And at some other time he said about killing the ego:
“Can the ego ever agree to kill itself?… If you seek the ego you will find it does not exist. That is the way to destroy it.”3
And:
“How can anything that does not exist be killed?”4
‘Enquiry’ Is Looking If Something Really Exists
‘You will find it does not exist.’ This is again and again the essence of his argument. Nevertheless Ramana often talks about the ‘I’, and describes it as if it exists, so one starts to wonder: ‘but then what does exist, and what does not?’ The following quotation is pertinent in this respect.
“There is the absolute Self, from which a spark proceeds as from fire. The spark is called the ego. In the case of an ignorant man it identifies itself simultaneously with an object as it rises. It cannot remain independent of such association with objects. This association is ajnana or ignorance, whose destruction is the objective of our efforts. If its objectifying tendency is killed it remains pure, and also merges into the source.”5
If again we ignore the usage of the word ‘killing’ for a moment, the ‘association with objects’ mentioned above is the key phrase – the tendency of the ‘I’ to identify itself with objects. That is exactly the mistake.
What is associated with what? What or who is making this mistake? Ramana Maharshi repeatedly speaks about the association as being a ‘knot’ (granthi), the ‘knot in the Heart’.
“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 between Consciousness and the insentient (Chit-jada-granthi), bondage (bandha), soul (jiva), subtle body (sukshma sharira), ego (aham-kara), this mundane state of activities (samsara), mind (manas) and so on.”6
Ramana says this knot must be cut. Again: what is meant by this act of seeming violence? In fact it always turns out what is meant is sheer looking. Just looking. You always thought you already were looking, but now you are requested to look as if you would look for the very first time. If you follow this instruction you would observe where this ‘I-person’ (which is what is meant by the term ‘knot’) really is. Where do I find this ‘I-person’? Ramana used a wonderful example to illustrate this.
“[The ego] is an intangible link between the body and Pure Consciousness. It is not real. So long as one does not look closely it continues to give trouble. But when one looks for it, it is found not to exist. Again, in a Hindu marriage function, the feasts continue five or six days. A stranger was mistaken for the best man by the bride’s party and they therefore treated him with special regard. Seeing him treated with special regard by the bride’s party, the bridegroom’s party considered him to be some man of importance related to the bride’s party and therefore they too showed him special respect. The stranger had altogether a happy time of it. He was also all along aware of the real situation. On one occasion the groom’s party wanted to refer to him on some point. They asked for him. He scented trouble and made himself scarce. So it is with the ego. If looked for, it disappears.”7
Because Consciousness connects with the insentient matter, the spark which rises from Consciousness apparently makes the mistake and immediately clings to this connection with the insentient. This is called an ‘attachment’. By closely paying attention to see whether this bond is indeed real, it becomes apparent nothing is there at all. Hence the ‘I’ exists owing to the fact it is not investigated.
This is one emphasis. It is the emphasis on the ending of something (this is why terms such as ‘destroying’ are used), by the seeing of the non-existence of something. There is another aspect as well, a more essential aspect as far as I am concerned.
‘I’ Is Uninterruptedly The Case
In the terminology that something has to be ended first (‘seen through’, ‘killed’ etcetera), there is the possibility after all to interpret it as an event in time, a sequence. ‘First this, and only then there is freedom’, seems to be the message. It is clear to me that in fact Ramana emphasizes as much the always-present, self-luminous aspect within ‘I’ – that which is now already present and available in me. In spite of the knot Consciousness has made with its object, the physical body, Consciousness as such has continuously remained pure, not entangled with anything whatsoever. We are invited to recognize and understand that in fact the ‘I’ always has been ‘made’ of Consciousness as such.
“The ego functions as the knot between the Self, which is pure Consciousness (Chit), and the physical body, which is inert and insentient (jada). The ego is therefore called the Chit-jada granthi. In your investigation into the Source of aham-vritti (the ‘I’-thought), you take the essential Chit-aspect of the ego: and for this reason the enquiry must lead to the realization of the pure Consciousness of the Self.”8
The aham-vritti mentioned here (the ‘I’-thought), Ramana also called aham-idam; this is the combination of ‘I’ (aham) with an object, something thought of, a ‘this’ (idam).* So Aham-idam consists of pure Consciousness, or pure ‘I’, and everything of which Consciousness is conscious of, that is to say, of everything that is an object of ‘I’. Most of the time this object (idam) is superseded by another one each millisecond. So in the ‘I’-thought a continuous gyration of ‘this’s is occurring, whereby the ‘I’ is identifying itself with a number of ‘this’s (‘I am this’, aham-idam), as well as separating itself from them (‘I and this’, also aham-idam). In the combination aham-idam, the idam always refers to a multiple, a continuous alternation. However aham always remains the same. It is always singular. This is an important point.
In fact that which we call an ‘object’ (whether it is a material object, sensory perceptible, or a psychic object, a thought) is always a simultaneous existence of subject and object, aham and idam (‘I’ and ‘this’). I am experiencing now that this particular object is present; now I experience that there is a new object; and now I experience that there is another object, etcetera. It is always aham-idam. There is always this mixture, this blend (which in fact is identical to the knot of Chit and jada which we mentioned earlier). And within this, aham always remains the same. Aham, ‘I’, is uninterruptedly the case.
In other words, all the time in which we imagine there are only objects in our attention, there is ‘I’ simultaneously, as subject. Please note, not as ‘the I’, because this personal form is in fact an object, which is only temporarily existent, but we refer to the subject (‘I’) without which no object is possible. Then, without that which is experiencing, quite simply nothing happens.
Ramana’s advice reads: remain with the always-present subject. And even though you are repeatedly attracted to objects, that does not matter. As soon as you become aware that you are enticed, you immediately recognize the subject (the light giving aspect) inevitably present within the luring object. It is always there. It is never absent.
The advice is to stay with aham, ‘I’, and it becomes more and more pure, and less and less distracted by beliefs such as ‘I am this’, ‘I am doing well’, ‘I am worthless’, etcetera. By following these instructions you recognize the presence of pure ‘I’, always subject, self-luminous, giving light from itself to whatever is an object. From itself? Yes, from itSelf, because the more you ask after the source of ‘I’, the more you can see that the ‘I’ in fact is mere ‘I’, totally objectless, radiating, continuous ‘I,I,I,I,I,I,I’.
Now already, ‘I’ is present and continuously radiant. Yes, it is still ‘entangled’ with all kinds of ‘this’s, but that does not alter its radiance and luminosity. Only the ‘this’s are to be recognized as such, and once released thereby they are dissolved in pure ‘I’. The effect of the question ‘who am I?’ is that all ‘this’s drop off and just emptiness remains, an absence of all objects. This is ‘I’ in the pure sense of the word. By abi
ding here you have merged with what Ramana called Aham sphurana, the very first ‘I’-vibration, the source of all manifestation.
Ramana repeatedly used the expression Aham sphurana as an indication for ‘I-I’ (Aham Aham),* for the most primary emanation of ‘I’. Sphurana is something like the very first radiation, the still totally pure vibration of the origin. Aham sphurana is continuously present, always new and fresh, and hence this is exactly what ‘I’ am always. In reality ‘I’ has never been devoured or entangled by anything whatsoever.
The ‘I’ Doesn’t Need To Be Replaced By Some Other ‘I’
This emphasis is crucial. Otherwise there will rise a misunderstanding that there is an ‘I’ that is actually bad, and must be destroyed, after which there is a kind of no man’s land from which a new, clean ‘I’ will arise. As a matter of fact there are no two ‘I’s; no ‘I’ needs to be replaced by any clean or pure ‘I’.9 ‘I’ is always the same, always self-luminous and constantly present. Ramana’s term ‘annihilate’ (nasha) refers to the ‘I’-thought (aham-vritti), the entanglement of ‘I’ with an object (aham-idam), the inclination of the ‘I’ to present itself as an object.
This has already been noted in a quotation earlier in this chapter (page 19). Whilst describing the termination of the entanglement, Ramana uses the expression “the ‘I’ remains pure”, which means it “remains ‘I’ in its pure, primordial state.” He does not say: “a new ‘I’ comes into existence.” Something has always been there, and that remains in its pure form: ‘I-I’. In another place he says:
“The ‘I’ casts off the illusion of ‘I’ and yet remains as ‘I’. Such is the paradox of Self-realisation. The realised do not see any contradiction in it.”10
And further:
“Only the annihilation of ‘I’ [the ‘I’-thought] is Liberation. But it can be gained only by keeping the ‘I’-’I’ always in view. … There is only one ‘I’ all along; but what rises up from time to time is the mistaken ‘I’-thought; whereas the intuitive ‘I’ always remains Self-shining, i.e., even before it becomes manifest.”11
Attention To Subject First
When we accept the advice to confine our attention entirely to pure subject, the aspect which is pure consciousness that excludes all objects, the question then arises: isn’t this emphasis on ‘pure I’ a bit strange for an approach calling itself non-dualistic? Since the original starting point of two realities (Consciousness and inert matter) already sounds dualistic, and the advice to confine your attention totally to one of these two realities, pure Consciousness or pure ‘I’ (or ‘I-I’, Subject), is in fact excluding something, and indeed one could legitimately call it dualistic. Haven’t we arrived here at the pitfall of Advaita, which seems to encourage us to separate ourselves from our daily life as a thinking, feeling and acting being? How can such a dualistic approach ever lead to non-duality?
In reply Ramana would say that as long as you experience the objective as separate from the subject you are looking from a dualistic point of view at yourself, and so you have to stress the aspect of consciousness only.
“He must first discern consciousness (chit) from insentience (jada) and be the consciousness only. Later let him realize that insentience is not apart from consciousness.”12
And:
“Know the subject first and then question about the object. The subject comprehends the object also. That one aspect is an all-comprehensive aspect. See yourself first and then see the objects.”13
“ ‘I’, [and] ‘this’ appear together, now. But ‘this’ (idam) is contained in ‘I’ (aham) – they are not apart. ‘This’ has to merge into and become one with ‘I’. The ‘I’ that remains over is the true ‘I’.”14
This constantly present, true ‘I’ is ‘I-I’, that which remains when the combination ‘I-am-this’ or ‘I-this’ is purified from all ‘this’s by means of the question ‘who am I?’ The remaining ‘I-I’ can only become manifest (sphurana) when the veil of all ‘this’s has fallen off. This sphurana, this primary form of manifestation is not manifestation in the usual sense of the word. It is not something of which there is a multiple. You cannot turn it into an object. You can only merge with it, through recognition – I, I, I, continuous, unbroken, without form, without contents, without sound or colour. That is all you have to do; abide in this place, rest and relax in it. Everything possibly beyond that,* the ‘Absolute’, ‘Enlightenment’ or whatever term, is Grace. Abide in this place, ‘I-I’. It is here your search is over.
* See for Ramana’s use of aham-idam: Talks, nrs. 177, 277, 314, 323, 363, 569, 577, 589 and 626. I recommend those interested to read about the theme of aham and idam in the Advaita-tradition: Michael Comans, The Method of Early Advaita Vedanta. Delhi: M. Banarsidass, 2000; p. 425-436. These pages in this excellent book (the best book on the original teachings of Advaita I know of) deal with the approach of Padmapada, a direct disciple of Shankara. Padmapada was possibly the first one who used this terminology (an-idam, ‘not-this’, in place of aham). Aham-idam as a term also shows up in the tradition of Kashmir Shaivism; there it refers to the merging of the Absolute (Aham) with the manifesting (idam).
* Concerning the term ‘I-I’ (Aham Aham), I consider this term as actually more fitting than the better known term ‘the Self’, because ‘I-I’ expresses constantly the linguistic first person, while ‘the Self’ is third person - and by that seeming to be ‘somewhere else’. Possibly Ramana has taken the term ‘I-I’ from the Viveka Chudamani (attributed to Shankara, probably mistakenly); the term can be found there in the verses 137 and 219. Already at an early age Ramana had translated this text into Tamil. In his translation Ramana did add the term ‘I-I’ (in Tamil: Nan Nan) in several verses, namely 127, 213, 214, 381, 409 and 536. From my experience the best English translations of the Viveka Chudamani are the one by Anthony J. Alston, The Crest Jewel of Wisdom. London: Shanti Sadan, 1997; p. 86 and 135; and the one by John Grimes, The Vivekacudamani of Sankaracarya Bhagavatpada. Aldershot (UK): Ashgate, 2004; p. 124 and 156.
* ‘Beyond’ implies that the attitude of the seeker can be continued. Being carried by Aham sphurana actually means that even the power of discrimination, so far our most efficient tool, may be left behind. That power has served us well with the seeing of the difference between ‘I’ (aham) and ‘this’ (idam), but its role is over. Only surrender to the differenceless Reality is called for here.
TWO
Atmananda (Krishna Menon)
The approach of the second of the three great teachers, Shri Krishna Menon, also known as Shri Atmananda, was at first sight just traditional. He often expressed himself in a way as if repeating the words of Shankara and Sureshvara. But in fact he could be called very original, in several ways.
What is specifically original to his approach?
It is his own special linguistic usage, his particular logic (or ‘subjective’ logic*), his way of reducing all things to their ultimate nature, and in particular his entire emphasis on what he called the ‘‘I’-Principle’.
To him this ‘I’-Principle was a synonym of Ultimate Reality, the Absolute – there is nothing which precedes it; it is what is truly meant with the word ‘I’. He said for instance:
“Pure consciousness and deep peace are your real nature. Having understood this in the right manner, you can well give up the use of the words ‘Consciousness’ and ‘Happiness’ and invariably use ‘I’ to denote the Reality. Don’t be satisfied with only reducing objects into Consciousness. Don’t stop there. Reduce them further into the ‘I’-Principle. So also reduce all feelings into pure Happiness, and then reduce them further into the ‘I’-Principle.”1
Although Atmananda loved to use words like Consciousness and Happiness in order to refer to the Ultimate, a quote like this shows that ultimately he preferred the term ‘I’-Principle (he once even said that compared to the ‘I’-Principle the word Consciousness may be called theory!2). He did so because he considered that the word ‘I’ has the
least chance of being mistaken. Everything that can be perceived is liable to mistakes, however that which can be called ‘yourself’, that which cannot be perceived, ‘I’, cannot cause any mistaking.3 He considered the ‘I’-Principle to be everybody’s true goal, because it is in fact contained in each endeavour.4
‘I’ As Such
The use of the word ‘Principle’ by Atmananda should not be considered a mental or philosophical attempt to understand or frame the ‘I’. It is his way of using a word for what ‘I’ is in itself, ‘I’ as such. What ‘I’ as such really is, precisely, is prior to any mental movement or framing.
With expressions like ‘in itself’ and ‘as such’ language stops short. Here language arrives at its limits. Something is referring to itself. Something as such does not change the next moment into something else. It is the constant factor in the ever changing, it is its own true nature. It does not rely on anything else. Atmananda frequently used the Sanskrit word svarupa, true nature, which referred to this constant factor. He used it together with a number of words that he considered its synonym, such as ‘background’, ‘content’, ‘substrate’, ‘pure state’ and ‘natural state’. Atmananda used these various words as indications for one and the same thing.
The trouble with language is that each attempt to refer to the essential nature of something can, as quick as a flash, be misunderstood. For instance a term like ‘the essence’ can suggest the presence of a tiny ‘being’ or ‘core’ within a more coarse form. As if you might discover something’s essence by enlarging it more and more using a microscope, continuously looking to what is inside the core. Something of this suggestion repeatedly arises in popular commentaries on the famous ‘You Are That’ passages in the Chandogya Upanishad in which Uddalaka teaches his son, for instance by splitting a fruit further and further.
I is a Door Page 2