Path of Ramana -part 1 notes-1

 https://www.happinessofbeing.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/The_Path_of_Sri_Ramana_Part_One-4.pdf

233 pgs in part 1

71/233

What is mind? 

The verdict given by Sri Bhagavan is: “The mind is only thoughts...” ‘Upadesa Undhiyar,’

 verse 18 

If we give up all thoughts and observe what is mind, we will find that there is no such thing as ‘mind’ at all. 

“If one enquires–without inadvertence (pramada) – into the form of the mind, it will be found that there is no such thing as mind! This is the direct path for all!” ‘Upadesa Undhiyar’, 

verse 17

. This ‘I'-thought is the root of all thoughts. "The mind is only thoughts. Of all thoughts, the thought ‘I’ is indeed the root-thought. Therefore, what is called mind is only the thought ‘I’ (i.e. the feeling ‘I am the body').”

 'Upadesa Undhiyar, verse 18

"Only if that first person (the ego) in the form ‘I am the body’ exists, will the second and third persons also exist...” 'Ulladhu Narpadhu'. verse 14 "If there is no ‘I'-thought, no other thing will exist...” 'Sri Arunachala Ashtakam', verse 7

If the ‘I'-thought – the root of all thoughts – is prevented from rising, all other thoughts will also be prevented. If a man wants to cut down the millions of leaves and hundreds of branches of a tree, is it not enough if he cuts down the trunk?

 Similarly, a man who is trying to destroy all the millions and millions of thoughts will have succeeded in doing so if he destroys the ‘I'-thought, their root. Did we not start with the objective of scrutinizing thoughts? From what we have seen above, it is now clear that it is not necessary to scrutinize each and every thought, and that a scrutiny of only the ‘I'-thought, the root of all thoughts, is quite sufficient

"The thought ‘I am this body of flesh and blood’ is the one thread on which are strung the various other thoughts. Therefore if we turn inwards, ‘Where is this I?', all thoughts [including the ‘I'- thought] will come to an end and Self-knowledge will then spontaneously shine forth within the cave (the heart) as ‘I-I' ...” ‘Atmavidya Kirtanam', verse 2

.......

"... When the first person ceases to exit through one's enquiry into the truth of that first person, then the existence of the second and third persons will come to an end ....”

- 'Ulladhu Narpadhu', verse 14 

Thus, the method of destroying the ‘I'-thought is also the method which will destroy all other thoughts.

 Therefore, what is essential is to destroy the first person thought, ‘I'.

 The only way to destroy it is to scrutinize its nature! There is no other way!! 

“...How else to attain that state wherein ‘I’ (the ego) does not rise – the state of egolessness – unless we seek the source whence ‘I’ rises?...” 

-‘UIladu Narpadhu’, verse 27

Even in the path of self-surrrender, which is the path of devotion (bhakti), the destruction of the first person, the thought ‘I’, is achieved by surrendering it to God, having come to know the worthlessness of its nature (either by knowing that the ego-’I’ is non-existent, or by knowing that Self, the real ‘I’, is the sole existence). Thus, all that is necessary is to enquire into the first person ‘I’-thought alone.

....

76 chp 4 who am i

...

Although some people will accept from the scrutiny made above that they cannot be this insentient body, yet, since they are not able to know correctly the true nature of ‘I’, they still think that ‘I’ is the sum total of the body, the five senses, mind and breath (prana19). 

Therefore we must clearly know what this ‘I’ is, without the slightest doubt or wrong identification, that is, without mistaking one thing to be another. It is not enough if one accepts that one is not the body, a mere mass of flesh. 

By observing the processes of breathing and blood circulation, which continue even though the body is lying down quietly, some may think that the prana is perhaps ‘I’. Is there any test that we can use to determine a particular thing as ‘not I’? Yes, there is! The test is to find out, ‘Do we exist or not in the absence of that particular thing?’! By using this test, we can proceed successfully to the very end of our enquiry. 

The wrong identification ‘I am the body’ is itself all of these : mind (manas), intellect (buddhi), the storehouse of tendencies (chittam), ego (ahankara), wrong knowledge (ajnana), nescience (sunya), maya, and so on. The prana is a gross form of this mind, and so is the physical body! Even the mind is a body, but a subtle one; prana is a little grosser than mind; and the body of flesh and blood is still grosser than the prana; The subtle mind in its subtler form is itself the tendencies (vasanas) or the darkness of ignorance. Let us classify all these forms of the mind into three categories, namely the gross, subtle and causal bodies.

All the gross forms – the body, blood circulation and respiration – which are cognized by the mind through the five senses constitute the gross body; this is because all these are clearly cognized by the mind, the subtle body, which is the second in our classification. Though the sastras usually include pranamaya kosa in the category of subtle body, we have here included it in the category of gross body because it is clearly perceived by the mind as an object other than the mind, and since this will help us a great deal in applying our test. Moreover, since all these five sheaths are finally to be discarded as ‘not I’ (non-Self), no man with a little common sense will object to its being included with either of those two bodies21. Now, by using the simple test mentioned above, let us see if we are this gross body.

“The body is a form of five sheaths. So the term ‘body’ includes all the five sheaths. Does the world exist apart from the body’? Say, is there anyone who without the body has seen the world?’ Ulladhu Narpadhu’, verse 5

22. “The five kinds of sense-knowledge, and nothing else, constitute the form of the world we see. The five kinds of sense-knowledge are obtained through the five sense-organs. Since the one mind perceives the world through the five sense-organs, say, can there be a world apart from the mind?” 

‘Ulladhu Narpadhu’, verse 6 23. 

“The world does not exist apart from the body; the body does not exist apart from the mind; the mind does not exist apart from consciousness, and consciousness does not exist apart from Self, which is existence,” ‘Guru Vachaka Kovai’, verse 99

“To know existence (sat), there is no consciousness (chit) other than existence itself; existence is therefore consciousness. . .” 

‘Upadesa Undhiyar’, verse 23

81

Thus, consciousness without existence is not at all consciousness; likewise, existence without consciousness is not at all existence

“The body (deham) is insentient like an earthen pot. Since it does not have the consciousness ‘I’ and since our existence is experienced (as ‘I am’) daily in deep sleep, where the body does not exist, it is not ‘I’ (naham)...” 

‘Ulladhu Narpadhu-Anubandham, verse 10

“Although Guru Ramana taught various doctrines according to the level of understanding of those who came to Him, we heard from Him that ajata alone is truly His own experience. Thus should you know.” ‘Guru Vachaka Kovai’, verse 100

The periods in which the waves of thoughts subside of their own accord in the waking state are the state of ‘being still’ (summa iruttal) or Self-abidance (nishtha). Aspirants who have had this experience can easily grasp the truth, ‘We can and do exist even in the absence of thoughts’.

“... even in sleep, where there is no ego-‘I’, we are not non-existent!” ‘Upadesa Undhiyar’, verse 21 - says Sri Bhagavan. So, according to our basic test, since we exist even in the absence of the mind, we are not the mind,

........

90 the Enquiry Who Am I and the 4 yogas

..

gavan ! The ‘I am the body’-consciousness (dehatma-buddhi) is the individual soul (jiva); in other words, the nature of the individual soul is nothing but the wrong knowledge ‘I am the body’. 

“Though this insentient body cannot say ‘I’ (i.e. does not have the feeling ‘I’), and though existence consciousness (sat-chit, Self) has no rising and setting, between these two rises an ‘I’ of the measure of the body (the ‘I am the body’ - identification). Know this alone to be the knot 75 between consciousness and the insentient (chitjada-granthi), bondage (bandham), soul (jiva), subtle body (sukshma sarira), ego (shankara), this mundane state of activities (samsara), mind (manas) and so on !” ‘Ulladhu Narpadhu’, verse 24

This ‘I am the body’ – consciousness rises after sleep, exists and remains active till sleep, and again subsides in sleep. Since the body is insentient, it has no ‘I’- consciousness; hence this consciousness (which rises as ‘I am the body’) cannot be said to be the body! Can we then call it Self (atman), since it is an ‘I’-consciousness? No, we cannot, for rising and setting is not the nature of Self. The nature of Self is existence-consciousness (sat-chit), shining ever as ‘I am’ without rising and setting. thus, this consciousness ‘I am the body’, which has a rising and a setting, cannot be said to be Self either. 

It is neither Self, which is consciousness, nor the body, which is insentient! It is a ghost-like false appearance, taking the size of the body as its own size, being limited by time and space, being a mixure of the quality of the body (i.e. rising and setting) and the quality of Self (i.e. shining as an ‘I’-consciousness), but at the same time alien to both of them, and rising as a knot (granthi) between Self (chit) and the insentient body (jada) – chit-jada-granthi.

 This is the ego, otherwise called bondage, soul, subtle body, samsara (the mundane state of activity) mind and so on. “This formless and ghostly ego (i.e. it has no form of its own) comes into existence by grasping a body-form! 

Having grasped a form, it endures, and having grasped a form, it waxes more by feeding upon forms, Leaving one form, it grasps another form. When sought for, it takes to flight; what a wonder it is ! Thus should you know.” ‘Ulladhu Narpadu’ verse 25

“The ego can come into existence only by identifying with a form (a body) as ‘I’. It can exist only by clinging to that form. Taking forms (through the five senses) for its food to live upon, it will wax more and more. Leaving one form with which it had identified as ‘I’; it will catch another form as ‘I’ ! It will lose its existence and disappear only when it is sought for: ‘What is it?’ or ‘Who am I?’. This ego, which rises in the form ‘I am the body’, is thus a formless, imaginary and empty ghost-like appearance, having no real existence”, says Bhagavan Sri Ramana !

“Presupposing the existence of a non-existent thing and then wanting to get salvation for that imaginary ‘I’, you have to start and try to do so through the above-said four paths of yoga. 

When your sadhanas themselves become a means of giving life to the non-existent ego, how can they destroy it? 

To do any sadhana except Self-enquiry (atmavichara), the existence of the mind (jiva) is indispensable. 

For, how to perform those sadhanas without the mind? To try to destroy the ego by sadhanas other than Self-enquiry is to be just like a thief turning himself into a policeman to catch the thief who is none but himself. 

Only Self-enquiry can reveal the truth that the ego (mind or jiva) has no existence whatsoever! 

So do not accept this ego, the truth of which you have not yet found out by scrutiny; deny it by giving no importance to its existence, root it out and burn it to extinction by attending to how or from what (whence) it rises! 

Instead of doing so, if you accept it as a real entity even before enquiring and finding out what it is (i.e. before finding out ‘Who am I?’), it itself will be a fetter to you and will create many non-existent obstacles (such as lust, anger, etc.) for you, and will then involve you in the aforesaid unnecessary efforts to overcome them” – thus says Sri Bhagavan

“The mere enquiry ‘To whom are these defect: karmas32 (actions), vibhakti (lack of devotion), viyoga (disunion) and ajnana (ignorance) ?’ is itself karma33, bhakti, yoga and jnana ! (How ?) When thus enquired, ‘I’ is (found to be) non-existent, (and hence) these defects are (also found to be) ever non-existent. The truth is, (then revealed) that we ever remain as (the defectless) Self!” 

Ulladhu Narpadhu – Anubandham’, verse 14

If we ask, ‘To whom are these four defects, namely that of not performing nishkamya karmas, that of not loving God (vibhakti), that of being separated from God (viyoga) and that of not knowing God (ajnana)?’, the answer will be ‘To me’, 

If we then enquire ‘Who is this I?’, that itself is truly doing the four yogas: karma yoga, bhakti yoga, raja yoga and jnana yoga. Because, by thus enquiring who one is, this defective ‘I’ will be found to be non-existent. When this ‘I’ is thus found to be non-existent, these four defects will also be found to have been ever non-existent. Our real experience will then be that we are ever shining as the defectless Self-alone.

When this state is attained by the enquiry ‘Who am I ?’, who is then left there to practice the four yogasadhanas, and why to do so? Hence, the enquiry, Who am I ?’ is the essence of all yogas. It is the Maha Yoga34, the greatest of all yogas.

Bhagavan Sri Ramana starts His teaching, ‘Who am I ?’, taking Self, the state of true existence (sat bhava), to be our basic knowledge. Therefore, He does not at all allow us to accept the non-existent ego, the sense of individuality (Jiva bhava). But in other paths, that is, in yogas, instructions are given taking as our basic knowledge the sense of individuality (jiva bhava), a false existence which we have accepted with out prior scrutiny35. 

That is why in the sastras the process is named ‘union’ or ‘yoga’. If so, some may doubt thus: “Are all the Vedantic sastras wrong, and have they cheated the aspirants? Can sastraic statements be false? Or are we to conclude that Bhagavan Sri Ramana has condemned the sastras ?”

No, it is not so, Neither do the sastras tell lies, nor does Bhagavan Sri Ramana condemn the sastras !! The fact of the matter is this: the absolute truth (paramarthika sastya), which is the very life of the sastras, has been rendered as if lifeless in the course of time by the wrong explanations of mere bookworms, who have mastered only the letter but have not understood the true import of the sastras. 

The true import of the sastras cannot be learnt except from Jnanis, that is, those who have had and live in the direct experience of Reality; no one can understand the true spirit behind any of the sastras merely by his command over language or by his keenness and superiority of intellect. We can clarify this point with two examples.

Firstly: Let us take the mahavakya ‘That thou art’ (tat twam asi). We should note the difference between the decision of Sri Bhagavan and that of the learned pandits with regard to what an aspirant (mumukshu) should do as soon as he hears these divine and significant words. Having mastered the sastras, these scholars, who lecture on them with their peculiar interpretations to laymen, begin to do japa of (i.e. to repeat) the mahavakyas such as ‘That thou art’ (tat twam asi), ‘I am Brahman’ (aham brahmasmi) and ‘I am He’ (soham), or they begin to think (meditate) ‘I am Brahman’, They also instruct others to do japa and meditation in the same manner. 

In place of the former thought, ‘I am a man or jiva’, they now have, a different thought, ‘I am Brahman’. This is nothing but replacing one thought by another! It is not the thought-free state of Self abidance (nishtha)! Not knowing the correct practice which is to be done as soon as the mahavakyas are thus heard, repetition (japa) of them or meditation (dhyana) upon them are performed; but, being fully aware that such wrong practices would and could never bestow the experience of true knowledge (jnana), even though practised for years together, Sri Bhagavan at once puts the aspirant on the right path by instructing him thus:-

“Since the sastras proclaim, ‘Thou art That which is called the Supreme’, and since That itself always shines as Self, for one to meditate ‘I am That and not this (the body and so on)’, instead of knowing oneself through the enquiry ‘What am I?’ and abiding as Self, is indeed due to lack of strength (of mind) !” Ulladhu Narpadhu verse 32 

As soon as the sastras declare, ‘Thou art That’, turning his attention Self wards, ‘I am what? Who am I?’ should be the immediate reaction of an aspirant; it is not meant that he should meditate ‘I am not this body, I am that Brahman.’ The purpose of the sastras in saying ‘That thou art’ is to make the aspirant turn his attention towards Self, ‘Who am I?’. On the other hand, by turning the mahavakyas’ I am That’, ‘I am He’ and ‘I am Brahman’ into japa and meditation, not only is the very purpose of the sastras defeated, but also the aspirants deprive themselves of the proper benefit they should have obtained from the sastras, do they not? 

When Sri Bhagavan directly takes the aspirant to Self-attention, is He not truly fulfilling the objective of the sastras and thus revitalizing them? Can it then be said that He is contradicting them? It certainly cannot ! Here is an apt story to illustrate this point.

One evening a young boy went for a stroll with his father. When dusk had almost set in, he beheld a tree-trunk from which the branches and leaves had been cut off. He was terrified and screamed, “Oh Father! There, see, a ghost!” Though his father knew the truth that it was just the stem of a tree, he assured the boy,” Oh, that ghost! It cannot do you any harm. I am here and will see to it, Come on”; so saying, he led the boy away. On hearing the encouraging words of his father, the boy took them to mean, ‘My father is stronger than the ghost and that is why he says that it can do me no harm’. This conclusion of the boy is similar to the understanding of the pandits about the meaning of the Yoga and Vedanta sastras !.

 Next evening, while going, for a stroll with his teacher along the same path, the boy exclaimed, “Sir, look ! There’s the ghost; we saw it yesterday also ,” The teacher pitied him for his ignorance and said, “That is not a ghost”, But the boy persisted, “No sir, my father also saw it yesterday; he even assured me that he would see to it that it could do me no harm; but sir, you say it is not a ghost at all’” Would the teacher yield so easily? He said, “Go near it and see for yourself; I will shine the flashlight on it. If it turns out to be a ghost, I too will see to it !”

The sastras are like the words of the father in the story. The father also knew well that it was not a ghost. Similarly, the great Sages who gave these sastras also knew well the absolute truth (paramarthika satya) that nothing such as the ego, body, or world has ever come into existence at all. The father, knowing that his son was quite unfit to make a closer examination on account of his much frightened state at that time, talked to him as if he were also accepting the existence of the false ghost imagined by his son. Even while talking like that, he was not telling a lie. To allay quickly the fear of his son, he said, ‘The ghost cannot do you any harm: That was indeed the truth! However, what the teacher told him the next day was the absolute truth (paramarthika satya). Although the, teacher’s statement that it was not a ghost seems to contradict the father’s statement, does it not in fact lend more support to the objective of the father’s statement that the ghost could do the boy no harm, by making him see for himself that it was after all only the stem of a tree? By thus fulfilling the father’s objective does not the statement of the teacher breathe new life into that of the father”? Instead of understanding thus, if the boy were to conclude,’ Either my teacher has condemned my father, Of my father has told me an outright lie’, it would be utterly wrong on his part. Similarly, Sri Bhagavan has neither condemned the sastras, nor shown them to be false; nor have the sastras stated untruths. If any reader were to come to this mistaken conclusion about Sri Bhagavan, ‘he would be just as much wrong as would have been the boy in our story.

Secondly: In’ Kaivalya Navanitham’, which is a standard non-dualistic work (jnana-sastra) in Tamil, it is stated, “For the jnani, the fruits of the accumulated past actions which are to bear fruit in future births (sanchita karma) are burnt up by the fire of knowledge (jnana); the good and bad fruits of the actions done in this birth (agamya karma) are nullified by their being taken up by those who praise Him and blame Him respectively (i.e. by those who do good or harm to Him through thought, word or deed); and only the remaining third karma, that portion of the past 83 36 Rafer to appendix one (b), ‘ Who is Jnani?’, verse 10, actions which are to give fruit in this present birth (prarabdha karma), is to be experienced by Him for the duration of His body, and it will end only with the death of His body:” 

But Sri Bhagavan gives His verdict: 

“To say that Sanchita and agamya will not adhere to a Jnani, but that prarabdha does remain (to be experienced by Him) Is only a (superficial) reply to the questions of others, Just as none of the wives will remain unwidowed when the husband dies, so all the three karmas will be extinguished when the doer (the ego) dies, Thus should you know !” 

‘Ulladhu Narpadhu – Anubandham’, verse 33

It has been pointed out by Sri Bhagavan that the statement of the jnana sastras that prarabdha remains for a Jnani is ‘only a reply to the questions, of others’! Now, to whom does Sri Bhagavan refer as ‘others’? Only to the ignorant (those who are in a similar state of delusion as the boy in our story) who, not being able to grasp that ‘jnana itself is the jnani; He is not a human form’36, see the jnani (jnana, the bodiless) as one who has a body – as a body form, that is, as an individual! Such people will be repeatedly asking, “How does the Jnani walk, how does He talk, how does He work?” and so on and so forth; and for them it is something new and incomprehensible how at all it is possible to have an existence other than the ‘I am the body’ – identification! Therefore, referring to these people as ‘others’, Sri Bhagavan explains that only such a reply has to be given to them. However, to those mature aspirants (mumukshus) who came to Him with the courage to know the final truth as it is – since they alone truly belong to Him – Sri Bhagavan lays bare the truth, without concealing anything, in the second half of the verse:” ...Just as none of the wives will remain unwidowed when the husband dies, so all the three karmas will be extinguished when the doer (the ego) dies, Thus should you know!”, If a man has three wives and dies, all the three wives will be widowed; none of them will be missed out. Similarly, as soon as the one who has done the karmas (i.e. the sense of doership – kartritva) dies in true knowledge (jnana), all the fruits of the three karmas come to an end since the experiencer (i.e. the sense of experiencership37-bhoktritva) is no longer alive. How can it then be said that Sri Bhagavan has criticized or contradicted ‘Kaivalya Navanitham’? Sri Bhagavan’s statement is certainly not a condemnation, since in the first half of the verse He clearly explains the reason why it is so said in ‘Kaivalya Navanitham’ !

The difference between the mode of teaching of Bhagavan Sri Ramana and that of the sastras lies in the fundamental out-look given to us as the base from which we are to follow their teachings. That is why, whenever aspirants who were practising sadhanas. learnt from the sastras asked Sri Bhagavan about their sadhanas, which they thought to be real tapas, Sri Bhagavan replied with ‘the sole intention of changing the fundamental outlook given to them by the sastras! Those mature disciples who had a sharp and clear intellect were able to grasp at once the intention of the Sadguru and engaged themselves in enquiring into their wrong outlook, ‘ I am the body’ (jiva bhava); thus they became intensely still, since they no The Enquiry, ‘Who Am I?’ and The Four Yogas 86 The Path of Sri Ramana – Part One 38 These are the people referred to as ‘others’ in ‘Ulladhu Narpadhu – Anubandham’, verse 33, quoted on page 82. longer made efforts in the sadhanas they had been doing in the name of tapas and since they stopped asking questions to clear their doubts about them. This stillness was indeed the peace which we often hear described as being the experience of many aspirants newly coming into the presence of Sri Bhagavan. However, only those earnest aspirants who made use of this stillness and dived deep within by attending to Self more and more intensely, made eternal peace their own. But those who failed to understand that Sri Bhagavan’s intention was to change their fundamental outlook were repeatedly raising the same type of questions to clear their doubts about what they had learnt from the sastras, which lent support to their wrong outlook, ‘I am the body’. Seeing the bewilderment of those who could not come to His path and taking pity on them,38 even Sri Bhagavan would on some occasions reply to their doubts in the sastraic terminology itself, as if like the sastras He too were accepting the false sense ‘I am the body’ as the base. Therefore, such replies can never be the direct teaching of Sri Bhagavan! If one has carefully studied the various books, both in prose and poetry (such as ‘ Sri Ramana Gita’, , Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi’, ‘Day by Day with Bhagavan’, ‘Maharshi’s Gospel’ and so on), in which some of the conversations of devotees with Sri Bhagavan were recorded, from the early days when it was found that He was not keeping silence and was talking with devotees till the very end of His life, it will now be clear why such questions were asked and why Sri Bhagavan gave such replies.

Is it not evident from this that not only did Sri Bhagavan Himself always unshakably remain under all circumstances in His true state, Self-consciousness, but that He also instructed those devotees who wholly relied upon Him against their giving even the least room to the wrong identification ‘I am the body’ (dehatma-buddhi)? That is why the teaching of Sri Ramana has a special greatness of its own, with a revolutionary character, and shines over the various methods of spiritual practice so far followed by us as the true, unique, clear and rational one ! But some among us, due to lack of sraddha39, often raise the fallowing objection:

 “Unless the mind first becomes mature by means of yogic practices and thereby gains strength, will it be fit to take to Self-enquiry? Will it not wander as thought-waves?”

 But in fact it is not so! 

Concerning this, Sri Bhagavan has given clear instructions in His prose work ‘Who am I’, where He explains: “If other thoughts arise, see to whom they arise. ‘To me’ will be the answer; [this, me’ will remind you of the ‘I’-consciousness]. Then the mind can return immediately to Self. attention, ‘Who am I’. By repeatedly practising thus, the strength of the mind to abide in its source increases.” 

The power which the mind derives from other spiritual practices is not that power which is required to abide in its source! 

Repetition of holy names (japa), meditation (dhyana), concentration on anyone of the six yogic centres in the body (the shadchakras pointed out in raja yoga). concentration on a divine effulgence (jyoti) or sound (nada) – in all these practices the mind is only made to attend to some alien object (a second or third person). 

The strength of mind acquired by training it to catch hold of anyone of the aforesaid alien objects is not the genuine strength of mind which is favourable for Self--knowledge.

 Being unfavourable, rather than calling it ‘strength of mind’, it would be more appropriate to call it ‘lack of strength of mind’ 

(uran inmai – the original Tamil words of Sri Bhagavan in ‘Ulladhu Narpadhu’, verse 32)! 

Let us suppose a man buys a cow and for various reasons keeps it tied up in another man’s shed for quite some days. When the owner one day tries to bring the cow to its own shed after it has become accustomed – through force of habit (abhyasa bala) – to its former surroundings, will it come to its own place and keep quiet? No, it will run back to the other man’s shed. So any intelligent farmer buying a new cow will train it to remain in its own shed by tying it only there. 

Similarly  aspirants who have developed mental strength by concentrating on second and third person objects (which are other than Self) struggle and find it difficult even to understand what Self-attention – knowing one’s own existence – is, and how to take the feeling of one’s own existence as the target !

 It is often said, “Let me first gain strength of mind by training it in other practices, and then let me take to Self-enquiry”; but it is the experience of anyone who has trained his mind in other practices over a long period of time that such a mind is still weaker to turn Self wards than even an ordinary mind untrained in any other practice.

Let us takes an example the experience of Sri Ganapati Sastri, who is renowned as Ganapati Muni and who is considered to be one of the important disciples of Sri Bhagavan, There was no one who excelled him in doing japa. He had performed japa by the crores. He was even proclaimed by his own ‘disciples to be ‘Mantreswara’, the Lord of mantras, and he refers to himself as such in ‘Sri Ramana Gita’ (chapter 18, verse 15). He had also developed some wonderful mental powers such as asukavitvam (the ability to compose extempore verses on any given subject) and satavadhanam (the ability to attend to a hundred things at the same time). 

Yet he often used to say, “I can even go to Indra-loka and say what Indra is doing, but I cannot go within and find the source of ‘I’. Sri Bhagavan Himself also remarked on a number of occasions’40 “Nayana (Ganapati Muni) used to say, ‘It is easy for me to send the mind forward but impossible for me to make it go backward, that is, to turn it inward. I can go forward (that is, towards second and third persons) any distance at any speed, but I find it difficult to take even one step backward (that is, towards the first person)’.”

What can we infer from this? The subtle points about the results of japa will be clear only to those who actually take to practising it with utmost earnestness and sincerity, and not to those who merely argue, ‘Japa will help one to do Self-enquiry’. Sri Ganapati Muni was one who truly immersed himself in the practice of japa for many years and who had best experience of it, so does not his experience clearly prove that what we have said above is correct?

In this connection some ask, “When the truth is such, why did Sri Bhagavan say in ‘ Who am I’,’ By meditation upon forms of God (murti-dhyana) and by repetition of sacred words (mantra-japa), thoughts subside more and more, and for the mind which thus gains one-pointedness and strength, Self-enquiry will easily be attained’? Therefore, will not Self-enquiry become easy for those who do japa or dhyana ?”

We should scrutinize deeply what is actually meant in the work ‘Who am I?’. Since the perpetually wandering mind expands into innumerable thoughts, each thought becomes extremely weak. Just as when an iron chain is given to the restless trunk of an elephant, the elephant will cling fast only to that and will not do any mischief with its trunk, so if the mind is trained to hold on to anyone of the names or forms of God, it will gain one-pointedness, that is, the strength to cling to one thing only. In this way, the mind merely loses the nature of branching out into many thoughts.

108

There are two kinds of impediments which act as obstacles for the mind to achieve Self-abidance, and hence two kinds of strength of mind are essential for overcoming them. The first strength is that which is required to prevent the mind from branching out into innumerable thoughts through the force of tendencies towards sense-objects (vishaya-vasanas). 

The second strength is that which is required to direct the mind (the power of attention) towards the first person or Self, that is, the strength actually to attend to Self. By practices such as repetition (japa) and meditation (dhyana), only the strength to be free from the first impediment, that is, from the tendencies towards sense objects, is obtained. But for a mind which engages in Self attention from the very beginning, both kinds of requisite strength are naturally cultivated. Though through japa and dhyana the mind achieves the strength not to branch out into many thoughts and thereby become weak, it is still dwelling only upon a second person. Thus the practice of japa or dhyana develops the power of the mind to cling with great attachment only to one second person or another. In this way, the second great impediment, namely the inability to turn the mind from second persons to the first person is unknowingly increased. Therefore, when such a mind is to turn Self wards, it will find it to be a very difficult task. This is the truth we have to learn from the personal experience of Sri Ganapati Muni. Let us now explain with a simile how acquiring the power of one-pointedness of mind through such practices as japa and dhyana becomes a great obstacle to Self-attention.

Let us suppose that a certain man has decided to go by cycle from Tiruvannamalai to Vellore, a town fifty miles north of Tiruvannamalai, but does not know the art of cycling. If he trains himself to cycle by practising along the road leading to Tirukoilur, a town twenty miles south of Tiruvannamalai, after many hours he will have learnt the skill of cycling. But he will now be twenty miles south of Tiruvannamalai, that is, seventy miles away from Vellore, his destination. So will he not now have to make far more effort and waste far more time in order to reach Vellore? Instead of this, if he had from the very beginning started to train himself to cycle by practising along the road towards Vellore, after the same number of hours he would have travelled twenty miles closer to Vellore. Besides. since he would have learnt the skill of cycling by that time, he could have easily completed the remaining thirty miles and reached his destination without undue expenditure of time and effort.

What happens when one practises japa and dhyana is similar to what happened when the man practised cycling along the road to Tirukoilur. Since the strength acquired through japa and dhyana is cultivated in an opposite direction, that is, towards a second person, are they not activities which lead one far away from Self-attention? On the other hand, if one practises Self-attention from the very beginning, that will be similar to the man starting to practise cycling along the road to Vellore. 

Since Self-attention, which is Self-enquiry, thus avoids all unnecessary efforts and directly bestows Self attainment, Sri Bhagavan has said in verse 4 of ‘Atmavidya Kirtanam’, 

“Of all paths, this path (Self-enquiry) is the easiest”, 

and in verse 17 of ‘Upadesa Undhiyar’,

 “This is the direct path for all”.

Since the practice of japa or dhyana prevents the mind from branching out into various thoughts pertaining to sense-objects and thereby becoming weak, Sri Bhagavan said in ‘Who am I?’ that they give strength to the mind.

 But He said so taking into consideration only one benefit, namely that of saving the mind from the calamity of branching out into innumerable thoughts caused by the tendencies towards sense-objects (vishaya-vasanas). Moreover, the strength mentioned thereby, Sri Bhagavan is not that strength which is required for Self-enquiry and which He had mentioned earlier in the work ‘Who am I?’ when He wrote,

 “By repeatedly practising thus, the strength of the mind to abide (or dwell) in its source increases”. 

It is only a strength to dwell upon an object other than Self, that is, upon a second person. 

Readers should understand that what is pointed out here, in this book, is that for those who want and strive for only Self-attainment, this kind of strength obtained through japa and dhyana is nothing but a hindrance.

The help towards success in Self-enquiry which is derived from japa and dhyana is similar to the help in reaching Vellore which is gained by learning cycling along the road to Tirukoilur, for just as in the long run practising cycling on the road to Tirukoilur may be an indirect aid towards reaching Vellore, so in the long run practising japa and dhyana may be an indirect aid towards attaining Self.

Likewise, the hindrance towards success in Self-enquiry which is created by japa and dhyana is similar to the hindrance which is created by learning cycling along the road to Tirukoilur, for, just as practising cycling on the road to Tirukoilur takes the man far away from his destination, so practising japa and dhyana hinders one by taking one far away from Self.

Gaining the power of one-pointedness of mind is here compared to gaining skill in the art of cycling. This power of one-pointedness is a wonderful weapon which, like a sharp knife, fire or nuclear power; may do good or harm, depending on how it is used. A sharp knife may be used either to kill a person or, in a surgical operation, to save his life. In the same way, fire and nuclear power can be used either for constructive or destructive purposes.

 Similarly, the power of one-pointedness cultivated in one through practices such as japa and dhyana may do one either good or harm. If one is fond of occult powers (siddhis) or sensual pleasures, he can” use this power of one-pointedness in a very subtle and skilful way in order to achieve them. Since the power of one-pointedness gained through japa and dhyana is only a one-pointedness on a second person, that is since it is an extroverted one-pointedness, it will induce the aspirant to proceed only towards the non-Self 

 induce the aspirant to proceed only towards the non-Self. Only if he has a good discrimination between the eternal and the ephemeral (nitya anitya vastu viveka) and if he is then able to change his course from second person attention to first person attention, will such a power of one-pointedness lead him to Self-enquiry and, after long and strenuous efforts (just like the long and strenuous efforts which the man who learnt cycling on the road to Tirukoilur had to make in order to travel all the seventy miles to Vellore), enable him to gain Self abidance, which is the attainment of true knowledge (jnana). However, do we not see that aspirants on the spiritual path who are doing japa and dhyana are generally inclined only towards gaining occult powers, name and fame, and other such transitory pleasures? 

Therefore, we should understand the truth that the power of one pointedness gained through japa or dhyana is anyway dangerous and that it would hence be wise to gain the power of one-pointedness by practising Self-attention instead from the very beginning.

It is of course essential to achieve one-pointedness of mind. Even while doing japa or dhyana, it is necessary to make effort to bring back repeatedly the power of attention (the mind) from wandering over other thoughts and to fix it on only one thought. The same amount of effort is also needed while practising Self-attention in order to bring back the wandering mind and to fix it in our existence consciousness. Thus in both kind of practice, an earnest effort is needed to obtain one-pointedness of mind. When this is so, why should not an aspirant obtain it by practising Self-attention, which is free of all danger, from the very beginning? The following incident which happened in the presence of Sri Bhagavan will cast more light upon this point.

After sitting for some time in His presence, a devotee asked Sri Bhagavan, “Bhagavan, I am not able to do Self enquiry. I find it difficult. Shall I do dhyana instead ?” “All right”, replied Sri Bhagavan. Soon afterwards the devotee left the hall, whereupon Sri Bhagavan turned to those near Him and said, “He says that Self-enquiry is difficult for him and that he cannot do it, so he asks me for permission to do dhyana. How can I compel him to do Self-enquiry when he himself says that he cannot do it? So when he wants to do dhyana, I have to say ‘All right’. He may come tomorrow and say, ‘Bhagavan, my mind does not remain in dhyana, so shall I do japa?’ Again I will have to say ‘All right’. In the same manner, he will one day complain, ‘My mind does not remain quietly in japa. Only my tongue spells the mantra, but my mind wanders on many things. Shall I do worship (puja), recite hymns (stotras ! and so on?’ What else can I do except to say All right, all right’ in reply to each and every complaint? If one is able to make a sincere effort to practise anything, whether recitation of hymns, japa, dhyana or any other sadhana, one can, with the same effort, practise Self-enquiry !

All these complaints are made only by those who do not earnestly like to do any sadhana, that’s all.

 What is essential in any sadhana is to try to bring back the running mind and fix it on one thing only’. Why then should it not be brought back and fixed in Self-attention? That alone is Self-enquiry (alma-vichara). 

That is all that is to be done! 

Even in the Bhagavad Gita it is said: 

Sanais sanai rupa ramed buddhya dhriti grihi taya Atma samstham manah kritva nakim chidapi chinta yet which means, 

‘By means of an extremely courageous intellect (power of discrimination), make the mind motionless little by little; fix the mind firmly in Self (atman) and never think of any other thing’ 

(chapter 6, verse 25),

 and: Yato yato nis charati manas chanchalam asthi ram Tatas tato niyam yaitad atman yeva vasam nayet which means, 

‘Towards whatever thing the unsteady mind wanders, from each thing pull it back, fix it always in Self and make it firmly abide there’ (chapter 6, verse 26)

Even concentrating on thoughts such as ‘I am Brahman’ (aham brahmasmi), which is considered to be the highest form of meditation (dhyana), has been described by Sri Bhagavan as being ‘due to lack of strength’ (uran inmaiyinal) in verse 32 of ‘Ulladhu Narpadhu’ !

 Therefore, what the mind gains by taking as targets second or third persons, which are the objects of japa, dhyana and so on, is not really strength, but only weakness! Can a racehorse accustomed to forward gallop be useful in drawing water from wells, where a backward movement of the horse is indispensable? No, it will be of no use!

115 

Only that practice of Self-attention which Sri Bhagavan referred to in ‘Who am I?’ when He wrote, “By repeatedly practising thus, the strength of the mind to abide in its source increases”, is the right sadhana which will give the mind the real requisite strength!

 Those aspirants who came to Sri Bhagavan with a mind not already spoilt by being trained towards targets other than Self, a mind with no trace of lethargy, with immense eagerness, and with a spirit of unquestioning obedience like that of children, directly turned their mind to the practice of Self-attention in the form of ‘Who am I?’ as soon as they came to Sri Bhagavan and thereby gained the real requisite strength mentioned above. 

They were therefore able to proclaim from their own experience, “Ah! Knowing Self is the easiest thing! Indeed, it is the easiest!”

Although the enquiry ‘Who am I?’ is thus able to give the real strength of mind which is required to gain Self-knowledge (to say the truth, only Self-enquiry, and not any of the other sadhanas, can give this requisite strength), a wrong idea exists and is, spreading even among us,44 the

devotees of Sri Bhagavan, that the path of Self-enquiry is difficult while the other methods, japa, dhyana, yoga and so on, are easy. Let us see how far from true this contention is ! Now, what is the opinion of Sri Bhagavan on this subject ? Let us turn to His own words:

 “...of all paths, this path is the easiest! ” ’Atmavidya Kirtanam’, verse 4 “

... this is the direct path for all !” ‘Upadesa Undhiyar’, verse 17

Thus it is clear that Sri Bhagavan’s opinion is that this path of Self-enquiry is not merely the easiest of all paths, but that it is also the easiest and most direct for all aspirants.

 Some of us, instead of trying to understand, ‘Why did Sri Bhagavan say so ? Can there be a justification for His opinion? If so, what is it?’, remark evasively, “Ah, it is easy only for Bhagavan, but it is difficult for others,” and they

become disheartened and lose courage. In order not to lose this courage, since it is the sraddha which alone will secure us the goal, let us try to find the justification in support of the opinion of Sri Bhagavan.

...

notes:

‘Mey Tava Vilakkam’ verse 68, “What is declared by others as ‘ difficult, indeed difficult’ is tremendously easy for the devotees of our Lord (Ramana)!”, the reader can well understand who among those pointed out by the word ‘us’ are the true devotees of Sri Bhagavan, and who are those’ others’. 45 “To unfasten the bonds of karma and so on, end to achieve the destruction of birth and so on, of all paths, this path is the easiest ! If we remain still (that is, if we merely ‘be’), without the least action of mind, speech and body, oh what a wonder it will be I The Self effulgence in the heart will be (known as) the ever-present experience, all fear will cease and the ocean of bliss (will surge) !” ‘Atmavidya Kirtanam’, verse 4 It should be noted here that in describing His path, Sri Bhagavan uses the superlative ‘the easiest’. In other paths, some work or other is prescribed to be done through the mind, speech or body, and hence one may experience some difficulty in using these instruments. But, as no work is given to them in the way of sadhana in the path of Selfenquiry, this is ‘the easiest of all path’!

....

What do we mean when we say that a thing is ‘difficult’ or that is ‘easy’? In fact, what is difficult and what is easy? that which we do not like, that which we cannot do, that which we do not know – that alone we call difficult. That which we already like (ichcha), that which we have already done (kriya), and that which we already know (jnana) – that alone we call easy. We therefore come to the following conclusion: those experiences which are already within our power of loving (ichcha sakti), power of doing (kriya sakti) and power of knowing (jnana sakti) are easy. while those experiences which are not already within our power of loving, power of doing and power of knowing are difficult. This indeed is the correct definition of what is difficult and what is easy. With this definition, let us now see which of these two is easy: the efforts required for the various spiritual practices like japa, dhyana, yoga and so on, or the effort required for Self-enquiry

As we have already said; the efforts made in the paths of japa, dhyana, yoga and so on, are nothing but an attention towards second and third person objects, whereas the effort made in the Self-enquiry taught by Sri Bhagavan is an attention towards the first person.

For the practice of japa, dhyana or any of the four yogas, it is necessary to use the power of one-pointedness of mind on second and third person objects; using the mind’s power in such a way is mere extroversion (bahirmukham).

But for Self-enquiry, it is necessary to use the power of one-pointedness of mind in attending to focusing on – the first person, so this alone is the real introversion (antarmukham). 

A little analysis will reveal that for every one of us (even for the most ordinary man), the experiences of loving (ichcha), doing (kriya) and knowing (jnana) towards the first person are not only inherent but also greater than those towards the second and third person objects. Let us see how.

A little analysis will reveal that for every one of us (even for the most ordinary man), the experiences of loving (ichcha), doing (kriya) and knowing (jnana) towards the first person are not only inherent but also greater than those towards the second and third person objects. Let us see how.

Suppose either our parents or some elders have initiated us into some name or form of God or a sacred mantra like gayatri. Before baing initiated. we did not know those mantras, dhayanas or forms of God. Thus, only after being instructed do we come to know about them, that is, the experience of knowing that there are such mantras, dhyanas and so on is newly acquired by us. In the same way, it is only after hearing from a guru of the greatness, uniqueness and power of such japas or dhyanas that we gain faith and love for them. This is for us a newly acquired experience of loving, in other words, we did not love them before. Similarly, we have never before done those mantra japas or meditations, nor cultivated those feelings of relationship with God. We are able to do japa properly – to pronounce the mantra in the correct way, to raise or lower

the pitch and to stop at the right place – only after repeating it many times in the presence of the guru and after carrying out his corrections and suggestions. This is for us a newly acquired experience of doing, in other words, we had not done it before. The same applies to meditation, pranayama, hatha yoga, raja yoga and so on. Thus, is it not proved that the experiences of loving, doing and knowing pertaining to all these spiritual practices based upon second and third person objects did not exist for us before but are newly acquired by us ?

On the other hand the experiences of loving, doing and knowing pertaining to the first person are already there, inherent in us, without the need of their being kindled by others! How? In chapter two, pages 42 to 44, we have already clearly proved that in everyone the love for oneself is always and naturally far greater than that for second and third person objects. Thus, firstly, the experience of loving (ichchanubhava) oneself is proved’ to be inherent in us. Secondly, every day in sleep we are able to separate ourself easily, effortlessly and naturally from the feeling ‘I am the body’, which is not ‘we’. This ability of thus separating ourself proves that the experience of remaining (kriyanubhava) as Self is inherent in us. Thirdly, let us suppose that a person Is sitting alone In an absolutely dark room where he cannot see even his own body. If someone asks from outside the room, “Is my book near you ?”, he replies, “I do not know of its existence”, But if asked, “Do you exist !’, quick comes his reply, “Why, certainly I exist!”. He is able to know his own existence by his Self-light (Self consciousness) even when he does not have the help of the light which is necessary to know the existence of second and third person objects. Moreover, since everyone has the

experience of the knowledge ‘I am’ even in deep sleep47, where the body and mind do not exist, it is evident that the knowledge of our own existence is inherent in us, whereas the knowledge of second and third person objects is not.

These two examples prove that the experience of knowing (jnananubhava) one’s own existence is inherent even in the most ordinary man

If Sri Bhagavan advises us to like a thing for which we do not already have a liking, we may say it is difficult. If He asks us to know a thing so far’ un-known to us, we may then say it is difficult. If He wants us to be in a state which we have not reached before and thereby have not experienced before, then it may be considered difficult. But since we have come to know thus – that the experiences of loving, of doing and of knowing are already clear and inherent in us only with regard to the first person, when viewed in the light ot the above. mentioned definition of ‘easy’ and difficult’, one can plainly see that the effort made in the path of Self-enquiry, which is an attention towards the first person, is far easier than that made in japa, dhyana, yoga and so on, which are nothing but attention towards second and third person objects. Such indeed is the justification in support of the sayings of Sri Bhagavan. “Of all paths. this path is’ the easiest ?” and, “This is the direct path for all!”, it was in this connection that Sri Bhagavan used to say repeatedly, “Self is here and now, and ever -attained”. By saying, “This is the direct path for all”, Sri Bhagavan points out that anyone, however weak his mind may be, can acquire through this path that true strength of mind which is required to abide

in one’s source. Therefore, taking to Self-attention (ahamukham), which is the real introversion (antar-mukham), is by itself far better than giving any other target to the mind – such is the unique greatness of Sri Bhagavan’s teaching !

103

“Except (the effort made in) the path of enquiring in to the ego, no amount of effort made as enjoined in other paths such as karma, (yoga and so on,) will enable you to obtain and enjoy’ Self, the treasure in the heart !” ‘Guru Vachaka Koval’, verse 885 

Moreover, can God be one of the second or third person objects? No, He cannot be ! Because,

 “The second and third persons live only because of the root, the first person (the ego) .. .” ‘Atma Vichara Patikam”, verse 648

 “Only if that first person (the ego) in the form ‘I am the body’ exists, will the second and third persons exist...” ‘Ulladhu Narpadhu’, verse 14 “If there is no ‘I’-thought, no other thing will exist …” ‘Sri Arunachala Ashtakam’, verse 7

- such is the experience of Sri Bhagavan. That is, for their existence the second and third persons have to depend upon the first person (the false ego), which rises in the form of a thought, ‘I am this body’. Therefore, if God were one of the second or third persons, He would have to depend upon the grace of the ego for His existence! Now if God, who is the very form of existence (sat), had to depend upon

something else for His existence, then would it not mean that He is devoid of Godhood? Thus, God can never be one of the second or third persons, He must then certainly exist and shine as the source of and base for the rising of this false first person, that is, as the reality (the real aspect) of the first person. Since God or Brahman is thus always shining as the reality of ‘I’, giving the mind the practice of attending to Self is the only true seeking of God and the only effective yoga. Hence, Self-attention is the true God attention! 

“O Bhagavan, meditating upon You is nothing other than contemplating ‘I’,

 Contemplating ‘I’ is nothing other than remaining without thought, 

Remaining without thought is nothing other than being vigilantly attentive not to rise as ‘I’, 

But why even attend, when my very existence (sat) is itself attention (chit) ?” 

‘Sri Ramana Sahasram’, verse 990

.................

123 chp 6 who am i is not soham bhavana

...............

“...Since we are ever That, why should we for ever be meditating that we are That? Does a man meditate ‘I am a man’ ?” Ulladhu Narpadhu “ verse 36

Thus, the meditations’ I am He’, ‘I am Brahman’, ‘I am That’ (soham, aham brahmasmi, tat aham) and the like are nothing but activities of the mind – pravrittis. But for Self realization, this mind must be destroyed without leaving a trace. By engaging in such meditations, the mind will live for any number of ages, because activity is the food on which and by which the mind lives. It is only the attention to second and third persons that nourishes the mind. Therefore, since the mind is not annihilated by the meditations such as ‘I am He’ it will be kept alive for ever either by doing these meditations or by’ lapsing into quiescence (laya) whenever it is totally exhausted by such activities. Hence, because they do not bring about the annihilation of the mind, these meditations cannot be the Self-enquiry taught by Sri Bhagavan, which destroys the mind once and for all.

 “...Other than this, meditating ‘am not this, I am That’ may be (in some way) an aid, but can it itself be the enquiry ?” ‘Ulladhu Narpadhu’,. verse 28 

– thus asks Sri Bhagavan! How these meditations may be an aid, but cannot themselves be the enquiry’ will be explained in the appropriate place at the end of this chapter.

129

Sri Bhagavan does not take these meditations to be Self–enquiry. Self-attention in the form ‘Who am I ?’ alone is the teaching of Sri Ramana. The method of enquiry of Sri Ramana is an attention intensely fixed on the first person, ‘What is this I?’, rather than meditating ‘I am this’ or ‘I am that’, Knowing well that any activity given to the mind in the form of an attention to the second and third persons (like japa, dhyana, etc.) will not destroy it, and in order to fulfill the aim of the mahavakyas, Sri Bhagavan breathes a new life into the sastras by means of His teaching, ‘Who am I?’. A revelation which was not disclosed before now through the sastras and which is essential for an aspirant to be able to practise Self-enquiry without losing his way, has now been added to the world of sastras by Sri Bhagavan. What is this revelation? The mind is destroyed only when it turns towards the first person!

“To think of second and third persons is sheer foolishness, for by thinking of second and third persons the mental activities (mano-vrittis) will wax. (On the other hand) attending to the first person is equal to committing suicide, for only by enquiring into the first person will the ego itself die.” ‘Atma vichara Patikam’, verse 7

132

Only those pandits who have mastered the mere letter of the ancient sastras, but have never experienced even a fringe of the bliss of Self through the Self-enquiry taught there, can speak in such a way, since they do not know the unique greatness of the clue discovered and given to the world by Sri Ramana, the Sadguru 

The consciousness ‘I am’ when felt along with an adjunct (upadhi) as ‘I am so-and-so’ becomes a thought. Of all thoughts, this thought is the first. But the consciousness which shines alone as ‘I-I’ without any adjunct is Self (atman) or the Absolute (brahman). This is not a thought. It is our ‘being’ (that is, our true existence)53. Therefore, the purpose of the mahavakya ‘I am Brahman” taught by the sastras is to give us a prior information about the final experience that Brahman is our pure existence, and not to convert Brahman into one of our thoughts. Thus, ‘I am Brahman’ is only a prior intimation of our true state, which we are yet to reach. Can our existence, which is beyond

thought, be reached by thought? Since it cannot be thought of, to put an end to the rising of the ‘I’ – thought through the enquiry ‘Who am I ?’ (i,e. through Self-attention’ and to abide as what remains after is the true implementation of the mahavakya ‘I am Brahman’.

“...Since the Reality (‘I’) exists within, beyond thought, who can and how to meditate upon that Reality, which is called the Heart? To abide in the Heart as It is (that is, without thought) is truly meditating (upon It) I Thus should you know.” ‘Ulladhu Narpadhu’, benedictory verse 1

Until one gains the true experience of Brahman (Brahman-bhava), in whatever way one may meditate on Brahman, it will only be a thought about a second or third person, But instead, if one simply meditates ‘I, I’, since it is a first person attention, the ‘I’ thought which has thus started to meditate will drown in its source and lose its form and separate existence, just like the stick used for stirring the funeral pyre and like the reflection of the sun directed from a mirror towards the sun itself. Thus, If one takes to meditating ‘I am Siva’ (sivoham) or ‘I am He’ (soham) and so on, the ego will wax and grow strong54, whereas if one attends to Self, ‘Who am I ?’, the ego will die. That is why Bhagavan Sri Ramana did not teach ‘I am He’ (soham) as practice (sadhana).

If some particulars about a town which we want to reach have been given to us beforehand, they will be a good aid; similarly, the prior information (given to us by the mahavakya, such as ‘I am Brahman’) that our final reality is Brahman may be a good aid, but can it be the

practice – the enquiry itself? No, it cannot ! How? Studying the particulars about the town, reading them repeatedly to learn them by heart and meditating upon them can never be the journey to that place: the same is the case with the mahavakyas !

 This is exactly what Sri Bhagavan meant when he wrote:

 “…meditating ‘I am not this, I am That’ may be (in some way) an aid, but can it itself be the enquiry ?” ‘Ulladhu Narpadhu’, verse 29 

and: “...meditating ‘We are That’ may be a good aid for (reminding) us to abide as Self...” 

‘Ulladhu Narpadhu’, verse 36 

Therefore, the path of enquiry, ‘Who am I?’ is not the meditation upon the mahavakyas such as ‘I am He’. 

137

 The reason why the meditation ‘I am He’ was prescribed was to remove this ignorance and to help the aspirant gain full faith in the words of this mahavakya and thereby to give him the firm conviction ‘God is indeed the reality of the first person’

The strength of such conviction is the strength of meditation (bhava bala) referred to in verse 9. 

However, why take to this round-about path to gain the conviction that God or Brahman is the reality of the first person ! Since the ritualists in the Daruka forest were stranded on a dead-end route, they had to be led only through such a roundabout path by Lord Siva. 

But, as soon as we hear the instruction of Sri Bhagavan in verse 14 of ‘Ulladhu Narpadhu’, 

“Only if the first person exists, will the second and third persons exist”, 

why not we at once be convinced,

 ‘The second and third persons live only because of the root, the first person’57, and turn directly towards Self ? 

In order to bring back ultimately those aspirants who do not come to His path but direct their efforts towards second and third persons, Sri Bhagavan recommended this as the best of all the ancient methods of meditation since, as a prior information, it acts as an aid for the aspirants to turn that attention towards the first person

n. Suppose the owner of the cow which is tied in the other man’s shed comes many times to pet it and feed it, thus making it familiar and acquainted with him, the cow will develop the conviction that he is its master; then, after it has gained the strength f conviction (bhava bala) that he is its master, when he brings it to its own shed it will agree to stay there only because of its prior familiarity with him. The simile of the wasp and the grub58 mentioned in ‘the sastras is meant only to illustrate the process by which the aspirant gains this strength of conviction during his practice. It should not be taken to mean that the individual soul becomes Brahman through thinking – because the state of Brahman is not a thing to be newly created from some other thing (as a wasp is created from a grub). It is our natural state, undergoing no change.

“This existence (i.e. Brahman) – Thy Feet, O Ramana – is not a thing to go and unite with another thing, not a thing to become another thing, not a thing to be bored of, not a thing to be destroyed, not a thing to rise and set on any account !...” ‘Sri Ramana Sahasram’, verse 233

 Therefore, would it be in accordance with the eternal nature of the perfect state of Brahman to say that something can newly become That? 

“Even the contention held that there is duality during practice and non-duality after attainment is not true…” ‘Ulladhu Narpadhu’, verse 37

After the conviction 'My true existence-consciousness is God or Brahman’ has been well stabilized in an aspirant through the strength of such meditation, at an opportune moment the knowledge ‘Do I not always exist! Why then should I meditate in order to exist ?’ will flash, and thus his attention will be drawn back all of a sudden and fixed on his existence-consciousness. This Self-attention is exactly the technique of Self-enquiry. Since through this Self attention the meditation ‘I am Brahman’ has now become unnecessary; the aspirant remains in his true existence, ‘I am’ (aham asmi), which is the state of thought free consciousness; this is what is mentioned in verse 9. At any rate, what has to take place finally in the aspirant is Self attention, which is the Self-enquiry taught by Sri Bhagavan. This love towards Self (swatma-bhakti) is the very nature of supreme devotion (parabhokti tattva, as mentioned in verse 9), and that is liberation.

d that is liberation. Then from verse 16 to 29 Sri Bhagavan expounds the path of knowledge. Even here, a subtle difference should be noted between the way of teaching of the sastras and that of Sri Bhagavan. First, in verses 16 to 20, Sri Bhagavan explains clearly the method of doing the enquiry ‘Who am I ?’ (attending to Self). Then, after giving us the understanding in verse 2159 that the real Thing denoted by the word ‘I’ is Self itself, He asserts His verdict that, since the truth of ‘I’ is Self: 

“The body, prana, mind, Intellect end the darkness of ignorance – all these (five sheaths), being insentient (jada) and non-existent (asat), are not ‘I’, that which exists (sat).’ ‘Upadesa Undhiyar’, verse 22

In ancient sastras the process of Self-enquiry is described as negating the five sheaths as ‘not I, not I’ (neti, neti). However, aspirants struggle not knowing how to do so. That is why Sri Bhagavan first gives us (in verses 16 to 20) the technique of attending to Self, which is the means to know what ‘I’ really is,’ then He points out in verse 22 that negating the five sheaths is the outcome of knowing the real ‘I’, He thus implies that attending to ‘I’, Self, is itself the method of negating the five sheaths, the non- Self.

 Hence, in ‘Upadesa Undhiyar’ Sri Bhagavan has amended the path of knowledge (jnana marga) by rearranging the back-to-front process described in ancient sastras into a new and practical order – that is, that which was given as the practice (neti, neti) is now pointed out to be the result I. Thus, from verse 16 to 29, Sri Bhagavan teaches that the enquiry ‘Who am I?’ is the correct path of knowledge, and concludes ‘Upadesa Undhiyar’ by declaring in verse 30 that the only right tapas is to know and remain in Self, and not anything else.

..........

141 Self Enquiry

............

On hearing the expression ‘Self-enquiry’ (atmavichara), people generally take it to mean either enquiring into Self or enquiring about Self. But how to do so? Who is to enquire into Self, or who is to enquire about Self? What does enquiry actually mean? Such questions naturally arise, do they not? As soon as we hear the terms ‘Atma-vlchara’ or ‘Brahma--vichara’, many of us naturally consider that there is some sort of effulgence or a formless power within our body and that we are going to find out what it is, where it is, and how it is. This idea is not correct. Because, Self (atman) does not exist as an object to be known by us who seek to know it ! Since Self shines as the very nature of him who tries to know it! Self-enquiry does not mean enquiring into a second or third person object. It is in order to make us understand this from the very beginning that Bhagavan Ramana named Self-enquiry as ‘Who am I ?’, thus drawing our attention directly to the first person. In this question, ‘Who am I?’, ‘I am’ denotes Self and ‘who’ stands for the enquiry.

Who is it that is to enquire into Self? For whom is this enquiry necessary? Is it for Self? No, Since Self is the ever attained, ever-pure, ever-free and ever-blissful Whole, It will not do any enquiry, nor does it need to ! All right, then it is only the ego that needs to do the enquiry. Can this ego know Self? As said in the previous chapters, this ego is a false appearance, having no existence of its own. It is a petty infinitesimal feeling of ‘I’ which subsides and loses its form in sleep. So, can Self become an object that could be known by the ego? No, the ego cannot know Self! Thus, when it turns out that Self-enquiry is unnecessary for Self and Self knowledge is impossible for the ego, the questions arise: “What then is the practical method of doing Self-enquiry? Why is this term ‘Self-enquiry’ found in the sastras ?” Are we not to scrutinize thus and find out? Let us do so.

There is a difference between the sense in which the term ‘enquiry’ is used by Sri Bhagavan and the way in which the sastras use it. The sastras advocate negating the five sheaths, namely the body, prana, mind, intellect and the darkness of ignorance, as ‘not I, not I’ (neti, neti). But who is to negate them, and how? If the mind (or the intellect) is to negate them, it can at best negate only the insentient physical body and the prana, which are objects seen by it. Beyond this, how can the mind negate itself, its own form? And when it cannot even negate itself, how can it negate the other two sheaths, the intellect (vijnana-maya kosa) and the darkness of ignorance (anandamaya kosa), which are beyond its range of perception? During the time of enquiry, therefore, what more can the mind do to remain as Self except to repeat mentally, “I am not this body, I am not this prana”? From this, it is clear that ‘enquiry’ is not a process of one thing enquiring about another thing. That is why the enquiry ‘Who am I?’ taught by Sri Bhagavan should be taken to mean Self-attention (that is, attention merely to the first person, the feeling ‘I’).

The nature of the mind is to attend always to things other than itself, that is, to know only second and third persons. If the mind in this way attends to a thing, it means that it is clinging (attaching itself) to that thing. Attention itself is attachment! Since the mind is to think about the body and prana – though with the intention of deciding ‘this is not!, this is not!’ such attention is only a means of becoming attached to them and it cannot be a means of negating them! This is what is experienced by any true aspirant in his practice. Then what is the secret hidden in this?

Since, whether we know it or not, Self, which is now wrongly considered by us to be unknown, is verily our reality, the very nature of our (the Supreme Self’s) attention itself is Grace (anugraha). This means that whatever thing we attend to, witness*, observe or look at, that thing is nourished and will flourish, being blessed by Grace. Though one now thinks that one is an individual soul, since one’s power of attention is in fact nothing but a reflection of the ‘knowing-power’ (chit-sakti) of Self, that on which it falls or is fixed is nourished by Grace and flourishes more and more! Hence, when the power of attention of the mind is directed more and more towards second and third person objects, both the strength (kriya-bala) to attend to those objects and the ignorance – the five sense-knowledge in the form of thoughts about them – will grow more and more, and will never subside! Have we not already said that all our thoughts are nothing but attention paid to second and third person objects? Accordingly, the more we attend to the mind, the thoughts which are the forms (the second and third person objects) of the world, the more they will multiply and be nourished. This is indeed an obstacle. The more our attention – the glance of Grace (anugraha-drishti) – falls on it, the more the mind’s wavering nature and its ascendancy will increase. That is why it is impossible for the mind to negate anything by thinking60 ‘I am not this, I am not this’ (neti, neti).- On the other hand, if our (Self’s) attention is directed only towards ourself, our knowledge of our existence alone is nourished, and since the mind is not attended to, it is deprived of its strength, the support of our Grace. “Without use when left to stay, iron and mischief rust away” – in accordance with this Tamil proverb, since they are not attended to, all the ‘vasana-seeds, whose nature is to rise stealthily and mischievously, have to stay quiet, and thus they dry up like seeds deprived of water and become too weak to sprout out into thought-plants. Then, when the fire of Self-knowledge (jnana) blazes forth, these tendencies (vasanas), like well-dried firewood, become a prey to it. This alone is how the total destruction of all tendencies (vasanakshaya) is effected.

If we are told, ‘Abandon the east’, the practical way of doing so would be to do as if told, ‘Go to the west’! In the same manner, when we are told, ‘Discard the five sheaths, which are not Self’, the practical way of discarding the non Self is to focus our attention on ourself. ‘What is this I?’ or ‘Who am I?’. Thinking ‘I am not this, not this’ (neti, neti) is a negative method. Knowing that this negative method is just as impractical as saying, ‘Drink the medicine without thinking of a monkey'61 Sri Bhagavan has now shown us the practical way of drinking the medicine without thinking of a monkey, by giving us the clue, ‘Drink the medicine while thinking of an elephant’, that is, He has reformed the ancient negative method by giving us the positive method ‘Who am I?’, “ … 

Verily, the ego is all! Hence the enquiry ‘What is it?” (in other words, ‘Who am I, this ego?’)” is the true giving up (renunciation) of all. Thus should you know!” ‘Ulladhu Narpadhu’, verse 28

Verily, all (that is, the five sheaths and their projections – -all these worlds) is the ego. So, attending to the feeling ‘I’, ‘What is it ?’ or ‘Who is this I ?’, alone is renouncing the five sheaths, discarding them, eliminating them, or negating them. Thus Bhagavan Ramana has declared categorically that Self-attention alone is the correct technique of eliminating the five sheaths !

Since this is so, with what purpose did the sastras use the term ‘enquiry’ to denote the method ‘neti, neti’? By means of ‘neti, neti’, can we not formulate intellectually (that is, through paroksha) the test which we have given in paragraph 4 of chapter four of this book, “A thing is surely not ‘I’ if it is possible for one to experience ‘I am’ even in the absence of that thing”? So long as there exists the wrong knowledge ‘I am the body’ pertaining to the aforesaid five sheaths or three bodies, will not one’s paying attention towards the first person automatically be only an attention towards a sheath or a body – a second person ! But if we use this test, can we not find out that all such attentions are not the proper first person attention? Therefore, it is necessary first of all to have an intellectual conviction that these are not ‘I’ in order to practise Self-attention without losing our bearings. It is only the discrimination62 by which we acquire this conviction that has been termed ‘enquiry’ by the sastras. What then is an aspirant to do after discriminating thus? How can the attention to these five sheaths, even though with an intention to eliminate them, be an attention to Self”? Therefore, while practising Selfenquiry, instead of taking anyone of the five sheaths as the object of our attention, we should fix our attention only on the ‘I’ -consciousness, which exists and shines as oneself, as the singular, and as a witness to and aloof from these sheaths.

Instead of being directed towards any second or third person, is not our power of attention, which was hitherto called mind or intellect, thus now directed only towards the first person? Although we formally refer to it as ‘directed’, in truth it is not of the nature of a ‘doing’ (kriya-rupam) in the form of directing or being directed; it is of the nature of ‘being’ or ‘existing’ (sat-rupam). Because the second and third persons (including thoughts) are alien or external to us, our attention paid to them was of the nature of a ‘doing’ (krlya). But this very attention, when fixed on the non-alien first person feeling, ‘I’, loses the nature of ‘paying’ and remains in the form of ‘being’, and therefore it is of the nature of non-doing (akriya) or inaction (nishkriya). So long as our power of attention was dwelling upon second and third persons, it was called ‘the mind’ or ‘the intellect’, and its attending was called a doing (kriya) or an action (karma). Only that which is done by the mind is an action. But on the other hand, as soon as the attention is fixed on the first person (or Self), it loses its mean names such as mind, intellect or ego sense. Moreover, that attention is no longer even an action, but inaction (akarma) or the state of ‘being still’ (summa iruttal). Therefore, the mind which attends to Self is no more the mind; it is the consciousness aspect of Self (atma-chit-rupam)! Likewise, so long as it attends to the second and third persons (the world), it is not the consciousness aspect of Self; It is the mind, the reflected form of consciousness (chit-abhasa-rupam)! Hence, since Self-attention is not a doing (kriya), it is not an action (karma). That is, Self alone realizes Self; the ego does not !

148

The mind which has obtained a burning desire for Self-attention, which is Self-enquiry, is said to be the fully mature one (pakva manas) 

Since it is not at all now inclined to attend to any second or third person, it can be said that it has reached the pinnacle of desirelessness (vairagya). 

For, do not all sorts of desires and attachments pertain only to second and third persons? Since this mind, which has very well understood that (as already seen in earlier chapters) the consciousness which shines as ‘I’ alone is the source of full and real happiness, now seeks Self because of its natural craving for happiness, this intense desire to attend to Self is indeed the highest form of devotion (bhakti). 

It is exactly this Self-attention of the mind which is thus fully mature through such devotion and desirelessness (bhakti-vairagya) that is to be called the enquiry ‘Who am I ?’ taught by Bhagavan Sri Ramana! 

Well, will not at least such a mature mind which has come to the path of Sri Ramana, willingly agreeing to engage in Self-attention, realize Self ? No, no, it has started for its doom ! Agreeing to commit suicide, it places its neck (through Self-attention) on the scaffold where it is to be sacrificed !! 

How ? Only so long as it was attending to second and third persons did it have the name ‘mind’, 

but as soon as Self-attention is begun, its name and form (its name as mind and its form as thoughts) are lost.

 So we can no longer say that Self-attention or Self-enquiry is performed by the mind, Neither is it the mind that attends to Self, nor is the natural spontaneous Self-attention of the consciousness aspect of Self (atma-chit-rupam), which is not the mind, an activity !

“A naked lie then it would be If any man were to say that he Realized the Self, diving within Through proper enquiry set in Not for knowing but for death The good-for-nothing ego’s worth ! ’This Arunachala alone, The Self, by which the Self is known !” ‘Sri Arunachala Venba’ verse 39

The feeling ‘I am’ is the experience common to one and all. In this, ‘am’ is consciousness or knowledge. This knowledge is not of anything external; it is the knowledge of oneself, This is chit. This consciousness is ‘we’, “We are verily consciousness”, says Sri Bhagavan in ‘Upadesa Undhiyar’ verse 23. This is our ‘being’ (that is, our true existence) or sat. This is called ‘that which is’ (ulladhu). Thus in ‘I am’, ‘I’ is existence (sat) and ‘am’ is consciousness (chit). When Self, our nature of existence-consciousness (satchit swarupam), instead of shining only as the pure consciousness ‘I am’, shines mixed with an adjunct (upadhi) as ‘I am a man, I am Rama, I am so-and-so, I am this or that’, then this mixed consciousness is the ego. This mixed consciousness can rise only by catching hold of a name and form. When we feel ‘I am a man, I am Rama, I am sitting, I am lying’, is it not clear that we have mistaken the body for ‘I’, and that we have assumed its name and postures as ‘I am this and I am thus’? – The feeling ‘this and thus’ which has now risen mixed with the pure consciousness ‘I am’ (satchit) is what is called ‘thought’, This is the first thought.

The feeling ‘I am a man, I am so-and-so’ is only a thought. But the consciousness ‘I am’ is not a thought; it is the very nature of our ‘being’. The mixed consciousness ‘I am this or that’ is a thought that rises from our ‘being’. It is only after the rising of this thought, the mixed consciousness (the first person), that all other thoughts,

which are the knowledge of second and third persons, rise into existence. 

“Only if the first person exists, will the second and third persons exist..” ‘Ulladhu Narpadhu’ verse 14 

This mixed consciousness, the first person, is called our ‘rising’ or the rising of the ego. This is the primal mentation (adi-vritti) ! Hence: 

“ Thinking is a mentation (vritti) ; being is not a mentation ! ...” ‘Atma Vichara Patikam’, verse 1 

The pure existence-consciousness, ‘I am’, is not a thought; this consciousness is our nature (swarupam). ‘I am a man’ is not our pure consciousness; it is only our thought! To understand thus the difference between our ‘being’ and our ‘rising’ (that is, between existence and thought) first of all is essential for aspirants who take to the enquiry ‘Who am I?’, Bhagavan Sri Ramana has advised that Self-enquiry can be done either in the from ‘Who am I?’ or in the form ‘Whence am I ?’, Hearing these two interrogative sentences, many aspirants have held various opinions about them up till now and have become confused as to which of them is to be practised and how! Even among those who consider that both are one and the same, many have only a superficial understanding and have not scrutinized deeply how they are the same. Some who try to follow the former one, ‘Who am I ?, simply begin either vocally or mentally the parrot-like repetition ‘Who am I ? Who am I ?’ as if it were a mantra-japa. This is utterly wrong! Doing japa of ‘Who am I?’ in this manner is just as bad as meditating upon or doing japa of the mahavakyas such as ‘I am Brahman’ and so on, thereby spoiling the very objective for which they were revealed! Sri Bhagavan Himself has repeatedly said, “‘Who am I?’ is not meant for repetition (japa)” ! Some others, thinking that they are following the second interrogative form, ‘Whence am I?’, try to concentrate on the right side of the chest (where they imagine something as a spiritual heart), expecting a reply such as ‘I am from here’ ! This is in no way better than the ancient method of meditating upon anyone of the six yogic centres (shad-chakras) in the body !! For, is not thinking of any place in the body only a second person attention (an objective attention)? Before we start to explain the technique of Self-enquiry, is it not of the utmost importance that all such misconceptions be removed ? Let us see, therefore, how they may be removed.

In Sanskrit, the terms ‘atman’ and ‘aham’ both mean ‘I’. Hence, ‘atma-vichara’ means an attention seeking ‘Who is this I?’ It may rather be called ‘I-attention’, ‘Self-attention’ or ‘Self-abidance’. The consciousness ‘I’ thus pointed out here is the first person feeling. But as we have already said, it is to be understood that the consciousness mixed with adjuncts as ‘I am this’ or ‘I am that’ is the ego (ahankara) or the individual soul (jiva), whereas the unalloyed consciousness devoid of adjuncts and shining alone as ‘I-I’ (or ‘I am that I am’) is Self (atman), the Absolute (brahman) or God (iswara). Does it not amount to saying then that the first person consciousness, ‘I’, can be either the ego or Self? Since all people generally take the ego-feeling (‘I am the body’) to be ‘I’, the ego is also given the name ‘self’ (atman)

and is called’ individual self’ (jivatma) by some sastras even now. It is only for this reason that even the attention to the ego, ‘What is it?’ or ‘Who is it?’, is also named by thesastras as ‘Self-enquiry’ (atma-vichara). Is it not clear, however, that Self, the existence-consciousness, neither needs to do any enquiry nor can be subjected to any enquiry? It is just in order to rectify this defect that Bhagavan Ramana named it ‘Who am 1?’ rather than using the ancient term ‘Self-enquiry’ (atma-vichara)! The ego, the feeling of ‘I’, generally taken by people to be the first person consciousness, is not the real first person consciousness; Self alone is the real first person consciousness. The egofeeling, which is merely a shadow of it, is a false first person consciousness. When one enquires into this ego, what it is or who it is, it disappears because it is really nonexistent, and the enquirer, having nothing more to do, is established in Self as Self.

Because it rises, springing up from Self, the false first person consciousness mentioned above has to have a place and a time of rising. Therefore, the question ‘Whence am I?' means only ‘Whence (from where) does the ego rise ?’. A place of rising can only be for the ego. But for Self, since it has no rising or setting, there can be no particular place or time. "When scrutinized, we – the ever-known existing Thing – alone are; then where is time and where is space? If we are (mistaken to be) the body, we shall be involved in time and space; but, are we the body? Since we are the One, now, then and 

ever, that One in space, here there and everywhere 63, we – the timeless and spaceless Self – alone are !” ‘Ulladhu Narpadhu’, verae 15

- thus says Sri Bhagavan. Therefore, enquiring ‘Whence am I?’ is enquiring ‘Whence is the ego?’. Only to the rising of the ego, which is conditioned by time and space, will the question ‘Whence am I?’ be applicable. The meaning which Sri Bhagavan expects us to understand from the term ‘Whence ?’ or ‘From where?’ is ‘From what?’. When taken in this sense, instead of a place or time coming forth as a reply, Self-existence, ‘we’, the Thing (vastu), alone is experienced as the reply. If, on the other hand, we anticipate a place as an answer to the question ‘Whence?’, a place, conditioned by time and space, will be experienced within the body ‘two digits to the right from the centre of the chest’ (as said in ‘Ulladhu Narpadhu – Anubandham’ verse 18). Yet this experience is not the ultimate or absolute one (paramarthikam). For, Sri Bhagavan has positively asserted that Heart (hridayam) is verily Self-consciousness, which is timeless, spaceless, formless and nameless. “He who thinks that Self (or Heart) is within the insentient body, while in fact the body is within Self, is like one who thinks that the screen, which supports the cinema picture, is contained within the picture ‘“ ‘Ekatma Panchakam’, verse 3

Finding a place in the body as the rising-point of the ego in reply to the question ‘Whence?’ is not the objective of Sri Bhagavan’s teachings; nor is it the fruit to be gained by Self-enquiry. Sri Bhagavan has declared clearly the objective of His teachings and the fruit to be gained by seeking the rising--place of the ego as follows:

“When sought within ‘What is the place from which it rises as I?’, ‘I’ (the ego) will die ! This is Self-enquiry (jnana-vichara) .” ‘Upadesa Undhiyar’, verse 19

Therefore, the result which is aimed at when seeking the rising-place of the ego is the annihilation of that ego and not an experience of a place in the body. It is only in reply to the immature people who – not able to have even an intellectual understanding (paroksha jnana) about the nature of Self, which shines alone as the one, non-dual thing, unlimited by (indeed, absolutely unconnected with) time and space, unlimited even in the form ‘Brahman is everywhere, Brahman is at all times, Brahman is everything’ (sarvatra brahma, sarvada brahma, sarvam brahma) – always raise the question, “Where is the seat for Self in the body?”, that the sastras and sometimes even Sri Bhagavan had to say: “... two digits to the right (from the centre of the chest) is the heart”64 Hence, this heart--place (hridaya-stanam) is not the ultimate or absolute Reality, The reader may here refer to ‘Maharshi’s, Gospel’, Book II, chapter IV, ‘The Heart is the Self’ (8th edition, 1969, pages 68 to 72; 9th edition, 1979, pages 72 to 76).

.........

pg 18 from maharshi's gospel

The mind of the Sage who has realized the Self is wholly destroyed. It is dead. But to the onlooker, he may seem to possess a mind just like the layman. Hence the ‘I’ in the Sage has merely an apparent ‘objective reality’. In fact however, it has neither a subjective existence nor an objective reality

................

 155

“ ... Are there two selves, one to be an object known by the other? For, the true experience of all is ‘I am one’ !” ‘Ulladhu Narpadhu’, verse 33 - asks Sri Bhagavan

Thus it is sufficient if we cling to the feeling ‘I’ uninterruptedly till the very end. Such attention to the feeling ‘I’, the common daily experience of everyone, is what is meant by Self-attention, For those who accept as their basic knowledge the ‘I am the body’ – consciousness (jiva bhaval, being unable to doubt its (the ego’s) existence, it is suitable to take to Self-attention (that is, to do Self-enquiry) in the form ‘Whence am I ?’, On the other hand, for those who instead of assuming that they have an individuality (jiva bhava) such as ‘I am so-and-so’ or ‘I am this’, attend thus, ‘What is this feeling which shines as I am?’, it is suitable to be fixed in Self-attention in the form ‘Who am I ?’ What is important to be sure of during practice (sadhana) is that our attention is turned only towards ‘I’, the first person singular feeling

...........................