Commentary on Ramana's Forty Verses: Verse Twenty-Six

Continued from Verse Twenty-Five

26. If the ego is, everything else also is. If the ego is not, nothing else is. Indeed, the ego is all. Therefore the enquiry as to what this ego is, is the only way of giving up everything.

Commentary: Everything is a series of things. Things are objects with boundaries. Boundaries are always set in relation to an observer, the one who feels that “I am.” Thinking “I am” means thinking “I am not those things.”

This “I am” thought is the ego. It is inevitably mixed with the belief that “I am the body and the mind” and various other things. In order to think “I am,” the ego has to implicitly create a sense of what it is, and what it is not. That sense is based on the idea that one is a doing, experiencing person.

Only then can you cognize other things. You perceive them in relationship to this person that you think you are. So everything is only possible if there is an ego, a sense of separation, that then creates a world of names and forms. If that sense of separation falls, the boundary-based world cannot stand. All our language and concepts depend on the egoic distinction of an out there as opposed to an in here, on a not-me as opposed to a me.

So the only way to really give up everything is to look this egoic illusion in the face. It cannot sustain itself, because the I which is observing everything is not actually that which it seems to be. It seems to be a solid core. It is quite clear that if one looks, though, that the observer is not a solid core. It has no boundaries. It isn’t an object.

But if it isn’t an object, then it isn’t “in here,” and if it isn’t “in here,” then the things that are out there aren’t really out there, since they are only out there relative to something that is in here. Names and forms fall, concepts fall, language falls. Everything then is given up, in the sense that it is was never there to begin with.

Inquiry into the ego means to turn attention continuously towards the I, that is, towards whatever is noticing experience. The cardinal rule of self-inquiry is that you cannot be what you are aware of; that in order to be aware of something, there has to be a distance between you and it.

When one tries to do self-inquiry and find the I, one tends to land on another object of experience. This again cannot be you. Then you try to turn towards whatever is noticing that. On and on the inquiry goes this way, until it is seen that more and more of what you thought you were is actually a series of objects. This is then recognized as not you. Pursued to its end, everything is given up.

At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here.

Commentary on Ramana's Forty Verses: Verse Twenty-Five

Continued from Verse Twenty-Four

25. It comes into being equipped with a form, and as long as it retains a form it endures. Having a form, it feeds and grows big. But if you investigate it, this evil spirit, which has no form of its own, relinquishes its grip on form and takes to flight.

Commentary: The form or vehicle of the ego is the mind-body. This mind-body assumes an identity and relationships, and then has desires and fears based on that identity and relationships. This entangles it in more and more thought, and this thought increasingly obscures the fact that this ego is merely an imaginary thing. The movement of thought seems to create the sense that the ego is doing things, much like, as is stated in an ancient scripture, a torch being whirled around seems to create a circle of light. A more modern metaphor might be how two stereo speakers create an illusion of a three-dimensional soundstage and a band.

If this ego is investigated — namely, by slowing the thoughts down and trying to find just who is watching the whole show — it suddenly recedes, because the illusion cannot be sustained if you see its background. The illusion is based on separation, and the separation is a trick of misdirection. As long as you’re consumed by desires and fears, then mind moves endlessly, and doesn’t actually investigate who the “I” is who has all of these desires and fears. Start looking, and suddenly it becomes elusive who the I is. The I, which watches, and which cannot be what is watched, cannot seem to find or locate itself. That immediately starts to break up the desires and fears, since they are all premised on the idea that I want this and I fear that. But if you can’t find yourself, then obviously those desires and fears then become less compelling.

But stopping there is not enough. The one who cannot find the I is itself the I that is being looked for. That I must be pursued relentlessly, and as it is pursued, concentration, peace, and the desire for liberation generally increase and attachments tend to decrease, though there may be spectacular bouts of fear and passion as the usual identity struggles to hold on to itself.

This goes on until the Background of the Mind is finally and inevitably noticed, and the conceit that the mind-body is independent is no longer sustainable.

At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here.

Commentary on Ramana's Forty Verses: Verse Twenty-Four

Continued from Verse Twenty-Three

24. This inert body does not say 'I'. Reality-Consciousness does not emerge. Between the two, and limited to the measure of the body, something emerges as 'I'. It is this that is known as Chit-jada-granthi (the knot between the Conscious and the inert), and also as bondage, soul, subtle-body, ego, samsara, mind, and so forth.

Commentary: The body, being insentient, cannot call itself the I any more than the words on a page can speak themselves. And the Self, being beyond thought, does not change or act, and cannot and does not call itself by any name. The light of the Self, then, is said to reflect upon the body (or the body-mind), and in the reflection of that body in the light of the Self — is said to be the ego which arises.

This is much like the imaginary character that is created when a reader (analogous to the Self) reads a book (analogous to the body). In the interaction between reader and book arises an imaginary person who is called the character. This character does not actually do, feel, or think anything, but is only imagined to do so.

This is called the knot that ties consciousness and matter, or the ego. This imaginary character is the one who seems to seek spiritual truth, and at the end of its quest, will be dissolved away by the the knowledge of its own imaginary nature against the background of Self.

At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here.

Commentary on Ramana's Forty Verses: Verse Twenty-Three

Continued from Verse Twenty-Two

23. The body does not say 'I'. No one will argue that even in deep sleep the 'I' ceases to exist. Once the 'I' emerges, all else emerges. With a keen mind enquire whence this 'I' emerges.

Commentary: The body, being insentient, cannot actually believe anything, any more than rocks can believe anything. So “I“ am not rooted in the body. And even in deep sleep, we have a rudimentary sense of our existence, which is why we know, when we wake up, that we slept, and didn’t just cease to exist from the moment we fell asleep at night to when we opened our eyes the next morning. So “I“ exist even in deep sleep.

We should note here that the I that remains the same between deep sleep and waking is the true I, whereas all that we have access to in the waking state is a modification of that true I, namely, the waking I, which gives a sense of division and separation. That is the I we are forced to look for, and when we do, we will find that it is merely a reflection and modification of the true I, which watches over all the states of consciousness (waking, dreaming, and deep sleep), and can either be experienced with or without a sense of duality and separation. The senses of duality or the lack thereof — which we call being conscious or unconscious, respectively — are merely thoughts.

At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here.

Commentary on Ramana's Forty Verses: Verse Twenty-Two

Continued from Verse Twenty-One

22. The Divine gives light to the mind and shines within it. Except by turning the mind inward and fixing it in the Divine, there is no other way to know Him through the mind.

Commentary: God is nothing other than the source of all. By definition God exceeds the ability of the mind to grasp it. It in fact is nothing other than the light that illuminates all attempts at understanding; that light cannot itself be understood. The only way, then, to know that light, is to turn the mind away from the changeable, illuminated objects… there is no place left for it to go then but to the light itself.

At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here.

Commentary on Ramana's Forty Verses: Verse Twenty-One

Continued from Verse Twenty

21. What is the Truth of the scriptures which declare that if one sees the Self one sees God? How can one see one's Self? If, since one is a single being, one cannot see one's Self, how can one see God? Only by becoming a prey to Him.

Commentary: The Self cannot be seen as a separate object, and neither can God, whose essence is of course nothing but the Self. Both are said to be seen if the obstacles to recognizing their existence are removed. This obstacle is the belief that you are a separate, individual self. You cannot directly remove that belief; you can only offer yourself up by letting go as much as you can of your attachments to your identity. This is done by firmly turning the mind away from all the objects of experience through self-inquiry or surrender. Then that sense of separation will be removed by divine Grace, and the Truth — the Self in God, the God in Self — will shine, as in fact it always has. The idea that it ever was obscured will be seen to be a misconception, and even that misconception has never existed.

At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here.

Commentary on Ramana's Forty Verses: Verse Twenty

Continued from Verse Nineteen

20. He who sees God without seeing the Self sees only a mental image. They say that he who sees the Self sees God. He who, having completely lost the ego, sees the Self, has found God, because the Self does not exist apart from God.

Commentary: God is merely an abstraction, a thought, a belief, unless experienced directly. And God can and is experienced directly, as the Self. So one who knows the Self knows God. If the ego has been investigated and its illusion penetrated, then the Self is said to be known. In that same moment, God is also found, since the idea of God is nothing other than the Self with a few illusory attributes superimposed. From the view of the ego, God is the whole. That is, the mind is small and limited, and God is large and unlimited. But when the Self is found, this egoic way of looking at the mind and God falls apart. There is then only the Self, which is nothing other than God’s real formless form. God’s worldly attributes — God’s miraculous powers, etc. — are as true or false as the attributes of any individual mind. There is then to be found no distinction between your true form and the true form of God.

At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here.

Commentary on Ramana's Forty Verses: Verse Nineteen

Continued from Verse Eighteen

19. Only those who have no knowledge of the Source of destiny and free-will dispute as to which of them prevails. They that know the Self as the one Source of destiny and free-will are free from both. Will they again get entangled in them?

Commentary: Free will and destiny are concepts based on the idea that there are real individual minds which could either be free or bound. But when the source of this assumption is investigated, it falls apart. That’s the end of viewing the ego as real. Only if the ego is real — that is, only if there really is a separate, individual, doing, experiencing self — can that self be assessed as either free or bound. Since upon investigation such a self dissolves into the Self, the questions of free will or predetermination are falsely posed. Are the actions of a character in a novel free or bound? Neither, since there is no character, really — there’s merely a set of words on a page which become a hypothetical person in the mind of the reader. Is an elephant you see in a cloud free to wander where it wants? There is no elephant, actually. It is merely the projection of an imagination. Freedom and destiny cannot apply to creatures who are only pretended to exist.

At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here.

Commentary on Ramana's Forty Verses: Verse Eighteen

Continued from Verse Seventeen

18. To those who have not realized (the Self) as well as to those who have, the world is real. But to those who have not realized, Truth is adapted to the measure of the world, whereas to those that have, Truth shines as the Formless Perfection, and as the Substratum of the world. This is all the difference between them.

Commentary: The phenomenon called the world might be said to appear to both the realized and the non-realized. But the realized view it as nothing other than a modification of the Self, which alone is considered the real truth. The only actual truth is known to be formless and beyond the mind. The world is real only as the Self, but the Self is beyond the egoic thought that says “I am, and therefore the world is.”

So the world is real only as the Self, but the Self does not think the thought that acknowledges the existence of the world.

For the realized ones, then, what appears to be thinking, feeling, perceiving and acting are nothing but the Self that does not admit any of those activities. In other words, thinking is not thinking, feeling is not feeling, perceiving is not perceiving, and acting is not acting. These are not real in themselves; they are all only the Self. They are not what they seem to be. They are semblances.

Whereas for the so-called ones who have not realized, the world is taken to be independently real, and there is thought to be actual truth in it.

“This is all the difference between them” — but what a difference!

At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here.

Commentary on Ramana's Forty Verses: Verse Seventeen

Continued from Verse Sixteen

17. To those who have not realized the Self, as well as to those who have, the word 'I' refers to the body, but with this difference, that for those who have not realized, the 'I' is confined to the body whereas for those who have realized the Self within the body the 'I' shines as the limitless Self.

Commentary: For those who have not realized the Self, the I is basically founded in the body (which includes the mind) and its attachments and linkages. For those who have, so to say, realized the Self, the I is not grounded in the body. The body is seen as merely a mirror for something which is not actually in the body — any more than the Sun reflected in a puddle is actually in the puddle. The I can refer to the body, as a convenient way of naming a limited entity. But that limited entity is seen as nothing other than a reflection of the Self, which has no limits.

At any time, see all the forty verses posts that I have published so far here.