Excerpts from "Who am I?" by Ramana Maharsi.

Ramana Maharshi’s approach to the self is through the approach of negation. Suppose there is a stone and a sculpture is to make a statue of an elephant out of it, his approach is to remove what is not an elephant out of the stone, and then what remains becomes the elephant. A similar approach of negation of what is not self to reach the self is the approach in the Upanishads, where the gurus say Neti, Neti... not this, not that to reach the reality of the true self, Atman.

Ramana Maharshi says:

 “The gross body which is composed of the seven humors (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, color, taste, and odor, 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 air, 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 functioning’s, I am not. After negating all of the above-mentioned as ‘not this’, ‘not this’, that Awareness which alone remains - that I am."

Eyes can see the whole world, but it needs a mirror, a reflection, to see itself. The self observes the whole world, but to know the self, you need self-reflection. Neti, Neti, and negation is an approach to the query into the Self.

Even after all these negations, there remains a substrate that observes it all, the true and pure consciousness, the Awareness. And the true nature of this Awareness is sat-chit-ananda, existence-consciousness-bliss.

“When the world which is what-is-seen has been removed, there will be realization of the Self which is the seer.”

The Self inside here and the world out there are mutually exclusive.  The within and the without are mutually exclusive. Either you know the truth or you will be tormented by the falsehood. In the dark, a rope can mimic a snake and may frighten you. “ Just as the knowledge of the rope which is the substrate will not arise unless the false knowledge of the illusory snake 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. “

“When the mind, which is the cause of all cognitions and of all actions, becomes quiescent, the world will disappear. “

Your thought is your mind.  “Apart from thoughts, there is no such thing as mind. Therefore, thought is the nature of the mind. 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. “I” 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 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 ".

This lesson from the English grammar is thought-provoking. If the first person ceases to remain then the second and third person, i.e. the world will cease to remain.

Athato brahma jigyasa in Sanskrit means “ Your journey of self-discovery starts with self-inquiry. Ramana Maharshi says: "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 Self-realization. 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.”

According to Ramana Maharshi, this way of self-inquiry is superior to the path of breath control and meditation.  He says: “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.”  

What is the nature of the Self? Ramana Maharshi replies: “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 deep sleep and samadhi, 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 around 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. “

 

 There is a similarity between the non-dualism of the Upanishads and the anatta of Buddhism. If the definitions of the two things are the same, then they must be the same thing. When your self ceases to exist and you are beyond the transaction between the me-and-the-other, you go to the same realm, whatever you name it – Pure soul, Parabrahma, choiceless awareness, mukti, nirvana, sunya or whatever you name it. The same flavor creeps into heart when we muse over the teachings and better say- intended teachings, of the Nagarjuna, Asthawakra, Ramana maharshi. J. Krishnamurti, and Nisargadutta maharaj. The Ramana Maharshi flavor is filled till the brim with the Punja Papaji’s and Mooji’s teaching and rhetoric. The recent spiritual gurus among the above, Mooji describes his meeting with his master Papaji (who in turn was a disciple of Ramana Maharshi) – “I met him and he murdered me”. What was murdered was the concept of the self, the individual self which sabotages our way to the timelessly existent, and profoundly joyful realm, the realm of our pure consciousness.

The deconstruction of the self is nowhere more beautifully described other than in the simile used in the following dialogue between King Milinda and an enlightened Buddhist monk named Nagasena found in the Buddhist text Milindapanha.⁽¹⁾  Nagasena answers each question with metaphors, analogies and similes.

Once king Milinda went to the hermitage of the monk and greeted him, “Greetings, saint Nagasena”

Nagasena greeted the King by acknowledging that Nagasena was his name, but that "Nagasena" was only a designation; no permanent individual "Nagasena" could be found.

This amused the King. Who is it that wears robes and takes food? he asked. If there is no Nagasena, who earns merit or demerit? Who causes karma? If what you say is true, a man could kill you and there would be no murder. "Nagasena" would be nothing but a sound.

Nagasena asked the King how he had come to his hermitage, on foot or by horseback?” I came in a chariot”, the King said.

“”But what is a chariot? Nagasena asked. “Is it the wheels, or the axles, or the reigns, or the frame, or the seat, or the draught pole? Is it a combination of those elements? Or is it found outside those elements?”

The King answered no to each question. “Then there is no chariot!” Nagasena said.

Now the King acknowledged the designation "chariot" depended on these constituent parts, but that "chariot" itself is a concept, or a mere name.

Just so, Nagasena said – “Nagasena is a designation for something conceptual. It is a mere name. When the constituent parts are present we call it a chariot; When the thought processes are present, we call it a being.”

Another way to understand the chariot simile is to imagine the chariot being taken apart. At what point in the disassembly does the chariot cease to be a chariot?

Any judgment we make is subjective. Perhaps you may argue that a pile of chariot parts is still a chariot, just not an assembled one. The point is, though, that "chariot" are concept we project onto the constituent parts. But there is no "chariot" essence that somehow dwells within the parts.