Who Am I? (Nan Yar?
The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi
Dr. T. M. P. MAHADEVAN
From the original Tamil
V. S. RAMANAN
PRESIDENT, BOARD OF TRUSTEES
TIRUVANNAMALAI, S. INDIA
“Who am I?” is the title given to a set of questions and answers bearing on Self-enquiry. The
questions were put to Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi by one Sri M. Sivaprakasam Pillai about
the year 1902. Sri Pillai, a graduate in Philosophy, was at the time employed in the Revenue
Department of the South Arcot Collectorate. During his visit to Tiruvannamalai in 1902 on official
work, he went to Virupaksha Cave on Arunachala Hill and met the Master there. He sought from
him spiritual guidance, and solicited answers to questions relating to Self-enquiry. As Bhagavan
was not talking then, not because of any vow he had taken, but because he did not have the
inclination to talk, he answered the questions put to him by gestures, and when these were not
understood, by writing. As recollected and recorded by Sri Sivaprakasam Pillai, there were
fourteen questions with answers to them given by Bhagavan. This record was first published by
Sri Pillai in 1923, along with a couple of poems composed by himself relating how Bhagavan’s
grace operated in his case by dispelling his doubts and by saving him from a crisis in life. ‘Who
am I?’ has been published several times subsequently. We find thirty questions and answers in
some editions and twenty-eight in others. There is also another published version in which the
questions are not given, and the teachings are rearranged in the form of an essay. The extant
English translation is of this essay. The present rendering is of the text in the form of twenty-eight
questions and answers.
Along with Vicharasangraham (Self-Enquiry), Nan Yar (Who am I?) constitutes the first set of
instructions in the Master’s own words. These two are the only prose pieces among Bhagavan’s
Works. They clearly set forth the central teaching that the direct path to liberation is Self-enquiry.
The particular mode in which the enquiry is to be made is lucidly set forth in Nan Yar. The mind
consists of thoughts. The ‘I’ thought is the first to arise in the mind. When the enquiry ‘ Who am I?’
is persistently pursued, all other thoughts get destroyed, and finally the ‘I’ thought itself vanishes
leaving the supreme non-dual Self alone. The false identification of the Self with the phenomena
of non-self such as the body and mind thus ends, and there is illumination, Sakshatkara. The process
of enquiry of course, is not an easy one. As one enquires ‘Who am I?’, other thoughts will arise;
but as these arise, one should not yield to them by following them , on the contrary, one should ask
‘To whom do they arise ?’ In order to do this, one has to be extremely vigilant. Through constant
enquiry one should make the mind stay in its source, without allowing it to wander away and get
lost in the mazes of thought created by itself. All other disciplines such as breath-control and
meditation on the forms of God should be regarded as auxiliary practices. They are useful in so far
as they help the mind to become quiescent and one-pointed.
For the mind that has gained skill in concentration, Self-enquiry becomes comparatively easy. It is by
ceaseless enquiry that the thoughts are destroyed and the Self realized - the plenary Reality in which
there is not even the ‘I’ thought, the experience which is referred to as “Silence”.
This, in substance, is Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi’s teaching in Nan Yar (Who am I?).
University of Madras - June 30, 1982
Om Namo Bhagavathe Sri Ramanaya
Who Am I?
As all living beings desire to be happy always, without misery, as in the case of everyone there
is observed supreme love for one’s self, and as happiness alone is the cause for love, in order to
gain that happiness which is one’s nature and which is experienced in the state of deep sleep
where there is no mind, one should know one’s self. For that, the path of knowledge, the inquiry
of the form “Who am I?”, is the principal means.
1. Who am I ?
The gross body which is composed of the seven humours (dhatus), I am not; the five cognitive
sense organs, viz. the senses of hearing, touch, sight, taste, and smell, which apprehend their
respective objects, viz. sound, touch, colour, taste, and odour, I am not; the five cognitive sense organs,
viz. the organs of speech, locomotion, grasping, excretion, and procreation, which have as
their respective functions speaking, moving, grasping, excreting, and enjoying, I am not; the five
vital airs, prana, etc., which perform respectively the five functions of in-breathing, etc., I am not;
even the mind which thinks, I am not; the nescience too, which is endowed only with the residual
impressions of objects, and in which there are no objects and no functionings, I am not.
2. If I am none of these, then who am I?
After negating all of the above-mentioned as ‘not this’, ‘not this’, that Awareness which alone
remains - that I am.
3. What is the nature of Awareness?
The nature of Awareness is existence-consciousness-bliss
4. When will the realization of the Self be gained?
When the world which is what-is-seen has been removed, there will be realization of the Self
which is the seer.
5. Will there not be realization of the Self even while the world is there (taken as real)?
There will not be.
The seer and the object seen are like the rope and the snake. Just as the knowledge of the rope
which is the substrate will not arise unless the false knowledge of the illusory serpent goes, so the
realization of the Self which is the substrate will not be gained unless the belief that the world is
real is removed.
7. When will the world which is the object seen be removed?
When the mind, which is the cause of all cognition’s and of all actions, becomes quiescent, the
world will disappear.
8. What is the nature of the mind?
What is called ‘mind’ is a wondrous power residing in the Self. It causes all thoughts to arise.
Apart from thoughts, there is no such thing as mind. Therefore, thought is the nature of mind. Apart
from thoughts, there is no independent entity called the world. In deep sleep there are no thoughts,
and there is no world. In the states of waking and dream, there are thoughts, and there is a world
also. Just as the spider emits the thread (of the web) out of itself and again withdraws it into itself,
likewise the mind projects the world out of itself and again resolves it into itself. When the mind
comes out of the Self, the world appears. Therefore, when the world appears (to be real), the Self
does not appear; and when the Self appears (shines) the world does not appear. When one
persistently inquires into the nature of the mind, the mind will end leaving the Self (as the residue).
What is referred to as the Self is the Atman. The mind always exists only in dependence on
something gross; it cannot stay alone. It is the mind that is called the subtle body or the soul (jiva).
9. What is the path of inquiry for understanding the nature of the mind?
That which rises as ‘I’ in this body is the mind. If one inquires as to where in the body the thought
‘I’ rises first, one would discover that it rises in the heart. That is the place of the mind’s origin.
Even if one thinks constantly ‘I’ ‘I’, one will be led to that place. Of all the thoughts that arise in
the mind, the ‘I’ thought is the first. It is only after the rise of this that the other thoughts arise. It is
after the appearance of the first personal pronoun that the second and third personal pronouns
appear; without the first personal pronoun there will not be the second and third.
10. How will the mind become quiescent?
By the inquiry ‘Who am I?’. The thought ‘who am I?’ will destroy all other thoughts, and like the
stick used for stirring the burning pyre, it will itself in the end get destroyed. Then, there will arise
11. What is the means for constantly holding on to the thought ‘Who am I?’
When other thoughts arise, one should not pursue them, but should inquire: ‘To whom do they
arise?’ It does not matter how many thoughts arise. As each thought arises, one should inquire
with diligence, “To whom has this thought arisen?”. The answer that would emerge would be “To
me”. Thereupon if one inquires “Who am I?”, the mind will go back to its source; and the thought
that arose will become quiescent. With repeated practice in this manner, the mind will develop the
skill to stay in its source. When the mind that is subtle goes out through the brain and the sense organs,
the gross names and forms appear; when it stays in the heart, the names and forms disappear.
Not letting the mind go out, but retaining it in the Heart is what is called “inwardness” (antarmukha).
Letting the mind go out of the Heart is known as “externalisation” (bahir-mukha). Thus,
when the mind stays in the Heart, the ‘I’ which is the source of all thoughts will go, and the Self
which ever exists will shine. Whatever one does, one should do without the egoity “I”. If one acts
in that way, all will appear as of the nature of Siva (God).
12. Are there no other means for making the mind quiescent?
Other than inquiry, there are no adequate means. If through other means it is sought to control the
mind, the mind will appear to be controlled, but will again go forth. Through the control of breath
also, the mind will become quiescent; but it will be quiescent only so long as the breath remains
controlled, and when the breath resumes the mind also will again start moving and will wander as
impelled by residual impressions. The source is the same for both mind and breath. Thought, indeed,
is the nature of the mind. The thought “I” is the first thought of the mind; and that is egoity. It is from
that whence egoity originates that breath also originates. Therefore, when the mind becomes quiescent,
the breath is controlled, and when the breath is controlled the mind becomes quiescent. But in deep
sleep, although the mind becomes quiescent, the breath does not stop. This is because of the will of
God, so that the body may be preserved and other people may not be under the impression that it is
dead. In the state of waking and in samadhi, when the mind becomes quiescent the breath is controlled.
Breath is the gross form of mind. Till the time of death, the mind keeps breath in the body; and when
the body dies the mind takes the breath along with it. Therefore, the exercise of breath-control is only
an aid for rendering the mind quiescent (manonigraha); it will not destroy the mind (manonasa).
Like the practice of breath-control. meditation on the forms of God, repetition of mantras, restriction
on food, etc., are but aids for rendering the mind quiescent.
Through meditation on the forms of God and through repetition of mantras, the mind becomes one-pointed.
The mind will always be wandering. Just as when a chain is given to an elephant to hold
in its trunk it will go along grasping the chain and nothing else, so also when the mind is occupied
with a name or form it will grasp that alone. When the mind expands in the form of countless
thoughts, each thought becomes weak; but as thoughts get resolved the mind becomes one-pointed
and strong; for such a mind Self-inquiry will become easy. Of all the restrictive rules, that relating
to the taking of sattvic food in moderate quantities is the best; by observing this rule, the sattvic
quality of mind will increase, and that will be helpful to Self-inquiry.
13. The residual impressions (thoughts) of objects appear wending like the waves of an ocean.
When will all of them get destroyed?
As the meditation on the Self rises higher and higher, the thoughts will get destroyed.
14. Is it possible for the residual impressions of objects that come from beginningless time, as
it were, to be resolved, and for one to remain as the pure Self?
Without yielding to the doubt “Is it possible, or not?”, one should persistently hold on to the meditation
on the Self. Even if one be a great sinner, one should not worry and weep “O! I am a sinner, how can
I be saved?”; one should completely renounce the thought “I am a sinner”; and concentrate keenly on
meditation on the Self; then, one would surely succeed. There are not two minds - one good and the
other evil; the mind is only one. It is the residual impressions that are of two kinds - auspicious and
inauspicious. When the mind is under the influence of auspicious impressions it is called good; and
when it is under the influence of inauspicious impressions it is regarded as evil.
The mind should not be allowed to wander towards worldly objects and what concerns other
people. However bad other people may be, one should bear no hatred for them. Both desire and
hatred should be eschewed. All that one gives to others one gives to one’s self. If this truth is
understood who will not give to others? When one’s self arises all arises; when one’s self becomes
quiescent all becomes quiescent. To the extent we behave with humility, to that extent there will
result good. If the mind is rendered quiescent, one may live anywhere.
15. How long should inquiry be practised?
As long as there are impressions of objects in the mind, so long the inquiry “Who am I?” is
required. As thoughts arise they should be destroyed then and there in the very place of their
origin, through inquiry. If one resorts to contemplation of the Self unintermittently, until the Self is
gained, that alone would do. As long as there are enemies within the fortress, they will continue to
sally forth; if they are destroyed as they emerge, the fortress will fall into our hands.
16. What is the nature of the Self?
What exists in truth is the Self alone. The world, the individual soul, and God are appearances in
it. like silver in mother-of-pearl, these three appear at the same time, and disappear at the same
time. The Self is that where there is absolutely no “I” thought. That is called “Silence”. The Self
itself is the world; the Self itself is “I”; the Self itself is God; all is Siva, the Self.
17. Is not everything the work of God?
Without desire, resolve, or effort, the sun rises; and in its mere presence, the sun-stone emits fire,
the lotus blooms, water evaporates; people perform their various functions and then rest. Just as in
the presence of the magnet the needle moves, it is by virtue of the mere presence of God that the
souls governed by the three (cosmic) functions or the fivefold divine activity perform their actions
and then rest, in accordance with their respective karmas. God has no resolve; no karma attaches
itself to Him. That is like worldly actions not affecting the sun, or like the merits and demerits of
the other four elements not affecting all pervading space.
18. Of the devotees, who is the greatest?
He who gives himself up to the Self that is God is the most excellent devotee. Giving one’s self up to
God means remaining constantly in the Self without giving room for the rise of any thoughts other
than that of the Self. Whatever burdens are thrown on God, He bears them. Since the supreme power
of God makes all things move, why should we, without submitting ourselves to it, constantly worry
ourselves with thoughts as to what should be done and how, and what should not be done and how
not? We know that the train carries all loads, so after getting on it why should we carry our small
luggage on our head to our discomfort, instead of putting it down in the train and feeling at ease?
19. What is non-attachment?
As thoughts arise, destroying them utterly without any residue in the very place of their origin is
non-attachment. Just as the pearl-diver ties a stone to his waist, sinks to the bottom of the sea and
there takes the pearls, so each one of us should be endowed with non-attachment, dive within
oneself and obtain the Self-Pearl.
20. Is it not possible for God and the Guru to effect the release of a soul?
God and the Guru will only show the way to release; they will not by themselves take the soul to
the state of release. In truth, God and the Guru are not different. Just as the prey which has fallen
into the jaws of a tiger has no escape, so those who have come within the ambit of the Guru’s
gracious look will be saved by the Guru and will not get lost; yet, each one should by his own
effort pursue the path shown by God or Guru and gain release. One can know oneself only with
one’s own eye of knowledge, and not with somebody else’s. Does he who is Rama require the
help of a mirror to know that he is Rama?
21. Is it necessary for one who longs for release to inquire into the nature of categories (tattvas)?
Just as one who wants to throw away garbage has no need to analyse it and see what it is, so one
who wants to know the Self has no need to count the number of categories or inquire into their
characteristics; what he has to do is to reject altogether the categories that hide the Self. The
world should be considered like a dream.
22. Is there no difference between waking and dream?
Waking is long and a dream short; other than this there is no difference. Just as waking happenings
seem real while awake. so do those in a dream while dreaming. In dream the mind takes on
another body. In both waking and dream states thoughts. names and forms occur simultaneously.
23. Is it any use reading books for those who long for release?
All the texts say that in order to gain release one should render the mind quiescent; therefore their
conclusive teaching is that the mind should be rendered quiescent; once this has been understood
there is no need for endless reading. In order to quieten the mind one has only to inquire within
oneself what one’s Self is; how could this search be done in books? One should know one’s Self
with one’s own eye of wisdom. The Self is within the five sheaths; but books are outside them.
Since the Self has to be inquired into by discarding the five sheaths, it is futile to search for it in
books. There will come a time when one will have to forget all that one has learned.
24. What is happiness?
Happiness is the very nature of the Self; happiness and the Self are not different. There is no
happiness in any object of the world. We imagine through our ignorance that we derive happiness
from objects. When the mind goes out, it experiences misery. In truth, when its desires are fulfilled,
it returns to its own place and enjoys the happiness that is the Self. Similarly, in the states of sleep,
samadhi and fainting, and when the object desired is obtained or the object disliked is removed,
the mind becomes inward-turned, and enjoys pure Self-Happiness. Thus the mind moves without
rest alternately going out of the Self and returning to it. Under the tree the shade is pleasant; out in
the open the heat is scorching. A person who has been going about in the sun feels cool when he
reaches the shade. Someone who keeps on going from the shade into the sun and then back into the
shade is a fool. A wise man stays permanently in the shade. Similarly, the mind of the one who
knows the truth does not leave Brahman. The mind of the ignorant, on the contrary, revolves in the
world, feeling miserable, and for a little time returns to Brahman to experience happiness. In fact,
what is called the world is only thought. When the world disappears, i.e. when there is no thought,
the mind experiences happiness; and when the world appears, it goes through misery.
25. What is wisdom-insight (jnana-drsti)?
Remaining quiet is what is called wisdom-insight. To remain quiet is to resolve the mind in the
Self. Telepathy, knowing past, present and future happenings and clairvoyance do not constitute
26. What is the relation between desirelessness and wisdom?
Desirelessness is wisdom. The two are not different; they are the same. Desirelessness is refraining
from turning the mind towards any object. Wisdom means the appearance of no object. In other
words, not seeking what is other than the Self is detachment or desirelessness; not leaving the Self
27. What is the difference between inquiry and meditation?
Inquiry consists in retaining the mind in the Self. Meditation consists in thinking that one’s self is
28. What is release?
Inquiring into the nature of one’s self that is in bondage, and realising one’s true nature is release.
SRI RAMANARPANAM ASTU
Who am I? By Ramana Maharishi
exposition by David Godman
THIS ESSAY, COMPOSED by Bhagavan in the mid-1920s, is the work that originated with answers written in the sand in 1901. For many years it was the standard introduction to Bhagavan’s teachings. Its publication was subsidised and copies in many languages were always available in the ashram’s bookstore, enabling new visitors to acquaint themselves with Bhagavan’s practical advice.
Although it continues to be a standard primer for those who want to know what Bhagavan taught, parts of Who Am I? are quite technical. Since Sivaprakasam Pillai, the devotee who asked the questions in 1901, was well acquainted with philosophical terminology, Bhagavan freely used technical terms in many of his answers. I have explained many of these in notes that alternate with the text. The words of the original essay are printed in bold type. Everything else is my own commentary or explanation.
Since these explanations were originally answers to Sivaprakasam Pillai’s questions, I have included some of the original questions in my own notes. Before each new section of Who am I? begins, I give, if possible, the question that prompted it. Towards the end of the essay Bhagavan took portions from different answers and amalgamated them into single paragraphs, making it hard to know for sure whether he is answering a particular question or merely giving a teaching statement.
The paragraph that begins the essay was not given out in response to a question. It was composed by Bhagavan when he was rewriting the work in the 1920s. Many philosophical works begin with a statement about the nature of happiness and the means by which it can be attained or discovered. Bhagavan has followed this tradition in this presentation.
Every living being longs to be perpetually happy, without any misery. Since in everyone the highest love is alone felt for oneself, and since happiness alone is the cause of love, in order to attain that happiness, which is one’s real nature and which is experienced daily in the mindless state of deep sleep, it is necessary to know oneself. To achieve that, enquiry in the form ‘Who am I?’ is the foremost means.
Question: Who am I?
‘Who am I?’ The physical body, composed of the seven dhatus, is not ‘I’. The five sense organs… and the five types of perception known through the senses… are not ‘I’. The five parts of the body which act… and their functions… are not ‘I’. The five vital airs such as prana, which perform the five vital functions such as respiration, are not ‘I’. Even the mind that thinks is not ‘I’. In the state of deep sleep vishaya vasanas remain. Devoid of sensory knowledge and activity, even this [state] is not ‘I’. After negating all of the above as ‘not I, not I’, the knowledge that alone remains is itself ‘I’. The nature of knowledge is sat-chit-ananda [being-consciousness-bliss].
Vasanas is a key word in Who am I? It can be defined as, ‘the impressions of anything remaining unconsciously in the mind; the present consciousness of past perceptions; knowledge derived from memory; latent tendencies formed by former actions, thoughts and speech.’ It is usually rendered in English as ‘latent tendencies’. Vishaya vasanas are those latent mental tendencies that impel one to indulge in knowledge or perceptions derived from the five senses. In a broader context it may also include indulging in any mental activity such as daydreaming or fantasizing, where the content of the thoughts is derived from past habits or desires.
The seven dhatus are chyle, blood, flesh, fat, marrow, bone and semen. The five sense organs are the ears, skin, eyes, tongue and nose, and the five types of perception or knowledge, called vishayas, are sound, touch, sight, taste and smell. The five parts of the body that act are the mouth, the legs, the hands, the anus, and the genitals and their functions are speaking, walking, giving, excreting and enjoying. All the items on these lists are included in the original text. I have relegated them to this explanatory note to facilitate easy reading.
The five vital airs (prana vayus) are not listed in the original text. They are responsible for maintaining the health of the body. They convert inhaled air and ingested food into the energy required for the healthy and harmonious functioning of the body.
This paragraph of Who am I? has an interesting history. Sivaprakasam Pillai’s original question was ‘Who am I?’, the first three words of the paragraph. Bhagavan’s reply, which can be found at the end of the paragraph, was ‘Knowledge itself is “I”’. The nature of knowledge is sat-chit-ananda.’ Everything else in this paragraph was interpolated later by Sivaprakasam Pillai prior to the first publication of the question-and-answer version of the text in 1923. The word that is translated as ‘knowledge’ is the Tamil equivalent of ‘jnana’. So, the answer to that original question ‘Who am I?’ is, ‘Jnana is “I” and the nature of jnana is sat-chit-ananda’.
When Bhagavan saw the printed text he exclaimed, ‘I did not give this extra portion. How did it find a place here?’
He was told that Sivaprakasam Pillai had added the additional information, including all the long lists of physical organs and their functions, in order to help him understand the answer more clearly. When Bhagavan wrote the Who Am I? answers in an essay form, he retained these interpolations but had the printer mark the original answer in bold type so that devotees could distinguish between the two.
This interpolation does not give a correct rendering of Bhagavan’s teachings on self-enquiry. In the following exchange Bhagavan explains how self-enquiry should be done, and why the ‘not I, not I’ approach is an unproductive one:
Q: I begin to ask myself ‘Who am I?’, eliminate the body as not ‘I’, the breath as not ‘I’, and I am not able to proceed further.
B: Well, that is as far as the intellect can go. Your process is only intellectual. Indeed, all the scriptures mention the process only to guide the seeker to know the truth. The truth cannot be directly pointed at. Hence, this intellectual process.
You see, the one who eliminates the ‘not I’ cannot eliminate the ‘I’. To say ‘I am not this’ or ‘I am that’ there must be an ‘I’. This ‘I’ is only the ego or the ‘I’-thought. After the rising up of this ‘I’-thought, all other thoughts arise. The ‘I’-thought is therefore the root thought. If the root is pulled out all others are at the same time uprooted. Therefore, seek the root ‘I’, question yourself ‘Who am I?’ Find the source and then all these other ideas will vanish and the pure Self will remain.
Question: Will there be realization of the Self even while the world is there, and taken to be real?
If the mind, which is the cause of all knowledge and all actions, subsides, the perception of the world will cease. [If one perceives a rope, imagining it to be a snake] perception of the rope, which is the substratum, will not occur unless the perception of the snake, which has been superimposed on it, goes. Similarly, the perception of one’s real nature, the substratum, will not be obtained unless the perception of the world, which is a superimposition, ceases.
Question: What is the nature of the mind?
That which is called ‘mind’, which projects all thoughts, is an awesome power existing within the Self, one’s real nature. If we discard all thoughts and look [to see what remains when there are no thoughts, it will be found that] there is no such entity as mind remaining separate [from those thoughts]. Therefore, thought itself is the nature of the mind. There is no such thing as ‘the world’ independent of thoughts. There are no thoughts in deep sleep, and there is no world. In waking and dream there are thoughts, and there is also the world. Just as a spider emits the thread of a web from within itself and withdraws it again into itself, in the same way the mind projects the world from within itself and later reabsorbs it into itself. When the mind emanates from the Self, the world appears. Consequently, when the world appears, the Self is not seen, and when the Self appears or shines, the world will not appear.
If one goes on examining the nature of the mind, it will finally be discovered that [what was taken to be] the mind is really only one’s self. That which is called one’s self is really Atman, one’s real nature. The mind always depends for its existence on something tangible. It cannot subsist by itself. It is the mind that is calledsukshma sarira [the subtle body] or jiva [the soul].
Question: What is the path of enquiry for understanding the nature of the mind?
That which arises in the physical body as ‘I’ is the mind. If one enquires, ‘In what place in the body does this “I” first arise?’ it will be known to be in the hridayam. That is the birthplace of the mind. Even if one incessantly thinks ‘I, I’, it will lead to that place. Of all thoughts that arise in the mind, the thought ‘I’ is the first one. It is only after the rise of this [thought] that other thoughts arise. It is only after the first personal pronoun arises that the second and third personal pronouns appear. Without the first person, the second and third persons cannot exist.
Hridayam is usually translated as ‘Heart’, but it has no connection with the physical heart. Bhagavan used it as a synonym for the Self, pointing out on several occasions that it could be split up into two parts, hrit and ayam, which together mean, ‘this is the centre’. Sometimes he would say that the ‘I’-thought arises from the hridayam and eventually subsides there again. He would also sometimes indicate that the spiritual Heart was inside the body on the right aside of the chest, but he would often qualify this by saying that this was only true from the standpoint of those who identified themselves with a body. For a jnani, one who has realised the Self, the hridayam or Heart is not located anywhere, or even everywhere, because it is beyond all spatial concepts. The following answer summarises Bhagavan’s views on this matter:
I ask you to see where the ‘I’ arises in your body, but it is not really quite true to say that the ‘I’ rises from and merges on the right side of the chest. The Heart is another name for the reality, and it is neither inside nor outside the body. There can be no in or out for it since it alone is… so long as one identifies with the body and thinks that he is in the body, he is advised to see where in the body the ‘I’-thought rises and merges again.
A hint of this can also be found in this paragraph of Who am I? in the sentence in which Bhagavan asks devotees to enquire ‘In what place in the body does this “I” first arise?’
Ordinarily, idam, which is translated here as ‘place’, means only that, but Bhagavan often gave it a broader meaning by using it to signify the state of the Self. Later in the essay, for example, he writes, ‘The place [idam] where even the slightest trace of “I” does not exist is swarupa[one’s real nature]’.
Sadhu Natanananda, on the flyleaf of his Tamil work Sri Ramana Darshanam, records a similar statement from Bhagavan: ‘Those who resort to this place [idam] will obtain Atma-jnana automatically.’ Clearly, he cannot be speaking of the physical environment of his ashram because paying a visit there didn’t necessarily result in enlightenment.
So, when Bhagavan writes ‘In what place…’ he is not necessarily indicating that one should look for the ‘I’ in a particular location. He is instead saying that that the ‘I’ rises from the dimensionless Self, and that one should seek its source there.
As he once told Kapali Sastri, ‘You should try to have rather than locate the experience’.
Question: How will the mind become quiescent?
The mind will only subside by means of the enquiry ‘Who am I?’ The thought ‘Who am I?’, destroying all other thoughts, will itself be finally destroyed like the stick used for stirring the funeral pyre.
Question: What is the means for constantly holding on to the thought ‘Who am I?’ And what is jnana drishti?
If other thoughts arise, one should, without attempting to complete them, enquire, ‘To whom did they occur?’ What does it matter if ever so many thoughts arise? At the very moment that each thought rises, if one vigilantly enquires ‘To whom did this appear?’ it will be known ‘To me’. If one then enquires ‘Who am I?’ the mind will turn back to its source and the thought that had arisen will also subside. By repeatedly practising in this way, the mind will increasingly acquire the power to abide at its source. When the mind, which is subtle, is externalised via the brain and the sense organs, names and forms, which are material, appear. When it abides in the Heart, names and forms disappear. Keeping the mind in the Heart, not allowing it to go out, is called ‘facing the Self’ or ‘facing inwards’. Allowing it to go out from the Heart is termed ‘facing outwards’ When the mind abides in the Heart in this way, the ‘I’, the root of all thoughts, [vanishes]. Having vanished, the ever-existing Self alone will shine. The state where not even the slightest trace of the thought ‘I’ remains is alone swarupa [one’s real nature]. This alone is called mauna [silence]. Being still in this way can alone be calledjnana drishti [seeing through true knowledge]. Making the mind subside into the Self is ‘being still’. On the other hand, knowing the thoughts of others, knowing the three times [past present and future] and knowing events in distant places — these can never bejnana drishti.
The word swarupa is another key word in the text. It means ‘one’s real nature’ or ‘one’s real form’. Each time the phrase ‘one’s real nature’ appears in this text, it is a translation of swarupa. Bhagavan’s repeated use of the word as a synonym for the Self indicates that the Self is not something that is reached or attained. Rather, it is what one really is, and what one always has been.
Mauna is another of the synonyms Bhagavan used to describe the Self:
Q: What is mauna [silence]?
A: That state which transcends speech and thought is mauna…. That which is, is mauna. Sages say that the state in which the thought ‘I’ does not rise even in the least, alone is swarupa, which means mauna. That silent Self is alone God…
In jnana, the state of Self-knowledge or Self-realisation, there is no one who sees, nor are there objects that are seen. There is only seeing. The seeing that takes place in this state, called jnana drishti, is both true seeing and true knowing. It is therefore called ‘seeing through true knowledge’.
In Day by Day with Bhagavan (17.10.46) Bhagavan points out that this seeing is really being and should not be confused with or limited to the sensory activity that goes under the same name: ‘You are the Self. You exist always. Nothing more can be predicated of the Self than it exists. Seeing God or the Self is only being God or your Self. Seeing is being.’ The same concept was elegantly formulated by Meister Eckart, the medieval German mystic, when he remarked, during one of his sermons, ‘The eye by which I see God is the same eye by which God sees me. My eye and God’s eye are one and the same, one in seeing, one in knowing…’
Question: What is the nature of the Self?
The Self, one’s real nature, alone exists and is real. The world, the soul and God are superimpositions on it like [the illusory appearance of] silver in mother-of-pearl. These three appear and disappear simultaneously. Self itself is the world; Self itself is the ‘I’; Self itself is God; all is Siva, the Self.
At the beginning of this paragraph Bhagavan says, in effect, that the world, the soul and God are illusory appearances. Later he says that all three are the Self, and therefore real. This should be seen as a paradox rather than a contradiction. The following answer clarifies Bhagavan’s views:
Sankara was criticised for his views on maya [illusion] without understanding him. He said that (1) Brahman [the Self] is real (2) the universe is unreal, and (3) Brahman is the universe. He did not stop at the second because the third explains the other two. It signifies that the universe is real if perceived as the Self and unreal if perceived as apart from the Self. Hence maya and reality are one and the same.
The seeing of names and forms is a misperception because, in the Self, the one reality, none exist. Therefore, if a world of names and forms is seen, it must necessarily be an illusory one. Bhagavan explains this in verse 49 of Guru Vachaka Kovai:
Just as fire is obscured by smoke, the shining light of consciousness is obscured by the assemblage of names and forms. When, by compassionate divine grace, the mind becomes clear, the nature of the world will be known to be not illusory forms, but only the reality.
Question: Are there any other means for making the mind quiescent?
To make the mind subside, there is no adequate means except enquiry. If controlled by other means, the mind will remain in an apparent state of subsidence, but will rise again. For example, through pranayama [breath control] the mind will subside. However, the mind will remain controlled only as long as the prana[see the following note] is controlled. When the prana comes out, the mind will also come out and wander under the influence ofvasanas. The source of the mind and the prana is one and the same. Thought itself is the nature of the mind, and the thought ‘I’ which indeed is the mind’s primal thought, is itself the ahankara[the ego]. From where the ego originates, from there alone the breath also rises. Therefore, when the mind subsides, the pranawill also subside, and when prana subsides, the mind will also subside. However, although the mind subsides in deep sleep, theprana does not subside. It is arranged in this way as a divine plan for the protection of the body and so that others do not take the body to be dead. When the mind subsides in the waking state and insamadhi, the prana also subsides. The prana is the gross form of the mind. Until the time of death, the mind retains the prana in the body. When the body dies, the mind forcibly carries away theprana. Therefore, pranayama is only an aid for controlling the mind; it will not bring about its destruction.
According to the Upanishads, prana is the principle of life and consciousness. It is the life breath of all the beings in the universe. They are born through it, live by it, and when they die, their individual pranadissolves into the cosmic prana. Prana is usually translated as ‘breath’ or ‘vital breath’, but this is only one of many of its manifestations in the human body. It is absorbed by both breathing and eating and by theprana vayus (mentioned earlier) into energy that sustains the body. Since it is assimilated through breathing, it is widely held that one can control the prana in the body by controlling the breathing.
According to yoga philosophy, and other schools of thought agree, mind and prana are intimately connected. The collective name for all the mental faculties is chitta, which is divided into:
1. manas (the mind), which has the faculties of attention and choosing.
2. buddhi (the intellect), which reasons and determines distinctions.
3. ahankara, the individual feeling of ‘I’, sometimes merely translated as ego.
Chitta, according to yoga philosophy, is propelled by prana and vasanasand moves in the direction of whichever force is more powerful. Thus, the yogis maintain that by controlling the breath, which indirectly controls the flow of pranas, the chitta can be controlled. Bhagavan gives his own views on this later in the essay.
The reference to samadhi needs some explanation. According toBhagavan, ‘Samadhi is the state in which the unbroken experience of existence is attained by the still mind.’
Elsewhere he has said, more simply, ‘Holding onto reality is samadhi.’
Though Bhagavan would sometimes say that a person in samadhi is experiencing the Self, these samadhis do not constitute permanent realisation. They are temporary states in which the mind is either completely still or in abeyance.
The next section is a continuation of the answer to the previous question: ‘Are there any other means for making the mind quiescent?’
Like breath control, meditation on a form of God, repetition of sacred words and regulation of diet are mere aids for controlling the mind. Through meditation on a form of God and through the repetition of sacred words the mind becomes focused on one point. An elephant’s trunk is always moving around, but when a chain is given to it to hold in its trunk, that elephant will go on its way, holding onto the chain instead of trying to catch other things with it. Similarly, when the mind, which is always wandering, is trained to hold onto any name or form of God, it will only cling to that. Because the mind branches out into innumerable thoughts, each thought becomes very weak. As thoughts subside more and more, one-pointedness [of mind] is gained. A mind that has gained strength in this way will easily succeed in self-enquiry. Of all regulations taking sattvic food in moderate quantities is the best. Through [this], the sattvic quality of the mind gets enhanced and becomes an aid to self-enquiry.
A sattvic diet is one which is vegetarian and which also excludes stimulating substances – such as chillies, tobacco, alcohol – and food that is excessively sour, salty or pungent.
Some Indian systems of thought maintain that the mind is composed of three fluctuating components called gunas:
• sattva, purity or harmony.
• rajas, activity.
• tamas, inertia or sluggishness.
Since the type of food eaten affects the quality of the mind, non-sattvic foods promote rajas and tamas. The sattvic mind is the most desirable. One of the aims of spiritual practice is to increase the sattvic component at the expense of rajas and tamas.
Question: Is it possible for the vishaya vasanas, which come from beginningless time, to be resolved, and for one to remain as the pure Self?
Although vishaya vasanas, which have been recurring down the ages, rise in countless numbers like the waves of an ocean, they will all perish as meditation on one’s real nature becomes more and more intense. Without giving room even to the doubting thought, ‘Is it possible to destroy all these vasanas and remain as Self alone?’ one should persistently and tightly hold onto meditation on one’s real nature. However great a sinner one may be, one should, instead of lamenting, ‘Oh, I am a sinner! How can I attain liberation?’ completely give up even the thought of being a sinner. One steadfast in meditation on one’s real nature will surely be saved.
Question: How long should enquiry be practised? What is non-attachment?
As long as there are vishaya vasanas in the mind, the enquiry ‘Who am I?’ is necessary. As and when thoughts arise, one should, then and there, annihilate them all through self-enquiry in the very place of their origin. Not giving attention to anything other than oneself is non-attachment or desirelessness; not leaving the Self isjnana [true knowledge]. In truth, these two [non-attachment and desirelessness] are one and the same. Just as a pearl diver, tying a stone to his waist, dives into the sea and takes the pearl lying on the bottom, so everyone, diving deeply within himself in a detached way can obtain the pearl of the Self. If one resorts uninterruptedly to remembrance of one’s real nature until one attains the Self, that alone will be sufficient. As long as there are enemies within the fort, they will continue to come out. If one continues to cut all of them down as and when they emerge, the fort will fall into our hands.
Question: Is it not possible for God or the Guru to effect the release of the soul?
God and Guru are, in truth, not different. Just as the prey that has fallen into the jaws of the tiger cannot escape, so those who have come under the glance of the Guru’s grace will never be forsaken. Nevertheless, one should follow without fail the path shown by the Guru.
Remaining firmly in Self-abidance, without giving the least scope for the rising of any thought other than the thought of the Self, is surrendering oneself to God. However much of a burden we throw on God, He bears it all. Since the one supreme ruling power is performing all activities, why should we, instead of yielding ourselves to it, think, ‘I should not act in this way; I should act in that way’? When we know that the train is carrying all the freight, why should we, who travel in it, suffer by keeping our own small luggage on our heads instead of putting it down and remaining happily at ease?
In the last three sections Bhagavan has used three terms, swarupa dhyanam (meditation on one’s real nature), swarupa smaranai(remembrance of one’s real nature), and atma chintanai (the thought of the Self) to indicate the process by which one becomes aware of the Self. They should not be understood to mean that one should try to focus one’s attention on the Self, for the real Self can never be an object of thought. The benedictory verse of Ulladu Narpadu explains what Bhagavan meant by such terms. It asks the question, ‘How to meditate on that reality which is called the Heart?’ since that reality alone exists, and it answers by saying, ‘To abide in the Heart as it really is, is truly meditating.’ That is to say, one can be the Heart by ‘abiding as it is’, but one cannot experience it as an object of attention.
This interpretation is confirmed by the sentence in the last extract from Who Am I? in which Bhagavan equates atma chintanai (the thought of the Self) with atma nishta (Self-abidance).
In a similar vein Bhagavan remarks later in the essay that ‘always keeping the mind fixed in the Self alone can be called self-enquiry’.
Question: What is happiness?
What is called happiness is merely the nature of the Self. Happiness and the Self are not different. The happiness of the Self alone exists; that alone is real. There is no happiness at all in even a single one of the [many] things in the world. We believe that we derive happiness from them on account of aviveka [a lack of discrimination, an inability to ascertain what is correct]. When the mind is externalised, it experiences misery. The truth is, whenever our thoughts [that is, our desires] get fulfilled, the mind turns back to its source and experiences Self-happiness alone. In this way the mind wanders without rest, emerging and abandoning the Self and [later] returning within. The shade under a tree is very pleasant. Away from it the sun’s heat is scorching. A person who is wandering around outside reaches the shade and is cooled. After a while he goes out again, but unable to bear the scorching heat, returns to the tree. In this way he is engaged in going from the shade into the hot sunshine and in coming back from the hot sunshine into the shade. A person who acts like this is an aviveki [someone who lacks discrimination], for a discriminating person would never leave the shade. By analogy, the mind of a jnani never leaves Brahman, whereas the mind of someone who has not realised the Self is such that it suffers by wandering in the world before turning back toBrahman for a while to enjoy happiness. What is called ‘the world’ is only thoughts. When the world disappears, that is, when there are no thoughts, the mind experiences bliss; when the world appears, it experiences suffering.
Question: Is not everything the work of God?
In the mere presence of the sun, which rises without desire, intention or effort, the magnifying glass emits hot light, the lotus blossoms and people begin, perform and cease their work. In front of a magnet a needle moves. Likewise, through the mere influence of the presence of God, who has no sankalpa [intention to accomplish anything], souls, who are governed by the three or five divine functions, perform and cease their activities in accordance with their respective karmas. Even so, He [God] is not someone who has sankalpa, nor will a single act ever touch him. This [untouchability] can be compared to the actions of the world not touching the sun, or to the good and bad qualities of the elements [earth, water, fire and air] not affecting the immanent space.
Sankalpa means ‘resolve’, ‘will’, or ‘intention’. God has no personalsankalpa. That is to say, He does not decide or even think about what he should do. Though mature devotees ‘bloom’ on account of his presence, it is not because He has decided to bestow His grace on these fortunate few. His presence is available to all, but only the mature convert it into realisation.
The three divine functions are creation, sustenance and destruction. The five divine functions are these three plus veiling and grace. According to many Hindu scriptures, God creates, preserves and eventually destroys the world. While it exists, He hides His true nature from the people in it through the veiling power of maya, illusion, while simultaneously emanating grace so that mature devotees can lift the veils of illusion and become aware of Him as He really is.
Question: For those who long for release, is it useful to read books?
It is said in all the scriptures that to attain liberation one should make the mind subside. After realising that mind control is the ultimate injunction of the scriptures, it is pointless to read scriptures endlessly. In order to know the mind, it is necessary to know who one is. How [can one know who one is] by researching instead in the scriptures? One should know oneself through one’s own eye of knowledge. For [a man called] Rama to know himself to be Rama, is a mirror necessary? One’s self exists within the five sheaths, whereas the scriptures are outside them. This self is the one to be enquired into. Therefore, researching in the scriptures, ignoring even the five sheaths, is futile. Enquiring ‘Who am I that am in bondage?’ and knowing one’s real nature is alone liberation.
In self-enquiry one is enquiring into the nature and origin of the individual self, not the all-pervasive Atman. When Self appears in capitals, it denotes Atman, the real Self. When self it appears in lower case, it refers to the individual.
The five sheaths or kosas envelop and contain the individual self. They are:
• annamayakosa, the food sheath, which corresponds to the physical body.
• pranamayakosa, the sheath made of prana.
• manomayakosa, the sheath of the mind.
• vijnanmayakosa, the sheath of the intellect.
• anandamayakosa, the sheath of bliss.
Sheaths two, three and four comprise the subtle body (sukshma sarira) while the fifth sheath, called the causal body, corresponds to the state of the individual self during sleep.
The individual ‘I’ functions through the five sheaths. Practitioners of theneti-neti ‘(not this, not this’) type of sadhana reject their association with the five sheaths in the way described in the second paragraph of Who Am I? The idea behind this practice is that if one rejects all thoughts, feelings and sensations as ‘not I’, the real ‘I’ will eventually shine in a form that is unlimited by or to the sheaths.
Keeping the mind fixed in the Self at all times is called self-enquiry, whereas thinking oneself to be Brahman, which is sat-chit-ananda[being-consciousness-bliss], is meditation. Eventually, all that one has learnt will have to be forgotten.
One can distinguish different levels of experience in the practice of self-enquiry. In the beginning one attempts to eliminate all transient thoughts by concentrating on or looking for the primal ‘I'-thought. This corresponds to the stage Bhagavan described earlier in the essay when one cuts down all the enemies, the thoughts, as they emerge from the fortress of the mind. If one achieves success in this for any length of time, the ‘I’-thought, deprived of new thoughts to attach itself to, begins to subside, and one then moves to a deeper level of experience. The ‘I’-thought descends into the Heart and remains there temporarily until the residual vasanas cause it to rise again. It is this second stage that Bhagavan refers to when he says that ‘keeping the mind fixed in the Self alone can be called self-enquiry’. Most practitioners of self-enquiry will readily admit that this rarely happens to them, but nevertheless, according to Bhagavan’s teachings, fixing the mind in the Self should be regarded as an intermediate goal on the path to full realisation.
It is interesting to note that Bhagavan restricts the term ‘self-enquiry’ to this phase of the practice. This unusual definition was more or less repeated in an answer he gave to Kapali Sastri:
Q: If I go on rejecting thoughts, can I call it vichara [self-enquiry]?
A: It may be a stepping stone. But real vichara begins when you cling to yourself and are already off the mental movements, the thought waves.
The following optimistic answers by Bhagavan, on keeping the mind in the Heart, may provide encouragement to those practitioners who often feel that such experiences may never come their way:
Q: How long can the mind stay or be kept in the Heart?
A: The period extends by practice.
Q: What will happen at the end of that period?
A: The mind returns to the present normal state. Unity in the Heart is replaced by a variety of perceived phenomena. This is called the outgoing mind. The Heart-going mind is called the resting mind.
When one daily practises more and more in this manner, the mind will become extremely pure due to the removal of its defects and the practice will become so easy that the purified mind will plunge into the Heart as soon as the enquiry iscommenced.
Bhagavan noted that ‘thinking oneself to be Brahman… is meditation’, not enquiry. Traditional advaitic sadhana follows the path of negation and affirmation. In the negative approach, one continuously rejects all thoughts, feelings and sensations as ‘not I’. On the affirmative route one attempts to cultivate the attitude ‘I am Brahman’ or ‘I am the Self’. Bhagavan called this latter approach, and all other techniques in which one concentrates on an idea or a form, ‘meditation’, and regarded all such methods as being indirect and inferior to self-enquiry.
Q: Is not affirmation of God more effective than the quest ‘Who am I?’ Affirmation is positive, whereas the other is negation. Moreover, it indicates separateness.
A: So long as you seek to know how to realise, this advice is given to find your Self. Your seeking the method denotes your separateness.
Q: Is it not better to say ‘I am the Supreme Being’ than ask ‘Who am I?’
A: Who affirms? There must be one to do it. Find that one.
Q: Is not meditation better than investigation?
A: Meditation implies mental imagery, whereas investigation is for the reality. The former is objective, whereas the latter is subjective.
Q: There must be a scientific approach to this subject.
A: To eschew unreality and seek the reality is scientific.
Question: Is it necessary for one who longs for release to enquire into the nature of the tattvas?
Just as it is futile to examine the garbage that has to be collectively thrown away, so it is fruitless for one who is to know himself to count the numbers and scrutinise the properties of the tattvas that are veiling the Self, instead of collectively throwing them all away.
Indian philosophers have split the phenomenal world up into many different entities or categories which are called tattvas. Different schools of thought have different lists of tattvas, some being inordinately long and complicated. Bhagavan encouraged his devotees to disregard all such classifications on the grounds that, since the appearance of the world is itself an illusion, examining its component parts one by one is an exercise in futility.
Question: Is there no difference between waking and dream?
One should consider the universe to be like a dream. Except that waking is long and dreams are short, there is no difference [between the two states]. To the extent to which all the events which happen while one is awake appear to be real, to that same extent even the events that happen in dreams appear at that time to be real. In dreams, the mind assumes another body. In both the dream and the waking [states] thoughts and names-and-forms come into existence simultaneously.
The final two paragraphs of the essay are taken from an answer to a question that has already been given:
Question: Is it possible for the vishaya vasanas, which come from beginningless time, to be resolved, and for one to remain as the pure Self?
There are not two minds, one good and another evil. the mind is only one. it is only the vasanas that are either auspicious or inauspicious. When the mind is under the influence of auspicious tendencies, it is called a good mind, and when it is under the influence of inauspicious tendencies, a bad mind. However evil people may appear, one should not hate them. Likes and dislikes are both to be disliked. One should not allow the mind to dwell much on worldly matters. As far as possible, one should not interfere in the affairs of others. All that one gives to others, one gives only to oneself. If this truth is known, who indeed will not give to others? If the individual self rises, all will rise.
If the individual self subsides, all will subside. To the extent that we behave with humility, to that extent will good result. If one can continuously control the mind, one can live anywhere.