Ramana Maharshi’s Nan Yar ?  Who Am I ? [continued]

                                               

[9]   What is the path of Inquiry for understanding the nature of the Mind?

That which rises as “I” is the Mind. If one inquires as to where the thought  “I”  rises 1^st, 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 1^st.

Illusion seems to arise as if from a “source” which is Consciousness, the Absolute Self, the only true “I”. This apparently arising Illusion is the false I-Thought which seems to arise as the 1^st Thought. This illusion is falsely attributed to the only place or Source anything could, in imagination, come from. None of that arising really happens, however, & since pure Consciousness produces no change or new entity, this Consciousness cannot really be such a Source. But since it seems to be, tracing the Illusion to its supposed “Source” points straight back “in” to Consciousness anyway. This is somewhat like the only case where 2 “wrongs”, Ego & its supposed “Source”, “makes a right” or at least points in the “right” direction to Consciousness, the only possible Source of anything.

When the illusory Mind turns in on itself, seeking its own source, as the arising “place” of the I-Thought, then Mind is thus focused in what is just the right non–objective direction.  Finding no I-Thought or its place of arising, the Mind “skids on through, as if through thin ice” into the depths of Consciousness itself. Ramana states elsewhere that the Mind thus loses its form, illusory though it is. Consciousness, that is Existence-Consciousness-Bliss, remains alone as ever it was & ever it will be.

It is only after the rise of this (I-Thought) that the other Thoughts arise. It is after the appearance of the 1^st  personal pronoun (" I ") that the 2^nd & 3^rd personal pronouns (you  &  it, she, he) appear; without the 1^st personal pronoun there will not be the 2^nd and 3^rd.
                                               

I   ==>     you   ==>     he, she, it

[10]   How will the Mind become quiet?
 By the Inquiry “Who am I?” the Thought “Who am I?” will destroy all other Thoughts,

 & like the stick used for stirring the burning funeral pyre, it will itself in the end get destroyed. Then, there will arise Self-Realization.

Nothing need be added to above, though it is slightly interesting to speculate about the “the stick used for stirring the burning pyre” analogy. For clarity sake, of course, the fire indicated is a cremation funeral pyre & Ramana may have intentionally hinted at a formal parallel between the very different events. Physical death of the Body followed by that pyre or fire is also unreal & yet bears resemblance to so-called Ego-death, glorious release of suffering for all time & absorption into Bliss. The Analogy seems to answer the unquoted question: is not “Who am I?” Inquiry itself a Thought? Comparing Thoughts in general to fire-wood sticks, the Inquiry is compared to a wooden stick used to stir the consuming fire. This last stick ultimately becomes fuel itself when tossed in upon doing its job.  No concern need be harbored for use of such an “Inquiry-Thought.”

         

Teaching in the Maharshi tradition states that one does better to attend to & release Thought concepts that cause suffering, bondage, & ignorance first, before worrying whether one should harness Thought for spiritual practice. To invert this priority & decline spiritual practice illustrates a similar maxim. Everything we think, say, & do can either deepen our Inquiry & hasten our Liberation. Or choosing otherwise, all those slow down our Release accordingly. We need have no concern or quibbling about the Thought quality of the “Who am I?” Inquiry question, which is but a funeral pyre stick for Ego-elimination. Since that Thought too is consumed by our seeing & knowing Ego to be non-existent, who would there be to bound by any Thought?

[Parenthetically, like the doubt: “is Inquiry a binding Thought?”, we might imagine a follow-up doubt regarding the possibility of relinquishing Thoughts which seem to arise spontaneously as if inevitably bubbling-up in a Sea of Consciousness. Thoughts of people, things, & events “far away” vanish effortlessly, often never to return. Thoughts of people, things, & events all “near-by” but distant in Time also vanish effortlessly, often never to return. Thoughts of people, things, & events based upon our Past interests also vanish effortlessly whenever those interests slip away. Many Thoughts then do vanish readily. In fact when interest: self-definition, ascertaining what is Real, & supposed sources of Happiness are all replaced by seeking & finding Reality, the Self, & Happiness “within”, then Thoughts based on the former misconceptions also vanish. Since Reality, the Self, & Happiness are beyond Thought, no new basis for Thought appears. More directly, Maharshi advised doubting the Doubter which again becomes Self-Inquiry.]

[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; & the Thought that arose will become quiet.

This is a straightforward & potent remedy for Thoughts that distract Inquiry. Inversely viewed, if an excess of such intruding Thoughts be the concern, Inquiry also serves as a preliminary tool to root them out. Binding concepts are never really hidden. If we Inquire & find them intruding, this only brings them all the more into the “light of day” so to speak. The Inquiry thus secondarily serves as “bait” or “excavation” to draw out false concepts that intrude. In this sense, intruding Thoughts can be made the object of what Systems-engineers might call “recursive iteration” or a “feedback loop.”

Self-Inquiry occurs “only 1 time” as in “for real” in the sense of Time-less-ness.

 Upon “Thought” arising, Maharshi advised the expedient “feedback loop” that turns the Thought back to Inquiry by asking “For whom is this thought ? For Me. “Who am I ?”

                                                  

This loop can be repeated to whatever extent necessary.

In this model, the final round combines the “1 single Inquiry” to result in the following:

With repeated practice in this manner, Mind will develop the skill to stay in its source.

When the Mind that is subtle goes out through the Brain & the Sense-Organs, the gross Names & Forms appear; when it stays inwardly directed, the Names & Forms disappear. Not letting the Mind go out, but retaining "inwardness", the “I”  which is the source of all Thoughts, will vanish, & the Self which ever exists will shine.

Again, Logic arrows depict reminders of this instruction in “notes”:

                   Outward-Mind  ==>  Name / Form – supported  “I”   =  Ego

                      n – Ego  ==>  n – Outward-Mind  ==>  Self-alone

Whatever one does, one should do without the Egoity "I".

If one acts in that way, all will appear as of the nature of the Absolute Reality.

Thus Maharshi follows with expedient practical advice for anyone in the process of their spiritual practice. Starting with the Ego-less action free of the I-am-the-Doer identification, is to be free of karma. This is Karma Yoga.

[12]    Are there no other means for making the Mind quiet ?  

Other than Inquiry, there are no adequate means. If through other means  control of the Mind it is sought,the Mind will appear to be controlled, but will again go forth. Therefore,  the exercise of breath-control (for instance) is only an aid

for rendering the Mind quiet (manonigraha); it will not destroy the Mind (manonasa).

The Illusion of the World in which one suffers identified with a Body & a Mind hinges upon the false-I Ego-notion. Seeking the source of that Ego-notion, finding it absent, reveals the ever-present, timeless, Non-Dual Self. This is the essence of Self-Inquiry taught by the Maharshi. Any other spiritual practice, whether of preparatory use or not, must ultimately pass through this same “portal to Liberation.” But nothing stands in our way from entry into that same “portal” directly. Some will say that the path of Self-Inquiry is “too steep, too high” for many. But the Maharshi’s direct instruction & the practice that he encouraged is no more complicated or difficult than any “preliminary” practice, & is most likely less complicated. Delay therefore seems to have little point, but in any case, however the path is initiated & whatever the later meandering, spiritual practice passes through this final stage of Self-Inquiry anyway.

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 & nothing else; so also when the Mind is occupied with a Name or Form it will grasp that alone.

The above useful Elephant-analogy is not the particular one the Maharshi offered, but we acknowledge it here & go on to illustrate the Maharshi’s current Elephant-analogy. There are of course other Elephant-analogies as well, such as: the Blind Men interpreting the same Elephant differently, according to their Perception; or the Elephant that awakens when a Lion or Tiger enters its Dream, just as the Seeker awakens when the Guru appears in this Waking-dream; or the Elephant, once free of its cruel master, proceeds to thoroughly stomp the fallen tyrant to make its escape permanent, referring to thorough escape from Concepts & ultimately the entire Ego-Mind.

Shortly after the close of the 19^th Century, instruction imparted in rural India could assume some characteristic acquaintance with the care of elephants & such Analogies. The Maharshi would similarly take such things to be commonly known. On the one hand, tethering a baby Elephant with a small chain would suffice to later restrain a full grown Elephant that never tested again the relative strength of its bondage.

Similarly on the other hand, as Maharshi alludes to transport of an Elephant, perhaps using the same or similar chain given to an Elephant accustomed to holding one by his trunk. With that leading small chain he could literally “be led around by his nose.” A string of Elephants could even be given just the tail of the elephant in front & one chain held by the trunk of the lead Elephant could direct the whole group. The size & strength of an Elephant contrasts all the more sharply with the small token chain which is no real Bondage at all. There remains the Elephant’s fascination with grasping something or other in its trunk, like a child with a toy in hand, a cow chewing its cud, or a person chewing gum. Ramana would actually use “sweet grass” offered to a cow to symbolize leading the Mind in the way such grass could lead the cow. So too does the Mind “trained” by Illusion reaches for & grasp onto Forms of Objects in the World & their Names which are the Concepts by which we identify & characterize each Object.

And so on other occasions when asked about mantra–practice, the Maharshi will use a that similar analogy for the Mind being lead by a mantra or any object of meditation away from Objects, Name, & Form, in the World. Thus like a mantra utilized, a cow offered “sweet grass” can be lead away to a pleasing “pasture” as in Meditation.

When the Mind expands in the form of countless Thoughts, each Thought becomes weak; but as Thoughts get resolved the Mind becomes one-pointed & strong; for such a Mind Self-Inquiry will become easy.

The analogy of an Ocean of Consciousness, of Brahman, of the Guru’s Grace, & so on, are commonly used in Non-Dual Advaita Vedanta. Sometimes the substance of the Ocean of God is compared to Consciousness as the nature of God. Sometimes individuals as rivers run into & end in the Ocean indicated. Maybe most often is the Ocean analogy, another one that also mentions waves. Each wave can stand for an impression, a vritti or wave of the Mind, or else be taken to stand for an individual jiva, or as a Thought as used by whoever the prior question may have been quoting. As if perhaps, so as not to lend even that much Reality to a Thought, the Maharshi seems not to use that specific Ocean-Wave analogy so much. Perhaps the Wave analogy relieves the meditator of too much self-responsibility. It’s as if the “Thought-waves” were external, objective, mechanical phenomena, rising & falling automatically. In any case, it was the Questioner that introduced the Analogy, & Ramana did not return to it in his response.