Any experience that is temporary is not manōnāśa and hence not ‘self-realisation’

A recent post on the Facebook page of the Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK was a partial quotation of a paragraph in A Sadhu’s Reminiscences of Ramana Maharshi (3rd edn, 1976, pp. 52-3), in which Alan Chadwick wrote:

Before I came to India I had read of such people as Edward Carpenter, Tennyson and many more who had had flashes of what they called “Cosmic Consciousness.” I asked Bhagavan about this. Was it possible that once having gained Self-realization to lose it again? Certainly it was. To support this view Bhagavan took up a copy of Kaivalya Navanita and told the interpreter to read a page of it to me. In the early stages of Sadhana this was quite possible and even probable. So long as the least desire or tie was left, a person would be pulled back again into the phenomenal world, he explained. After all it is only our Vasanas that prevent us from always being in our natural state, and Vasanas were not got rid of all of a sudden or by a flash of Cosmic Consciousness. One may have worked them out in a previous existence leaving a little to be done in the present life, but in any case they must first be destroyed.

Referring to this, a friend wrote to me: ‘Having once attained is there a chance of unattaining again? This question has confused me for many weeks. I was under the impression that once the ego had been completed annihilated it will never rise again. Yet discussions with fellow devotees on the Ramana Maharshi Foundation page seem to indicate that even once attained it is possible to be lost again if all vasanas [are] not destroyed. What was Bhagavan’s view on this? It disturbs me immensely that having attained one can fall again into the illusion, it also seems to render our practise quite meaningless if that is the case’. The following is my reply to her.

1. Self-realisation (ātma-sākṣātkāra) is not ‘cosmic consciousness’ but awareness of oneself alone
2. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 6: the cosmos does not exist independent of the mind that perceives it
3. Nāṉ Yār? paragraph 3: unless perception of any world or cosmos ceases, there can be no self-realisation (svarūpa-darśana)
4. Nāṉ Yār? paragraph 4: when we see what we actually are, no world or cosmos will seem to exist
5. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 26: if we seem to be the ego, phenomena seem to exist, and if we do not seem to be the ego, no phenomena exist at all
6. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 13: awareness of phenomena is not real awareness (jñāna) but only ignorance (ajñāna)
7. Since sleep is devoid of multiplicity or diversity (nānātva), it is pure self-awareness, whereas waking and dream are states of dense ignorance
8. Upadēśa Undiyār verse 13: the only difference between manōlaya and manōnāśa is that the ego will rise from manōlaya but never from manōnāśa
9. In order to be annihilated our ego must turn its entire attention keenly back towards itself alone to see what it actually is
10. Since viṣaya-vāsanās are the ego’s urges, none of them can survive when the ego is annihilated by ātma-sākṣātkāra
11. Upadēśa Undiyār verse 17: if we investigate it keenly enough, we will find that there is no such thing as an ego or mind
12. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 38: if we investigate it keenly enough, we will find that there is no ego and hence no bondage, so liberation is eternal

1. Self-realisation (ātma-sākṣātkāra) is not ‘cosmic consciousness’ but awareness of oneself alone

In asking Bhagavan the question that he refers to in this passage Chadwick seems to be equating ‘Cosmic Consciousness’ with ‘Self-realization’. What people mean by the term ‘cosmic consciousness’ is not clear, but the term itself does not suggest any state that could be equated with any of the various meanings of the term ‘self-realisation’. ‘Cosmic’ is an adjective derived from ‘cosmos’, which means universe, the totality of all physical phenomena, so ‘cosmic consciousness’ clearly implies some state in which there is awareness of physical phenomena, which is not our aim if we seek the annihilation of our ego along with all its viṣaya-vāsanās (propensities, inclinations, likings or desires to be aware of phenomena).

‘Self-realisation’, on the other hand, is a term that refers not to awareness of the cosmos but to either awareness of or a condition of oneself. In psychology and most English dictionaries ‘self-realisation’ is defined as fulfilment of one’s own potential as a person, but since the late nineteenth century the same term has come to be used quite frequently as a translation of the Sanskrit term ātma-sākṣātkāra, which actually has a completely different meaning to the usual meaning of self-realisation. In the term ātma-sākṣātkāra, ātman means oneself, sākṣāt literally means ‘from having eyes’ (being the ablative case of sākṣa, which means ‘having eyes’ or ‘with eyes’) but is generally used to mean directly perceived, and kāra means making or doing (or what makes or does), so sākṣātkāra means ‘making directly perceived’ or ‘directly perceiving’, and hence ātma-sākṣātkāra means ‘direct perception of oneself’ in the sense of being directly aware of what one actually is.

What is aware of the cosmos or any other phenomena is only the ego, and it is aware of phenomena of any kind whatsoever because of its viṣaya-vāsanās. However, the ego and its viṣaya-vāsanās are inseparable, because having viṣaya-vāsanās is its very nature, since it seems to exist only when it is aware of phenomena, and hence its fundamental desire for its own survival gives it a strong urge (vāsanā) to cling firmly to awareness of phenomena (viṣayas). Therefore we cannot free ourself from all viṣaya-vāsanās without annihilating their root, the ego.

The ego is nothing but a false awareness of ourself — an awareness of ourself as something other than what we actually are — so we can annihilate it only by being aware of ourself as we actually are, which is the state called ātma-sākṣātkāra. Therefore, since ātma-sākṣātkāra entails the annihilation of the ego along with all its viṣaya-vāsanās, and since the ego alone is what is aware of the illusory appearance of phenomena, there can be no awareness of phenomena or ‘cosmic consciousness’ in the state of ātma-sākṣātkāra, and hence ātma-sākṣātkāra is a state in which we are aware of nothing other than ourself.

Presumably when Chadwick used the term ‘self-realisation’ he was using it in the sense of ātma-sākṣātkāra, but it seems that he did not understand very clearly that in ātma-sākṣātkāra there can be no awareness of anything other than oneself. However, he did at least understand that self-realisation is not exactly the same as ‘cosmic consciousness’ (whatever that term may mean), because earlier in the same book (A Sadhu’s Reminiscences, 3rd edn, pp. 25-6) he wrote:

In Western books one reads of people who had flashes of illumination. One Dr. Bucke collected and published records of many such. But whereas the Realization of Bhagavan was permanent, this was not the case with those described by Bucke, which were never more than temporary flashes, lasting usually no more than half-an-hour. The effect of such may remain for some days but it will invariably pass with time. I asked Bhagavan about this, how it could be so and he explained to me that which comes as a flash will disappear in a flash. Actually it is not Self-realization they experience but Cosmic Consciousness where they see all as one, identify themselves with Nature and the Cosmic Heart. In Hinduism this is called Mahat. Here a trace of ego remains even during the experience and a consciousness of the body belonging to the visionary. This false sense of “I” must go entirely, for it is the limitation which serves as bondage. Liberation is final freedom from this.

Since in this passage Chadwick distinguishes ‘cosmic consciousness’ from self-realisation, it is not clear why he later seemed to equate them in the passage that the Ramana Maharshi Foundation quoted on their Facebook page. Moreover, since he wrote (in the latter passage) that in reply to his question Bhagavan implied that it is certainly possible to lose self-realisation after gaining it, we have to doubt what exactly he asked Bhagavan, because any experience that can be gained and then lost is not self-realisation in the sense of ātma-sākṣātkāra. If ‘cosmic consciousness’ entails awareness of the universe or of physical phenomena, as the term seems to imply, it can certainly be lost, because whatever is gained at one time will certainly be lost at a later time, which is why Bhagavan often emphasised that liberation (which is another term that refers to ātma-sākṣātkāra) is eternal, being our own real nature, as we will discover if we investigate our ego keenly enough.

2. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 6: the cosmos does not exist independent of the mind that perceives it

From what Chadwick wrote in the earlier of these two passages (the second one that I quoted above), it seems that what he means by the term ‘cosmic consciousness’ is a state in which one identifies oneself with nature and the ‘Cosmic Heart’ (whatever he imagines that to be) and feels that everything is one, which means that it is just a state of mind, because what is aware of the seeming existence of everything and of nature (in the sense of all physical phenomena collectively) is only the mind or ego, as Bhagavan states unequivocally in verse 6 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu:

உலகைம் புலன்க ளுருவேறன் றவ்வைம்
புலனைம் பொறிக்குப் புலனா — முலகைமன
மொன்றைம் பொறிவாயா லோர்ந்திடுத லான்மனத்தை
யன்றியுல குண்டோ வறை.

ulahaim pulaṉga ḷuruvēṟaṉ ḏṟavvaim
pulaṉaim poṟikkup pulaṉā — mulahaimaṉa
moṉḏṟaim poṟivāyā lōrndiḍuda lāṉmaṉattai
yaṉḏṟiyula kuṇḍō vaṟai.

பதச்சேதம்: உலகு ஐம் புலன்கள் உரு; வேறு அன்று. அவ் ஐம் புலன் ஐம் பொறிக்கு புலன் ஆம். உலகை மனம் ஒன்று ஐம் பொறிவாயால் ஓர்ந்திடுதலால், மனத்தை அன்றி உலகு உண்டோ? அறை.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): ulahu aim pulaṉgaḷ uru; vēṟu aṉḏṟu. a-vv-aim pulaṉ aim poṟikku pulaṉ ām. ulahai maṉam oṉḏṟu aim poṟi-vāyāl ōrndiḍudalāl, maṉattai aṉḏṟi ulahu uṇḍō? aṟai.

அன்வயம்: உலகு ஐம் புலன்கள் உரு; வேறு அன்று. அவ் ஐம் புலன் ஐம் பொறிக்கு புலன் ஆம். மனம் ஒன்று உலகை ஐம் பொறிவாயால் ஓர்ந்திடுதலால், மனத்தை அன்றி உலகு உண்டோ? அறை.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): ulahu aim pulaṉgaḷ uru; vēṟu aṉḏṟu. a-vv-aim pulaṉ aim poṟikku pulaṉ ām. maṉam oṉḏṟu ulahai aim poṟi-vāyāl ōrndiḍudalāl, maṉattai aṉḏṟi ulahu uṇḍō? aṟai.

English translation: The world is a form [composed] of five [kinds of] sense-data, not anything else. Those five [kinds of] sense-data are sensory phenomena [perceptible] to the five sense organs. Since the mind alone perceives the world by way of the five sense organs, say, is there [any] world besides [excluding, if not for, apart from, other than or without] the mind?

What he refers to here as ‘மனம்’ (maṉam), the mind, is the ego, because though the term ‘mind’ is often used to refer to all thoughts or mental phenomena collectively, the root of all mental phenomena is only the ego, so what the mind essentially is is just the ego, the primal thought called ‘I’, as he explains in verse 18 of Upadēśa Undiyār:

எண்ணங்க ளேமனம் யாவினு நானெனு
மெண்ணமே மூலமா முந்தீபற
      யானா மனமென லுந்தீபற.

eṇṇaṅga ḷēmaṉam yāviṉu nāṉeṉu
meṇṇamē mūlamā mundīpaṟa
      yāṉā maṉameṉa lundīpaṟa.

பதச்சேதம்: எண்ணங்களே மனம். யாவினும் நான் எனும் எண்ணமே மூலம் ஆம். யான் ஆம் மனம் எனல்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): eṇṇaṅgaḷ-ē maṉam. yāviṉ-um nāṉ eṉum eṇṇam-ē mūlam ām. yāṉ ām maṉam eṉal.

அன்வயம்: எண்ணங்களே மனம். யாவினும் நான் எனும் எண்ணமே மூலம் ஆம். மனம் எனல் யான் ஆம்.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): eṇṇaṅgaḷ-ē maṉam. yāviṉ-um nāṉ eṉum eṇṇam-ē mūlam ām. maṉam eṉal yāṉ ām.

English translation: Thoughts alone are mind. Of all, the thought called ‘I’ alone is the root. What is called mind is ‘I’.

Elaborated translation: Thoughts alone are mind [or the mind is only thoughts]. Of all [thoughts], the thought called ‘I’ alone is the mūla [the root, base, foundation, origin, source or cause]. [Therefore] what is called mind is [essentially just] ‘I’ [the ego or root-thought called ‘I’].

In this verse and elsewhere in his teachings Bhagavan uses the term ‘thought’ (எண்ணம் (eṇṇam) or நினைவு (niṉaivu)) to refer to mental phenomena of any kind whatsoever, and according to him all phenomena are mental phenomena (‘thoughts’), because no phenomenon exists independent of the mind that perceives it. Since all thoughts or mental phenomena other than the ego are just objects perceived by it, and since none of them are aware either of their own existence or of anything else, they all depend for their seeming existence on the ego, which is the only thought that is aware of anything. Therefore the perceiving element of the mind is only the ego, and since it is the core of the mind and its only constant element, what the mind essentially is is just the ego.

Therefore when Bhagavan asks rhetorically in verse 6 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, ‘உலகை மனம் ஒன்று ஐம் பொறிவாயால் ஓர்ந்திடுதலால், மனத்தை அன்றி உலகு உண்டோ?’ (ulahai maṉam oṉḏṟu aim poṟi-vāyāl ōrndiḍudalāl, maṉattai aṉḏṟi ulahu uṇḍō?), which means, ‘Since the mind alone perceives the world by way of the five sense organs, is there [any] world besides [excluding, if not for, apart from, other than or without] the mind?’, what he implies is that the world or cosmos does not exist independent of the mind or ego that perceives it. He explains the reason for this in the first sentence of this verse, ‘உலகு ஐம் புலன்கள் உரு; வேறு அன்று’ (ulahu aim pulaṉgaḷ uru; vēṟu aṉḏṟu), which means, ‘The world is a form [composed] of five [kinds of] sense-data, not anything else’.

Here the term ‘புலன்கள்’ (pulaṉgaḷ) means sense-data, the perceptual impressions (sights, sounds, smells, tastes and tactile sensations) that we seem to receive through the five senses. Though we generally assume that these impressions are caused by an external world that exists independent of our perception of it, we experience exactly the same kind of impressions in dream, and while dreaming we likewise assume that they are caused by an external world that exists independent of our perception of it, but as soon as we leave one dream and enter another state in which we experience such impressions, we are able to recognise that the perceptual impressions we experienced in the previous state were just our own mental projection, and that the world consisting of those impressions therefore did not actually exist independent of our perception of it.

In other words, the world we perceive in a dream is nothing other than a phenomenon consisting of five kinds of perceptual impressions, all of which are our own thoughts or mental phenomena, and according to Bhagavan any world that we experience in any state is likewise just a form or phenomenon consisting of five kinds of perceptual impressions. Therefore he says that no world exists independent of our perception of it, and since what perceives any world is only our mind or ego, he asks rhetorically whether any world exists besides the mind.

3. Nāṉ Yār? paragraph 3: unless perception of any world or cosmos ceases, there can be no self-realisation (svarūpa-darśana)

Since the mind or ego is nothing but an erroneous awareness of ourself, it seems to exist only when we are not aware of ourself as we actually are, and hence it will cease to exist as soon as we see what we actually are. Since seeing what we actually are is what is called ātma-sākṣātkāra, in ātma-sākṣātkāra there can be no mind or ego and hence no awareness of any world or cosmos, as Bhagavan explains unequivocally in the third paragraph of Nāṉ Yār?:

சர்வ அறிவிற்கும் சர்வ தொழிற்குங் காரண மாகிய மன மடங்கினால் ஜகதிருஷ்டி நீங்கும். கற்பித ஸர்ப்ப ஞானம் போனா லொழிய அதிஷ்டான ரஜ்ஜு ஞானம் உண்டாகாதது போல, கற்பிதமான ஜகதிருஷ்டி நீங்கினா லொழிய அதிஷ்டான சொரூப தர்சன முண்டாகாது.

sarva aṟiviṟkum sarva toṙiṟkum kāraṇam-āhiya maṉam aḍaṅgiṉāl jaga-diruṣṭi nīṅgum. kaṟpita sarppa-ñāṉam pōṉāl oṙiya adhiṣṭhāṉa rajju-ñāṉam uṇḍāhādadu pōla, kaṟpitamāṉa jaga-diruṣṭi nīṅgiṉāl oṙiya adhiṣṭhāṉa sorūpa-darśaṉam uṇḍāhādu.

If the mind, which is the cause for all awareness [of phenomena] and for all activity, subsides, jagad-dṛṣṭi [perception of the world] will cease. Just as unless awareness of the imaginary snake ceases, awareness of the rope, which is the adhiṣṭhāna [base or foundation], will not arise, unless perception of the world, which is a kalpita [a fabrication or figment of the imagination], ceases, seeing svarūpa [one’s own form or real nature], which is the adhiṣṭhāna, will not arise.

The term that I have translated here as ‘seeing svarūpa [one’s own form or real nature]’ is ‘சொரூப தர்சனம்’ (sorūpa-darśaṉam), which is a Tamil form of the Sanskrit term स्वरूप दर्शन (svarūpa-darśana), which means the same as ātma-sākṣātkāra, so in this passage Bhagavan teaches us very clearly that there can be no ātma-sākṣātkāra or ‘self-realisation’ unless perception of the world (jagad-dṛṣṭi) ceases. That is, if we perceive any world, we are not aware of ourself as we actually are, and if we are aware of ourself as we actually are, we cannot perceive any world or cosmos. Therefore ‘cosmic consciousness’ has nothing to do with self-realisation (ātma-sākṣātkāra or svarūpa-darśana) and is in fact the very antithesis of it.

4. Nāṉ Yār? paragraph 4: when we see what we actually are, no world or cosmos will seem to exist

The reason why it is not possible for us to see what we actually are so long as we perceive any world is explained by Bhagavan in more detail in the following extract from the fourth paragraph of Nāṉ Yār?:

நினைவுகளைத் தவிர்த்து ஜகமென்றோர் பொருள் அன்னியமா யில்லை. தூக்கத்தில் நினைவுகளில்லை, ஜகமுமில்லை; ஜாக்ர சொப்பனங்களில் நினைவுகளுள, ஜகமும் உண்டு. சிலந்திப்பூச்சி எப்படித் தன்னிடமிருந்து வெளியில் நூலை நூற்று மறுபடியும் தன்னுள் இழுத்துக் கொள்ளுகிறதோ, அப்படியே மனமும் தன்னிடத்திலிருந்து ஜகத்தைத் தோற்றுவித்து மறுபடியும் தன்னிடமே ஒடுக்கிக்கொள்ளுகிறது. மனம் ஆத்ம சொரூபத்தினின்று வெளிப்படும்போது ஜகம் தோன்றும். ஆகையால், ஜகம் தோன்றும்போது சொரூபம் தோன்றாது; சொரூபம் தோன்றும் (பிரகாசிக்கும்) போது ஜகம் தோன்றாது.

niṉaivugaḷai-t tavirttu jagam-eṉḏṟōr poruḷ aṉṉiyamāy illai. tūkkattil niṉaivugaḷ illai, jagam-um illai; jāgra-soppaṉaṅgaḷil niṉaivugaḷ uḷa, jagam-um uṇḍu. silandi-p-pūcci eppaḍi-t taṉṉiḍamirundu veḷiyil nūlai nūṯṟu maṟupaḍiyum taṉṉuḷ iṙuttu-k-koḷḷugiṟadō, appaḍiyē maṉam-um taṉṉiḍattilirundu jagattai-t tōṯṟuvittu maṟupaḍiyum taṉṉiḍamē oḍukki-k-koḷḷugiṟadu. maṉam ātma-sorūpattiṉiṉḏṟu veḷippaḍum-pōdu jagam tōṉḏṟum. āhaiyāl, jagam tōṉḏṟum-pōdu sorūpam tōṉḏṟādu; sorūpam tōṉḏṟum (pirakāśikkum) pōdu jagam tōṉḏṟādu.

Excluding thoughts [or ideas], there is not separately any such thing as world. In sleep there are no thoughts, and [consequently] there is also no world; in waking and dream there are thoughts, and [consequently] there is also a world. Just as a spider spins out thread from within itself and again draws it back into itself, so the mind projects the world from within itself and again dissolves it back into itself. When the mind comes out from ātma-svarūpa, the world appears. Therefore when the world appears, svarūpa [one’s own form or real nature] does not appear; when svarūpa appears (shines), the world does not appear.

What Bhagavan refers to here as ‘மனம் ஆத்ம சொரூபத்தினின்று வெளிப்படுவது’ (maṉam ātma-sorūpattiṉiṉḏṟu veḷippaḍuvadu), ‘the mind coming out [or emerging] from ātma-svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or real nature of oneself]’, is the rising of ourself as the ego or mind. Only when we thus rise and stand as this ego or mind does any world seem to exist, as he clearly implies by saying in this context: ‘மனம் ஆத்ம சொரூபத்தினின்று வெளிப்படும்போது ஜகம் தோன்றும்’ (maṉam ātma-sorūpattiṉiṉḏṟu veḷippaḍum-pōdu jagam tōṉḏṟum), ‘When the mind comes out [or emerges] from ātma-svarūpa [the ‘own form’ or real nature of oneself], the world appears’.

Just as the world we perceive in a dream is merely a projection of our own mind and therefore does not exist independent of our perception of it, according to Bhagavan this world and any other world that we may perceive is likewise just a mental projection and therefore does not exist independent of our perception of it. Since what projects and perceives this or any other world is only our own mind or ego, a world can seem to exist only when we experience ourself as this mind or ego, and since this mind or ego is merely an erroneous awareness of ourself, it seems to exist only so long as we are not aware of ourself as we actually are. Therefore when we see what we actually are, which is what Bhagavan refers to here as ‘சொரூபம் தோன்றும் (பிரகாசிக்கும்) போது’ (sorūpam tōṉḏṟum (pirakāśikkum) pōdu), ‘when svarūpa [one’s ‘own form’ or real nature] appears (shines)’, no mind or ego will seem to exist, and hence no world or cosmos will seem to exist.

5. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 26: if we seem to be the ego, phenomena seem to exist, and if we do not seem to be the ego, no phenomena exist at all

All experience or states of awareness can be classified into just two simple categories, namely awareness of phenomena and awareness devoid of phenomena. Waking and dream are states in which we are aware of phenomena, whereas sleep is a state in which we are aware without being aware of any phenomena.

Since all phenomena are projected and perceived only by our mind or ego, and since our mind or ego cannot stand on its own without being aware of phenomena, any state in which we are aware of phenomena is a state in which we are aware of ourself as the mind or ego, and any state in which we are not aware of any phenomena is a state in which we are not aware of ourself as the mind or ego. Therefore as Bhagavan says in verse 26 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu:

அகந்தையுண் டாயி னனைத்துமுண் டாகு
மகந்தையின் றேலின் றனைத்து — மகந்தையே
யாவுமா மாதலால் யாதிதென்று நாடலே
யோவுதல் யாவுமென வோர்.

ahandaiyuṇ ḍāyi ṉaṉaittumuṇ ḍāhu
mahandaiyiṉ ḏṟēliṉ ḏṟaṉaittu — mahandaiyē
yāvumā mādalāl yādideṉḏṟu nādalē
yōvudal yāvumeṉa vōr.

பதச்சேதம்: அகந்தை உண்டாயின், அனைத்தும் உண்டாகும்; அகந்தை இன்றேல், இன்று அனைத்தும். அகந்தையே யாவும் ஆம். ஆதலால், யாது இது என்று நாடலே ஓவுதல் யாவும் என ஓர்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): ahandai uṇḍāyiṉ, aṉaittum uṇḍāhum; ahandai iṉḏṟēl, iṉḏṟu aṉaittum. ahandai-y-ē yāvum ām. ādalāl, yādu idu eṉḏṟu nādal-ē ōvudal yāvum eṉa ōr.

அன்வயம்: அகந்தை உண்டாயின், அனைத்தும் உண்டாகும்; அகந்தை இன்றேல், அனைத்தும் இன்று. யாவும் அகந்தையே ஆம். ஆதலால், யாது இது என்று நாடலே யாவும் ஓவுதல் என ஓர்.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): ahandai uṇḍāyiṉ, aṉaittum uṇḍāhum; ahandai iṉḏṟēl, aṉaittum iṉḏṟu. yāvum ahandai-y-ē ām. ādalāl, yādu idu eṉḏṟu nādal-ē yāvum ōvudal eṉa ōr.

English translation: If the ego comes into existence, everything comes into existence; if the ego does not exist, everything does not exist. [Hence] the ego itself is everything. Therefore, know that investigating what this [ego] is alone is giving up everything.

In other words, when we seem to be this ego, phenomena seem to exist, and when we do not seem to be this ego, no phenomena seem to exist — or exist at all — so all phenomena are just an expansion or projection of ourself as this ego. Therefore, since we seem to be this ego only because we do not investigate or attend to ourself keenly enough, and since the ego will therefore cease to exist if we investigate it keenly enough, Bhagavan concludes this verse by saying that investigating what this ego is will result in our giving up not only the ego but also everything else, namely all the phenomena perceived by it.

6. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 13: awareness of phenomena is not real awareness (jñāna) but only ignorance (ajñāna)

Since the ego is just a false awareness of ourself, and since phenomena seem to exist only in the deluded view of this unreal ego, in verse 13 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu Bhagavan says:

ஞானமாந் தானேமெய் நானாவா ஞானமஞ்
ஞானமாம் பொய்யாமஞ் ஞானமுமே — ஞானமாந்
தன்னையன்றி யின்றணிக டாம்பலவும் பொய்மெய்யாம்
பொன்னையன்றி யுண்டோ புகல்.

ñāṉamān tāṉēmey nāṉāvā ñāṉamañ
ñāṉamām poyyāmañ ñāṉamumē — ñāṉamān
taṉṉaiyaṉḏṟi yiṉḏṟaṇika ḍāmpalavum poymeyyām
poṉṉaiyaṉḏṟi yuṇḍō puhal.

பதச்சேதம்: ஞானம் ஆம் தானே மெய். நானா ஆம் ஞானம் அஞ்ஞானம் ஆம். பொய் ஆம் அஞ்ஞானமுமே ஞானம் ஆம் தன்னை அன்றி இன்று. அணிகள் தாம் பலவும் பொய்; மெய் ஆம் பொன்னை அன்றி உண்டோ? புகல்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): ñāṉam ām tāṉē mey. nāṉā ām ñāṉam aññāṉam ām. poy ām aññāṉamumē ñāṉam ām taṉṉai aṉḏṟi iṉḏṟu. aṇikaḷ tām palavum poy; mey ām poṉṉai aṉḏṟi uṇḍō? puhal.

English translation: Oneself, who is jñāna [awareness], alone is real. Awareness that is manifold is ignorance. Even ignorance, which is unreal, does not exist apart from oneself, who is [real] awareness. All the many ornaments are unreal; say, do they exist apart from the gold, which is real?

‘நானாவாம் ஞானம் அஞ்ஞானம் ஆம்’ (nāṉā-v-ām ñāṉam aññāṉam ām) literally means ‘jñāna [knowledge or awareness] that is manifold is ajñāna [ignorance]’, which implies that awareness of many things (or of multiplicity) is ignorance. This ignorance is unreal, as he says in the next sentence, and what is real is only ourself, as he says in the previous sentence: ‘ஞானம் ஆம் தானே மெய்’ (ñāṉam ām tāṉē mey), ‘Oneself, who is jñāna [awareness], alone is real’.

What he means by saying that we alone are real is that we alone are what actually exists, and that whatever else may seem to exist does not actually exist. Therefore the real awareness that we actually are is single, infinite and indivisible, because nothing other than it actually exists to limit it or divide it, but when we seem to rise as the ego, this one infinite awareness (jñāna) seems to be divided as a subject (the perceiving ego) and numerous objects (all the phenomena perceived by it). This divided awareness is what he describes here as ‘நானாவாம் ஞானம்’ (nāṉā-v-ām ñāṉam), ‘awareness that is nānā [manifold, various, diverse, separate, different or distinct]’, and he says that it is ignorance (ajñāna) and unreal (poy), meaning that it has no substantive existence, since it is just a false appearance.

Therefore of the two kinds of experience or states of awareness that I referred to at the beginning of the previous section, namely awareness of phenomena and awareness devoid of phenomena, awareness of phenomena is not real awareness but only ignorance, whereas awareness devoid of phenomena is alone real awareness, because it is what we actually are, since nothing other than ourself actually exists. That is, our real nature is just pure awareness, which is not aware of anything other than itself, and since it alone actually exists, it is the adhiṣṭhāna, the base or foundation (as Bhagavan says in the third paragraph of Nāṉ Yār?), without which awareness of phenomena could not even seem to exist, as he implies in the third sentence of this verse: ‘பொய் ஆம் அஞ்ஞானமுமே ஞானம் ஆம் தன்னை அன்றி இன்று’ (poy ām aññāṉamumē ñāṉam ām taṉṉai aṉḏṟi iṉḏṟu), ‘Even ignorance [awareness of multiplicity], which is unreal, does not exist apart from oneself, who is [real] awareness’.

Therefore the only experience or awareness we should take interest in is awareness devoid of phenomena, because it is the only awareness that is real, and it is what we actually are. Hence the aim and purpose of practising self-investigation (ātma-vicāra) is for us to cultivate passionate interest (love or bhakti) in being aware of ourself alone and thereby to wean our mind away from its interest in being aware of anything else whatsoever.

7. Since sleep is devoid of multiplicity or diversity (nānātva), it is pure self-awareness, whereas waking and dream are states of dense ignorance

Though we generally take waking and dream to be states of real awareness and sleep to be a state of ignorance or non-awareness, Bhagavan teaches us that the opposite is the case, because the awareness we experience in waking and dream, namely awareness of diverse phenomena, of which we seem to be a part, is what he calls ‘நானாவாம் ஞானம்’ (nāṉā-v-ām ñāṉam), ‘awareness that is manifold [or diverse]’, which he says is அஞ்ஞானம் (aññāṉam), ignorance (ajñāna), and பொய் (poy), unreal, whereas the awareness we experience in sleep is devoid of both the ego and all phenomena, and hence of any multiplicity or diversity (nānātva), so it is the real awareness about which he says, ‘ஞானம் ஆம் தானே மெய்’ (ñāṉam ām tāṉē mey), ‘Oneself, who is jñāna [awareness], alone is real’.

This is why he said (as recorded in in the first chapter of Maharshi’s Gospel, 2002 edition, page 9):

Sleep is not ignorance, it is one’s pure state; wakefulness is not knowledge, it is ignorance. There is full awareness in sleep and total ignorance in waking.

Sleep seems to be a state of ignorance only from the deluded perspective of the ego, which was absent in sleep. We ourself were present in sleep, though not as the ego but only as the pure self-awareness that we actually are, so we are aware of having been in sleep (which means that we were aware of being in such a state while we were in it), but since we now mistake ourself to be this ego, which was not present in sleep, we cannot recall clearly what we experienced in sleep, which was only ātma-svarūpa, the real nature of ourself.

Since there was no ego or any phenomena in sleep to cloud and obscure the pure self-awareness that we actually are, Bhagavan says that there is full awareness in sleep, and since the presence of the ego and diverse phenomena in waking and dream obscures our pure self-awareness and makes it seem to be an awareness of multiplicity (நானாவாம் ஞானம்: nāṉā-v-ām ñāṉam), he says that there is total ignorance in waking and dream.

8. Upadēśa Undiyār verse 13: the only difference between manōlaya and manōnāśa is that the ego will rise from manōlaya but never from manōnāśa

Differences seem to exist only in waking and dream, in which we are aware of phenomena, because in the absence of any phenomena there is no multiplicity or diversity (nānātva) and hence nothing that could be different or distinct from anything else. The Sanskrit term नाना (nānā), which in Tamil is spelt as நானா (nāṉā ), is an adverb that means differently, variously, distinctly or separately, but it is often used as an adjective meaning different, diverse, various, many, manifold, separate or distinct from, and it is in this adjective sense that it is used in Tamil, so when Bhagavan says in verse 13 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu, ‘நானாவாம் ஞானம் அஞ்ஞானம் ஆம்’ (nāṉā-v-ām ñāṉam aññāṉam ām), ‘awareness that is nānā [different, diverse or manifold] is ignorance’, he clearly implies that awareness of any differences or diversity is ignorance (ajñāna) and hence unreal (poy).

Moreover, since differences seem to exist only in the view of the ego (and hence only in waking and dream), there are absolutely no differences in any state in which the ego is absent. In other words, in states such as sleep, in which we are aware only of ourself and not of any phenomena whatsoever, there are absolutely no differences.

However, though there are no differences in the absence of the ego, and hence in the absence of any phenomena, from the perspective of the ego in waking and dream there seem to be two different kinds of state in which the ego and all phenomena are absent, but the only difference between them is that one is temporary whereas the other is permanent. In other words, from one such state the ego or mind will sooner or later rise again, whereas from the other it will never rise again, as Bhagavan points out in verse 13 of Upadēśa Undiyār:

இலயமு நாச மிரண்டா மொடுக்க
மிலயித் துளதெழு முந்தீபற
      வெழாதுரு மாய்ந்ததே லுந்தீபற.

ilayamu nāśa miraṇḍā moḍukka
milayit tuḷadeṙu mundīpaṟa
      veṙāduru māyndadē lundīpaṟa.

பதச்சேதம்: இலயமும் நாசம் இரண்டு ஆம் ஒடுக்கம். இலயித்து உளது எழும். எழாது உரு மாய்ந்ததேல்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): ilayam-um nāśam iraṇḍu ām oḍukkam. ilayittu uḷadu eṙum. eṙādu uru māyndadēl.

அன்வயம்: ஒடுக்கம் இலயமும் நாசம் இரண்டு ஆம். இலயித்து உளது எழும். உரு மாய்ந்ததேல் எழாது.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): oḍukkam ilayam-um nāśam iraṇḍu ām. ilayittu uḷadu eṙum. uru māyndadēl eṙādu.

English translation: Subsidence [of mind] is [of] two [kinds]: laya and nāśa. What is lying down [or dissolved in laya] will rise. If [its] form dies [in nāśa], it will not rise.

In this context laya means temporary dissolution or abeyance of the mind or ego, whereas nāśa means its annihilation or destruction, which is permanent. However, this difference between manōlaya and manōnāśa is not experienced by us either in manōlaya (such as in sleep) or in manōnāśa, because it seems real only from the perspective ourself as this ego in waking and dream. That is, after we have come out of sleep or any other state of manōlaya, such as a coma, general anaesthesia, death or nirvikalpa samādhi, such states appear to us to be temporary and hence distinct from manōnāśa, but there is absolutely no difference between the actual experience of manōnāśa and any kind of manōlaya.

Either the ego is present or it is absent. That is, either it seems to exist or it does not seem to exist. If it is present, we perceive phenomena, multiplicity, diversity and differences, whereas if it is absent we are aware of nothing other than ourself alone, unclouded by the appearance of any multiplicity or diversity (nānātva) of any kind whatsoever.

Therefore the problem we face is only the seeming existence of ourself as the ego. Though the ego is absent in manōlaya, no kind of manōlaya is a solution to our fundamental problem (namely the ego itself, which is the root of all other problems), because from any state of manōlaya the ego will sooner or later rise again with all its viṣaya-vāsanās intact and reinvigorated with fresh energy derived from ourself, its source. Therefore what we should aim to achieve is not manōlaya but only manōnāśa.

9. In order to be annihilated our ego must turn its entire attention keenly back towards itself alone to see what it actually is

There are various causes that can make the ego subside in manōlaya, and according to the cause that brings it about manōlaya is called by various names. The ego subsides in sleep because of tiredness or exhaustion, it subsides in general anaesthesia because of certain drugs, it subsides in coma or death because of damage to the physical organism that it took to be itself, and it subsides in nirvikalpa samādhi because of certain practices of yōga or meditation.

The reason why the ego will sooner or later rise from any of these states of manōlaya with all its viṣaya-vāsanās intact is that none of the various causes that bring about manōlaya are sufficient to annihilate it. Since the ego is just an erroneous awareness of ourself, it can be annihilated only by turning its entire attention keenly back within (towards itself alone) to see what it actually is. That is, being a wrong awareness of ourself, it can be destroyed only by correct awareness of ourself.

Though we experience correct awareness of ourself in manōlaya, our ego is not thereby annihilated, because it is not present in manōlaya to be annihilated. That is, in manōlaya we become aware of ourself as we actually are as a result of (and hence subsequent to) the subsidence of our ego, but in order to be annihilated our ego must subside as a result of (and hence subsequent to) our being aware of ourself as we actually are.

Metaphorically speaking, we can say that when we subside in manōlaya the cart is being put before the horse. The cart is the subsiding of the ego, and the horse is being aware of ourself as we actually are. In order to eradicate our ego, we must put the horse before the cart. That is, absolutely clear awareness of ourself as we actually are must precede the subsidence of the ego.

However, saying that it must precede the subsidence of the ego does not mean that there will be any gap between our seeing what we actually are and the annihilation of our ego. As soon as we look at ourself keenly enough to see what we actually are, our ego will thereby be annihilated instantaneously.

Seeing what we actually are is what is called ātma-sākṣātkāra (direct perception of oneself) or svarūpa-darśana (seeing one’s ‘own form’ or real nature), so since it instantaneously annihilates the mind along with its root, the ego, ātma-sākṣātkāra is manōnāśa (annihilation of the mind), and hence it is permanent and irrevocable, as Bhagavan indicates in verse 13 of Upadēśa Undiyār by saying: ‘எழாது உரு மாய்ந்ததேல்’ (eṙādu uru māyndadēl), ‘If [the mind’s] form dies [in nāśa], it will not rise’.

10. Since viṣaya-vāsanās are the ego’s urges, none of them can survive when the ego is annihilated by ātma-sākṣātkāra

During the process of self-investigation (ātma-vicāra) our viṣaya-vāsanās will be gradually weakened, because every time we choose to be self-attentive rather than attending to any phenomenon (viṣaya) we are strengthening our sat-vāsanā (our inclination, liking or urge just to be by attending to nothing other than ourself) and correspondingly weakening the vāsanā (inclination, liking or urge) to attend to that phenomenon or any other one. However, we cannot eradicate all our viṣaya-vāsanās until we eradicate their root, our ego, because our ego cannot survive without clinging to phenomena, so viṣaya-vāsanās, which are our urges to cling to them, are the fuel that keeps our ego alive.

Since viṣaya-vāsanās are the ego’s urges, none of them can survive when the ego is annihilated by ātma-sākṣātkāra. Therefore what Chadwick recorded about his question and Bhagavan’s answer in the passage quoted at the beginning of this article is confused and misleading, firstly because self-realisation in the sense of ātma-sākṣātkāra or manōnāśa is permanent and can never be lost, since no ego or mind remains in ātma-sākṣātkāra either to have gained it or to subsequently lose it, and secondly because by annihilating the ego ātma-sākṣātkāra destroys all its viṣaya-vāsanās along with it.

Moreover Chadwick wrote, ‘In the early stages of Sadhana this was quite possible and even probable’, in which ‘this’ refers to ‘once having gained Self-realization to lose it again’, but whatever may be gained in the early stages of sādhana (spiritual practice) is not self-realisation in the sense of ātma-sākṣātkāra, because ātma-sākṣātkāra is the final goal of sādhana, and when it is attained all sādhana must come to an end, because it eradicates the ego, thereby leaving no one behind to do any sādhana.

11. Upadēśa Undiyār verse 17: if we investigate it keenly enough, we will find that there is no such thing as an ego or mind

From the perspective of ourself as this ego self-realisation (ātma-sākṣātkāra), annihilation of the mind (manōnāśa) or liberation (mukti or mōkṣa) seems to be a state that is not now present and that is therefore to be attained at some time in the future. However, though this seems to be the case from the perspective of this ego, it is not actually so, because according to Bhagavan what is called by various names such as ātma-sākṣātkāra, manōnāśa and mukti is actually our natural state (sahaja sthiti), so it is eternal and unchanging, and can therefore never be either gained or lost.

Since it is already ours, we cannot gain it, and since it is our real nature, we can never lose it. Why then should we practise self-investigation (ātma-vicāra) in order to gain what is eternally ours?

Though ātma-sākṣātkāra (direct perception of ourself) is our natural and eternal state, from the perspective of ourself as this ego it does not seem to be so. It is a state of perfect clarity of pure self-awareness, absolute peace and calm and infinite happiness, yet what we as this ego now experience seems to be quite the opposite. Therefore if what Bhagavan tells us is the truth, there is something seriously wrong with our present perspective. That is, we are not seeing ourself as we actually are.

Therefore we need to free ourself from this wrong perspective in order to see what we actually are. But how can we do so? What is the cause or root of this wrong perspective? It is only the ego, because it is the ego’s perspective. We now seem to have this wrong perspective because we seem to be this ego, so to free ourself from this wrong perspective we must free ourself from this ego, which is a delusive awareness of ourself as something other than what we actually are.

When we appear as this ego in waking and dream, everything else appears along with us, and when this ego disappears in sleep, everything else disappears along with it, leaving us peacefully and happily all on our own. Therefore this ego is the sole cause for the appearance of everything else, including our wrong perspective, our dissatisfaction, our deficiencies, our miseries and all our other problems, so to correct our wrong perspective and to get rid of all our other problems, thereby restoring us to our natural state of pure self-awareness and infinite happiness, all we need do is to eradicate this ego.

Therefore though from the perspective of ourself as this ego ātma-sākṣātkāra, manōnāśa or mukti seem to be the ultimate gain, it is not actually a gain of anything but a loss of everything, including the ego. However, when the ego is consumed forever in the infinite clarity of pure self-awareness (ātma-jñāna), it will not seem to us as if anything has been lost, because the ego and all the phenomena perceived by it do not actually exist even now. They merely seem to exist, but only in the view of the ego, which itself does not actually exist.

If the existence of the ego now were real, it could reappear at any time, but it does not actually exist at all, even now, as we shall discover if we investigate ourself keenly enough to see what we actually are. This is stated clearly by Bhagavan in verse 17 of Upadēśa Undiyār:

மனத்தி னுருவை மறவா துசாவ
மனமென வொன்றிலை யுந்தீபற
      மார்க்கநே ரார்க்குமி துந்தீபற.

maṉatti ṉuruvai maṟavā dusāva
maṉameṉa voṉḏṟilai yundīpaṟa
      mārgganē rārkkumi dundīpaṟa.

பதச்சேதம்: மனத்தின் உருவை மறவாது உசாவ, மனம் என ஒன்று இலை. மார்க்கம் நேர் ஆர்க்கும் இது.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): maṉattiṉ uruvai maṟavādu usāva, maṉam eṉa oṉḏṟu ilai. mārggam nēr ārkkum idu.

அன்வயம்: மறவாது மனத்தின் உருவை உசாவ, மனம் என ஒன்று இலை. இது ஆர்க்கும் நேர் மார்க்கம்.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): maṟavādu maṉattiṉ uruvai usāva, maṉam eṉa oṉḏṟu ilai. idu ārkkum nēr mārggam.

English translation: When one investigates [examines or scrutinises] the form of the mind without neglecting [forgetting, abandoning, giving up or ceasing], anything called ‘mind’ will not exist. This is the direct [straight or appropriate] path for everyone whomsoever.

What he refers to here as ‘மனத்தின் உரு’ (maṉattiṉ uru), ‘the form of the mind’, is the ego, because as he explains in the next verse (verse 18, which I cited in the second section of this article) the ego, which he refers to as the primal thought called ‘I’, is the root and essence of the mind. If we investigate this ego keenly enough, we will find that there is no such thing at all (not even as an illusory appearance, because how could any illusory appearance seem to exist only in its own view?), because what actually exists is only ourself, the one eternal, infinite, immutable and indivisible sat-cit-ānanda (being-awareness-happiness).

12. Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu verse 38: if we investigate it keenly enough, we will find that there is no ego and hence no bondage, so liberation is eternal

As Bhagavan often explained, liberation is our ever-present state, not a state to be gained by us in future, because if it could be gained, it would sooner or later be lost, since everything that comes must sooner or later go. Only what is eternal can remain forever. This is why he frequently emphasised that liberation is eternal, because it is our real and natural state. For example, in verse 38 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu he says:

வினைமுதனா மாயின் விளைபயன் றுய்ப்போம்
வினைமுதலா ரென்று வினவித் — தனையறியக்
கர்த்தத் துவம்போய்க் கருமமூன் றுங்கழலு
நித்தமா முத்தி நிலை.

viṉaimudaṉā māyiṉ viḷaipayaṉ ḏṟuyppōm
viṉaimudalā reṉḏṟu viṉavit — taṉaiyaṟiyak
karttat tuvampōyk karumamūṉ ḏṟuṅkaṙalu
nittamā mutti nilai.

பதச்சேதம்: வினைமுதல் நாம் ஆயின், விளை பயன் துய்ப்போம். வினைமுதல் ஆர் என்று வினவி தனை அறிய, கர்த்தத்துவம் போய், கருமம் மூன்றும் கழலும். நித்தமாம் முத்தி நிலை.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): viṉaimudal nām āyiṉ, viḷai payaṉ tuyppōm. viṉaimudal ār eṉḏṟu viṉavi taṉai aṟiya, karttattuvam pōy, karumam mūṉḏṟum kaṙalum. nittam-ām mutti nilai.

English translation: If we are the doer of action, we will experience the resulting fruit. [However] when one knows oneself by investigating who is the doer of action, doership will depart and all the three karmas will slip off. [This is] the state of liberation, which is eternal.

What he refers to here as ‘வினைமுதல்’ (viṉaimudal), ‘the doer of action’, is the ego, and since doership and karmas exist only for the ego, what he implies when he says that doership and all the three karmas will depart when one knows oneself by investigating who is the doer of action is that they will cease to exist along with their root, this ego. That is, since the ego is not real but just what we seem to be so long as we are aware of the seeming existence of anything other than ourself, if we investigate it by looking at it keenly enough, we will see that what we actually are is just pure self-awareness (just as if we were to look carefully enough at an illusory snake, we would see that what it actually is is just a rope), and hence we will no longer seem to be the doer of any actions or the experiencer of any fruits of actions.

Since what seems to be bound is only the ego, when we investigate it and find that there is no such thing but only pure and infinite self-awareness, which is ever free, we will see that eternal freedom or liberation (mukti) is our real nature, and that bondage has never actually occurred. This is why Bhagavan ends this verse by saying: ‘நித்தமாம் முத்தி நிலை’ (nittam-ām mutti nilai), which means ‘the state of liberation, which is eternal’, and which implies that the state of absolute freedom that remains when the ego has been found to be ever non-existent is eternal: that is, without any beginning, interruption or end.

This is also clearly implied by him in verse 28 of Upadēśa Undiyār:

தனாதியல் யாதெனத் தான்றெரி கிற்பின்
னனாதி யனந்தசத் துந்தீபற
      வகண்ட சிதானந்த முந்தீபற.

taṉādiyal yādeṉat tāṉḏṟeri hiṟpiṉ
ṉaṉādi yaṉantasat tundīpaṟa
      vakhaṇḍa cidāṉanda mundīpaṟa.

பதச்சேதம்: தனாது இயல் யாது என தான் தெரிகில், பின் அனாதி அனந்த சத்து அகண்ட சித் ஆனந்தம்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): taṉādu iyal yādu eṉa tāṉ terihil, piṉ aṉādi aṉanta sattu akhaṇḍa cit āṉandam.

அன்வயம்: தான் தனாது இயல் யாது என தெரிகில், பின் அனாதி அனந்த அகண்ட சத்து சித் ஆனந்தம்.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): tāṉ taṉādu iyal yādu eṉa terihil, piṉ aṉādi aṉanta akhaṇḍa sattu cit āṉandam.

English translation: If one knows what the nature of oneself is, then [what will exist and shine is only] anādi [beginningless], ananta [endless, limitless or infinite] and akhaṇḍa [unbroken, undivided or unfragmented] sat-cit-ānanda [being-awareness-bliss].

Here the adjectives anādi (beginningless), ananta (endless) and akhaṇḍa (unbroken) clearly indicate that sat-cit-ānanda (being-awareness-happiness), which is all that we will experience if we are aware of our real nature, is eternal. And since ananta also means limitless or infinite, it implies that it alone is what actually exists, because if anything else existed or even seemed to exist, that would limit it and thereby make it finite. Therefore since it is eternal and infinite, it can neither be gained nor lost.

Unlike both experience of phenomena and states of manōlaya, which come and go, liberation or manōnāśa can neither be gained nor lost, because it is our natural and eternal state. Therefore what is sometimes called the attainment of liberation, manōnāśa or ātma-sākṣātkāra does not actually entail gaining anything, but only losing everything along with its root, the ego. And what remains alone when the ego and everything else has been lost is our real nature, which can never be lost, because it is the eternal reality, the only thing that ever actually exists.

Gain and loss or any other kind of change can only occur in time, and time seems to exist only in the view of the ego. Therefore, when we find the ego to be ever non-existent, we will clearly see that there never was any such thing as time, and hence that no change of any kind whatsoever has ever occurred or could ever occur. This is the ultimate truth (pāramārthika satya), which is called ajāta: the truth that there has never been any birth, arising, origination, appearance, occurrence or happening of any kind whatsoever.