimited? When we ascribe any attribute to Brahma, we limit Him. This applies not only to Brahma: how can we express in words any deep emotion-either happiness or sorrow? Speech is always superficial; it cannot express anything profound. Speech is partial incomplete. Brahma is beyond speech and mind. Brahma is "That which words cannot express and the mind cannot reach."
Śrī Rāmakṛṣņa used to say that everything in the world has been 'defiled-that is, since words have been spoken, they have been defiled by being passed through the mouth. "The Vedas, Purānas, Tantras, the six systems of philosophy- have been defiled, like food that has been touched by the tongue, for they have been read or uttered by the tongue. Only one thing has not been defiled in this way, and that is Brahma. No one has ever been able to say what Brahma is". Hearing these words, īśwara Candra Vidyāsāgara, the great educator and philanthropist of Bengal exclaimed- "Oh! That is a remarkable statement. I have learnt something new today."
A verse from the Jñānasaṅkalinī Tantra corroborates Śrī Rāmakṛṣņa's words-
Defiled are all the scriptures,
All that we have learned through the mouth;
Knowledge of Brahma is undefiled, because unrevealed.
It is consciousness beyond expression.
Even a knower of Brahma cannot express the nature of Brahma. He becomes mute. Śrī Rāmakrsna said-"A boat, once reaching the 'black waters' of the ocean cannot come back". In the past, most of the boats that went to the ocean never returned, and the men who did return could not give a proper description of the ocean. In the same way, a knower of Brahma cannot express what he has experienced. If a mute person eats something, he is unable to describe what he tastes. The knower of Brahma is in the same predicament. His words come to a stop; his reasoning ceases. Knowing that he cannot express in words what he has felt and perceived, he remains silent.
Śrī Rāmakṛṣņa has given several examples to illustrate this idea. If you immerse an empty jug in water, it makes a gurgling sound. But when the jug is full, there is no
sound at all. Similarly, when the knowledge of Brahma is attained, there is only silence. Again, when guests are invited to a celebration, there is a great deal of talk and noise before the meal is served. When the eating begins, there is less talk. When everyone is full, there remains only the sound of 'soop, soop' as the guests sip the last item of yogurt. Finally there is sleep, and there is no sound at all. In the same way, there is a great deal of reasoning and discussion of the scriptures until the knowledge of Brahma is attained. Then all reasoning and discussion come to an end.
The Master said that the many words about Brahma in the scriptures are like the words of a man who has returned from seeing the ocean. When he attempts to describe the experience, he can only say-"Oh, how vast it is! What waves! What billows! Books or persons try to give an idea-that's all.
The seers and books that attempt to describe Brahma can give at best only a faint idea of His nature. The Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad says-"He pervades the universe." The opening verse of the īsa Upaniṣad declares-"All this-whatever exists in this changing universe-is covered by Brahma. "Again, the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad asserts: "His hands and feet are everywhere; His eyes, heads and faces are everywhere; His ears are everywhere; He exists encompassing all."
A song from the Gospel says-"On every side-on land below, in sky above, beneath the seas: in every region of this earth-men seek Him tirelessly, and as they seek Him, ever ask: "Where is His limit, where His end?".
He is within, He is without. He is both immanent and transcendent. In His immanent aspect, He is inseparably connected with everything in this world. But He is more than this world: in His transcendent aspect, He exists outside the world as well. Brahma is indivisible: He cannot be divided into parts. He is actionless: He does not perform any action. Brahma is described as 'perfect' because He is flawless and immaculate; He is defined as 'stainless' for there can be no impurity in Brahma, nor does He possess any trace of Māyā or ignorance. Brahma is without qualities, without form and unattached. He is the giver of attributes though He Himself possesses none. We should note that all these attributes are negative. There is no way to describe Brahma except by saying Neti, Neti: He is 'not this, not this.'
In order to speak of Brahma one must use the senses, the mind and the power of speech. But the mind is, by its very nature, limited; how can the limited mind describe the limitless? How can the mind find words to express Brahma? While those who speak of Brahma may speak the truth, they can never express the whole truth. A verse from the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad asks this question- "Through what can one know that by which all is known- through what can one know the Knower?"
How do we know anything? The nature of Brahma is knowledge; we ourselves are that knowledge. I know myself, but I cannot say what constitutes this 'I', I can only know that which is separate or different from myself. Our own nature is Brahma; that is our real Self. We cannot know it as something 'to be known' like any other ordinary object. In order to know something, two things are needed: the knower and the object to be known. When both the knower and the thing to be known are present, there is 'knowledge'. But in the case of the knowledge of Brahma, the Knower, the thing to be known, and knowledge are one and the same. Therefore, one cannot say "I have known Brahma." For this reason the Kena Upaniṣad says-"Не who says, "I don't know," knows it; he who says-"I know", does not know it."
If someone says "I know Brahma, it is an admission that he is different from Brahma, which is equivalent to saying, 'I do not know Brahma'. Brahma cannot be known as an object. Only those who are ignorant can speak about the knowledge of Brahma. Real sages will never claim to have the last word about Brahma.
In this connection we must keep in mind the difference between 'Brahma' and 'Īśvara'. Īśvara is God with attributes, the personal God. Brahma and Īśvara are commonly used interchangeably, but there is a significant difference between them. Śrī Rāmakrsna discussed this point in speaking to Hazra-"Why do you address the pure Ātmā as Īśvara? The pure Ātmā is inactive and is the witness of the three states". The pure Ātmā and Brahma are one and the same. The Ātmā is actionless, without qualities, formless and independent. It is the witness and the observer. It does nothing, but is the witness of the three states of consciousness; waking, dreaming and deep sleep.
In the waking state we are aware of two worlds-the outer, gross world which we see with our eyes, hear with our ears and touch with our hands-and the inner, subtle world of thought. In the dream state, the outer, material world does not exist; we are aware of only the inner, subtle world. In the state of deep sleep, we do not even dream. In that state neither the gross nor the subtle worlds exist. 'Brahma' is the witness-the witness of the three states of waking, dream, and deep sleep".
The Master gave the illustration of the light of a lamp: with this light one person can read the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, and with the same light another person can forge a document. The lamp does not earn merit of reading the Bhāgavatam, nor does it incur sin of forging the document: these belong to the reader and to the forger. The lamp is unconcerned; it is the observer. It is the same with Brahma. In this world there is both good and evil, happiness and misery-but Brahma is unattached, "Brahma is beyond knowledge and ignorance, virtue and vice, merit and demerit, cleanliness and uncleanliness".
In the world Brahma is in everything, but He Himself is unaffected. The master gave another example: "Brahma is like a magnet lying at a great distance from a needle. The needle moves but the magnet lies motionless, inactive".
925 Sri Ramakrishna Sip-KK-1995-07-01 The Magician alone is Real
Śrī Rāmakṛṣņa said "The magician performs his magic. He produces a mango tree which bears mangoes. But this is all sleight of hand. The magician alone is real". A magician performs his act by first producing a mango seed, planting it in soil and giving it water. A tree immediately starts to grow. Soon it develops into maturity; fruit then appears and ripens. The fruit is plucked from the tree and given to everyone to eat. Everyone tastes it: it is a real mango. But it is not long before the tree disappears. In fact, there never was a tree. The tree is not real, only the magician is real. In the same way, "Brahma alone is real; the world is illusory".
The Vedānta scriptures frequently use the analogy of magic. Śankara, for example, has used this analogy in his commentaries and hymns. The phenomenal world is just like a magic show: many things happening, colourful, even fascinating, but never the same, always changing, in a state of flux.
But who performs all the magic? The magician is God. The Mahānirvāṇa Tantra says that the visible world is a projection of Māyā. The world that we see changes in an instant; today it is, tomorrow it is not, like a dream. I may dream that I am flying through the air and going to a foreign country. Suddenly, the dream breaks and I find myself lying on my bed. The world is as impermanent as that dream. When I have an experience in a dream, it never occurs to me that it is not real. Our experience of the world is like that.
The Master used to tell the story of a Jñānī farmer. The farmer's only son had died. The farmer's wife cried, but the farmer was silent. His wife reproached him saying: Have you no feelings? Our only son has died, and you have not shed a tear! At this the farmer replied: Why am I not crying? Last night I dreamt that I was a king with eight sons. I was very happy. Then I awoke. Now I wonder who should I cry for -for those eight sons, or for this one son? The farmer was convinced that his one son was as illusory as the eight sons of his dream. Śrī Rāmakṛṣņa said "The farmer was Jñānī; therefore he realized that the waking state is as unreal as the dream state. There is only one eternal substance, and that is the Ātmā ".
What is eternal? What is real? That which always exists. Whatever existed in the past, is existing in the present, and will exist in the future; that which is 'uninterrupted in the three divisions of time', is eternal. If we reason in this way, we find that there is nothing lasting in this material world. Brahma or Ātmā alone is eternal, real. God is real and all else is unreal. "God alone is real, the Eternal Substance; all else is unreal, that is, impermanent".
Brahma is said to be Saccidānanda, which Swāmī Vivekānanda defined as "Existence Absolute, Knowledge Absolute and Bliss Absolute." Sat is Existence Absolute. For example, I am now in a house, but I am not always in this house. My presence here is not absolute. While I certainly exist, I exist conditionally, depending on something outside myself. What we regard as our existence is not lasting; it is not absolute.
Brahma is Absolute Existence. We all feel that 'I am'. One sign of life is the consciousness of our existence. Brahma is in us as existence. All of us have an individual, little existence. But it is because of His existence that we all exist. All things exist because Brahma is at the root of their existence. As Sat, Brahma is inherent in everything.
Cit is pure knowledge, or consciousness Absolute. In all of us there is the sense of consciousness, or knowledge. Because of that, we are able to understand various ideas; we are aware of happiness and misery. But that knowledge is not perfect knowledge, because it is dependent on many factors. For example, I see a flower. One can say that I have 'knowledge' of the flower. This is knowledge, but it is dependent on two things: the eye and the flower. If I am blind, then even though the flower exists, my eyes are unable to perceive it. Again, if there is no flower, I cannot see it. Thus my knowledge of the flower is relative. It is not independent of my sense organs; it is not absolute.
Brahma as Cit, or Consciousness Absolute, if reflected in everything, in both animate and inanimate objects. There is, however, a greater manifestation of consciousness in animate objects, and a lesser degree in inanimate objects. Brahma as consciousness is manifest in everything: there can be nothing outside of Brahma.
Brahma is Ānanda, Bliss Absolute. We generally feel happy under certain conditions. For example, I may eat a piece of candy: as long as I eat it, it tastes sweet and I enjoy it. But this happiness lasts only for a short time. After a little while my pleasure is gone, because it is limited to a particular time and to a particular object. Such is all worldly happiness: it is limited by something or other.
Brahma as Ānanda is the source of all the bliss that exist in the world. The Taittiriya Upaniṣad defines Brahma with the phrase "He is of the nature of sweetness. He is condensed, unalloyed joy. It is said in the same Upaniṣad that the sage Bhrgu discovered the nature of Brahma in meditation. He said-
Brahma is of the nature of Bliss
From Bliss all beings are created
In Bliss all things abide
Into Bliss they enter after death.
All happiness in the world comes from Brahma. We are happy when we eat something sweet or when we go to the movies. There is even greater happiness when we live for a noble ideal. Yet all happiness comes from one source, Brahma, whose nature is bliss.
This world is always changing, but how can we understand something that always changes? In order to understand movement, we need to have something stationary alongside it. How can we know when a train is moving? If the ground is firm, and the track and platform are stationary, we can tell that it is the train that moves. In the same way, behind this changing world there is something that never changes. That is Brahma; He is the substratum of this world. Because he exists, everything exists.
A story from the Upaniṣads tells of the father who sent his two sons to a spiritual preceptor to study the scriptures. When they returned home, the father asked them to describe Brahma. One son quoted many verses from the scriptures, describing Brahma's nature and attributes. The other boy remained silent. The father said to him-"You have understood rightly."
Brahma cannot be defined. Brahma is infinite and unlimited: how can words describe the unlimited? When we ascribe any attribute to Brahma, we limit Him. This applies not only to Brahma: how can we express in words any deep emotion-either happiness or sorrow? Speech is always superficial; it cannot express anything profound. Speech is partial incomplete. Brahma is beyond speech and mind. Brahma is "That which words cannot express and the mind cannot reach."
Śrī Rāmakṛṣņa used to say that everything in the world has been 'defiled-that is, since words have been spoken, they have been defiled by being passed through the mouth. "The Vedas, Purānas, Tantras, the six systems of philosophy- have been defiled, like food that has been touched by the tongue, for they have been read or uttered by the tongue. Only one thing has not been defiled in this way, and that is Brahma. No one has ever been able to say what Brahma is". Hearing these words, īśwara Candra Vidyāsāgara, the great educator and philanthropist of Bengal exclaimed- "Oh! That is a remarkable statement. I have learnt something new today."
A verse from the Jñānasaṅkalinī Tantra corroborates Śrī Rāmakṛṣņa's words-
Defiled are all the scriptures,
All that we have learned through the mouth;
Knowledge of Brahma is undefiled, because unrevealed.
It is consciousness beyond expression.
Even a knower of Brahma cannot express the nature of Brahma. He becomes mute. Śrī Rāmakrsna said-"A boat, once reaching the 'black waters' of the ocean cannot come back". In the past, most of the boats that went to the ocean never returned, and the men who did return could not give a proper description of the ocean. In the same way, a knower of Brahma cannot express what he has experienced. If a mute person eats something, he is unable to describe what he tastes. The knower of Brahma is in the same predicament. His words come to a stop; his reasoning ceases. Knowing that he cannot express in words what he has felt and perceived, he remains silent.
Śrī Rāmakṛṣņa has given several examples to illustrate this idea. If you immerse an empty jug in water, it makes a gurgling sound. But when the jug is full, there is no
sound at all. Similarly, when the knowledge of Brahma is attained, there is only silence. Again, when guests are invited to a celebration, there is a great deal of talk and noise before the meal is served. When the eating begins, there is less talk. When everyone is full, there remains only the sound of 'soop, soop' as the guests sip the last item of yogurt. Finally there is sleep, and there is no sound at all. In the same way, there is a great deal of reasoning and discussion of the scriptures until the knowledge of Brahma is attained. Then all reasoning and discussion come to an end.
The Master said that the many words about Brahma in the scriptures are like the words of a man who has returned from seeing the ocean. When he attempts to describe the experience, he can only say-"Oh, how vast it is! What waves! What billows! Books or persons try to give an idea-that's all.
The seers and books that attempt to describe Brahma can give at best only a faint idea of His nature. The Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad says-"He pervades the universe." The opening verse of the īsa Upaniṣad declares-"All this-whatever exists in this changing universe-is covered by Brahma. "Again, the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad asserts: "His hands and feet are everywhere; His eyes, heads and faces are everywhere; His ears are everywhere; He exists encompassing all."
A song from the Gospel says-"On every side-on land below, in sky above, beneath the seas: in every region of this earth-men seek Him tirelessly, and as they seek Him, ever ask: "Where is His limit, where His end?".
He is within, He is without. He is both immanent and transcendent. In His immanent aspect, He is inseparably connected with everything in this world. But He is more than this world: in His transcendent aspect, He exists outside the world as well. Brahma is indivisible: He cannot be divided into parts. He is actionless: He does not perform any action. Brahma is described as 'perfect' because He is flawless and immaculate; He is defined as 'stainless' for there can be no impurity in Brahma, nor does He possess any trace of Māyā or ignorance. Brahma is without qualities, without form and unattached. He is the giver of attributes though He Himself possesses none. We should note that all these attributes are negative. There is no way to describe Brahma except by saying Neti, Neti: He is 'not this, not this.'
In order to speak of Brahma one must use the senses, the mind and the power of speech. But the mind is, by its very nature, limited; how can the limited mind describe the limitless? How can the mind find words to express Brahma? While those who speak of Brahma may speak the truth, they can never express the whole truth. A verse from the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad asks this question- "Through what can one know that by which all is known- through what can one know the Knower?"
How do we know anything? The nature of Brahma is knowledge; we ourselves are that knowledge. I know myself, but I cannot say what constitutes this 'I', I can only know that which is separate or different from myself. Our own nature is Brahma; that is our real Self. We cannot know it as something 'to be known' like any other ordinary object. In order to know something, two things are needed: the knower and the object to be known. When both the knower and the thing to be known are present, there is 'knowledge'. But in the case of the knowledge of Brahma, the Knower, the thing to be known, and knowledge are one and the same. Therefore, one cannot say "I have known Brahma." For this reason the Kena Upaniṣad says-"Не who says, "I don't know," knows it; he who says-"I know", does not know it."
If someone says "I know Brahma, it is an admission that he is different from Brahma, which is equivalent to saying, 'I do not know Brahma'. Brahma cannot be known as an object. Only those who are ignorant can speak about the knowledge of Brahma. Real sages will never claim to have the last word about Brahma.
In this connection we must keep in mind the difference between 'Brahma' and 'Īśvara'. Īśvara is God with attributes, the personal God. Brahma and Īśvara are commonly used interchangeably, but there is a significant difference between them. Śrī Rāmakrsna discussed this point in speaking to Hazra-"Why do you address the pure Ātmā as Īśvara? The pure Ātmā is inactive and is the witness of the three states". The pure Ātmā and Brahma are one and the same. The Ātmā is actionless, without qualities, formless and independent. It is the witness and the observer. It does nothing, but is the witness of the three states of consciousness; waking, dreaming and deep sleep.
In the waking state we are aware of two worlds-the outer, gross world which we see with our eyes, hear with our ears and touch with our hands-and the inner, subtle world of thought. In the dream state, the outer, material world does not exist; we are aware of only the inner, subtle world. In the state of deep sleep, we do not even dream. In that state neither the gross nor the subtle worlds exist. 'Brahma' is the witness-the witness of the three states of waking, dream, and deep sleep".
The Master gave the illustration of the light of a lamp: with this light one person can read the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, and with the same light another person can forge a document. The lamp does not earn merit of reading the Bhāgavatam, nor does it incur sin of forging the document: these belong to the reader and to the forger. The lamp is unconcerned; it is the observer. It is the same with Brahma. In this world there is both good and evil, happiness and misery-but Brahma is unattached, "Brahma is beyond knowledge and ignorance, virtue and vice, merit and demerit, cleanliness and uncleanliness".
In the world Brahma is in everything, but He Himself is unaffected. The master gave another example: "Brahma is like a magnet lying at a great distance from a needle. The needle moves but the magnet lies motionless, inactive".
DISCLAIMER:
The views expressed in the Article above are Author’s personal views and kashmiribhatta.in is not in any way responsible for the opinions expressed in the above article. The article belongs to its respective owner or owners and this site does not claim any right over it.
Courtesy: Sri Ramakrishna and July 1995, Kalyana Kalpataru