Why Freedom Demands Your Dissolution
Questioner: Acharya Ji, pranam. In one of his talks, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, “What is Samadhi? It is the complete merging of the mind in God-consciousness. The Jnani experiences Jada Samadhi, in which no trace of 'I' is left. The Samadhi attained through the path of Bhakti is Chaitanya Samadhi. In this Samadhi, there remains a consciousness of 'I,' the 'I' of the servant and master relationship, of the lover and beloved relationship, of the enjoyer and food relationship.
God is the master; the devotee is the servant. God is the beloved; the devotee is the lover. God is the food, and the devotee is the enjoyer. I don't want to be sugar. I want to eat it.” That's what the Bhakta says.
Referring to the same, Ramana Maharshi says,
"It is enough that one surrenders oneself. Surrender is to give oneself up to the original cause of one's being. Do not delude yourself by imagining such a source to be some God outside you. One's source is within yourself. Give yourself up to it. That means that you should seek the source and merge in it. Because you imagine yourself to be out of it, you raise the question, 'Where is the source?'
Some contend that the sugar cannot taste its own sweetness and that a taster must taste and enjoy it. Is God insentient like sugar? How can one surrender oneself and yet retain one's individuality for supreme enjoyment?"
Acharya Ji, please explain what the two great masters are trying to convey. Is there any contradiction here?
Acharya Prashant: There is no contradiction between Truth and Truth. There can only be contradiction between statements that are uttered in different contexts.
We will appreciate what has been said.
Ramakrishna Paramahamsa is saying that what the Gyani gets is a Samadhi, a dissolution in which no trace of 'I' is left. Then he proceeds to differentiate between the Samadhi that a Bhakta gets and a Gyani gets. He says the Samadhi that the Bhakta gets, the devotee gets, has a little trace of 'I' left in it. He says this 'I' exists as the enjoyer of the food, as the lover of the beloved. He says that this is what happens.
Then there is Ramana Maharshi. Ramana Maharshi is saying there is no such thing called partial surrender.
To surrender is to give oneself up completely.
Somebody comes to Ramana Maharshi and says, "But, you know, I don't merely want to be sugar. I want to exist to enjoy the sugar. I do not want to dissolve into the sugar. I do not want to have a final dissolution, or merger, or yoga with sugar. So, you know, please allow me to have a little bit of separation. I want to not merely have God, but also have a little bit of individuality in order to be able to enjoy God. After all, the beloved is so beautiful. I need to have some separation so I can enjoy the beauty of the beloved. Don't make me merge totally with the beloved, please."
And probably such a person who came to Ramana Maharshi was quoting Paramahamsa in his defense. He said, "Paramahamsa, too, has said that in the mark of Bhakti, or devotion, a little bit of separation exists."
Yes, a little bit of separation exists for most devotees. But is Ramakrishna saying that such a separation must exist and is the end and purpose of the path of devotion?
He's not saying that. He's just saying what usually exists, what usually happens to devotees. This is a usual thing, a normal thing that happens to devotees.
All along their path of devotion, they have been singing of the beauty of their beloved Lord. That is what becomes their food. That is what becomes their energy. That is what becomes their identity. They live on that. They thrive on that. They say, "My eyes exist to look at You. My legs exist to come to You. This tongue exists. This throat exists to sing of You."
Their entire being gets related to the Lord, and when you say "the Lord," the Lord is separate from the worshiper. That's how they have made their entire journey.
Now, when they come to the end of the journey, it's a problem because the entire journey has been fueled by a sense of separation. The sense of separation itself has given a sense of appreciation. Do you understand this? Because I'm separated from You, I can appreciate You. That's how the senses operate, correct? That's how they have been all through their life. Now, when they come to the end of the journey, it becomes very difficult. It became difficult for Ramakrishna Paramahamsa as well. He knows best.
You remember the entire incident? Totapuri was there, and Ramakrishna was so unwilling to let go of the image of Kali. And then Totapuri had to try all kinds of tricks. It was quite difficult. So, Ramakrishna very well knows that in the path of Bhakti, this happens. But is he saying that this must happen? No.
That too he knows. Totapuri didn't allow him to remain very close to the Mother, and yet separated. See, all closeness demands a minimum separation, correct? You cannot be close until you are separated.
Totapuri said, "No, nothing doing. Come so close that there is no separation at all. But for that, the two will have to go. You will have to go, and Mother too will have to go. So, kill Mother."
Ramakrishna said, "Impossible. How can I attack Mother? How can I make her go?"
Totapuri said, "That is what you will have to do. Otherwise, all your sadhana will remain incomplete."
That is what Ramakrishna is talking of here. He is describing a general situation that occurs to the devotee. He's not advocating this situation. He's not defending this situation. And he is himself the best example that this situation can be overcome.
Didn't Ramakrishna himself overcome the sense of separation with the Mother with the aid of his Guru? So, if Ramakrishna overcame it, obviously he is not going to advise others not to overcome it. Are you getting it?
So, this is the full statement of what Ramakrishna is saying. He's saying, "See, this is what happens. But if this happens, do not stop. There is this little bit of separation. You want to not just reach the Lord, but also stay separated from the Lord to keep enjoying Him. But such enjoyment is of very little value. So, give up this temptation to enjoy. Merge into the Lord."
That's the full text, or full implication, or full intent of Ramakrishna's words. I know that. Even if it is not quoted here, I know that. Right?
Now, in the next excerpt, you have brought in Ramana Maharshi, and Ramana Maharshi seems to be disagreeing with Paramahamsa here, even repudiating him. That's not happening.
I said, "Truth and truth never clash."
Here, Ramana Maharshi is simply educating someone who's trying to quote Paramahamsa with the intention of maintaining his own egoistic individuality.
You can visualize that. Somebody has come to the Maharshi and is saying, "Is there really a need to merge completely with the Truth? After all, we want to enjoy sugar, not become sugar. In order to enjoy sugar, I should remain separate from sugar. So, I must go close to the sugar, but not merge into the sugar."
That's the argument that this particular questioner is giving to Ramana Maharshi. And Ramana Maharshi obviously destroys the argument. He says, "What do you think God is sugar?” Full stop.
This is Ramana Maharshi: "Some contend that the sugar cannot taste its own sweetness and that a taster must taste and enjoy it. Is God insentient like sugar? How can one surrender oneself and yet retain one's individuality for supreme enjoyment?"
"Some contend..." He is not disputing Paramahamsa here. He is disputing some layman who has come over having read, maybe, a book by Paramahamsa and is now trying to shine in his own knowledge. And Maharshi is wiping him clean of his knowledge.
So, he's saying, "How can you surrender and yet retain your individuality? What is this lust to remain separately alive to enjoy an object?"
When you display this lust, you have committed a double fallacy. First of all, you have turned God into an object. Secondly, you have said that your individuality is of greater value than merger into the Truth. So, that is what is happening. There is no contradiction here.
