The I Thought - Ramana Maharshi
Written on April 7, 2008 by Tom Stine
Q: This ‘I’-thought rises from me. But I do not know the Self.
A. All these are only mental concepts. You are now identifying yourself with a wrong ‘I’, which is the ‘I’-thought. This ‘I’-thought rises and sinks, whereas the true significance of ‘I’ is beyond both. There cannot be a break in your being. You who slept are also now awake. There is no unhappiness in your deep sleep whereas it exists now. What is it that has happened now so that this difference is experienced? There was no ‘I’-thought in your sleep, whereas it is present now. The true ‘I’ is not apparent and the false ‘I’ is parading itself. This false ‘I’ is the obstacle to your right knowledge. Find out from where this false ‘I’ arises. Then it will disappear. You will then be only what you are, that is, absolute being.
credit: 
on April 8th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Tom, My fist inclination was to come back later and re read your post. “I” mean really. 2:36 am is pretty early to absorb what your writing. Especially with only one “eye” open. :)My false I tried to tell me to come back later. But the one that is slowing waking up, says. “Great post Tom,I’m looking forward to other comments on this post and will come back later.
Mark Krusen’s last blog post..Justa biting into an Elephant
on April 8th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Each time I read a quote like this, or anything on non-duality, I feel that I nearly - but not quite - grasp what it means. I can’t even point to which part doesn’t click with me, to ask for explanation. I understand what’s being said, but it itches at the back of my mind.
*sigh* Hopefully, someday I’ll manage to scratch that itch.
on April 8th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
An absolute being that can’t think? Hmm
But if I question I’m guilty of thought and so must be wrong? Hmm
Evan’s last blog post..Big Benefits of a Little Exercise.
on April 8th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
@Shadowduck Interesting, though, that something in your gets it. Something in you understands. These type of statements aren’t really meant for the mind. They are meant for that which knows, the itch at the back of your mind. That’s why I like them.
@Evan There is nothing wrong with thought. Thinking is neither good nor bad. Thought just won’t tell you who you are. Ramana is pointing that the thought “I” is the thought that causes all the trouble. What you are is beyond the thought of who you are. So, you can think all you want. But just don’t believe what it tells you about who you are.
on April 9th, 2008 at 7:18 am
Tom I agree with you when you say “there is nothing wrong with thought. Thinking is neither good or bad.”That leads me back to my own quote from 1970 that I may have borrowed at the time. “He who thinks has never really thought.Think about it!! It makes you think, doesn’t it.
Mark Krusen’s last blog post..You’ve Justa gotta be kidding me!
on April 11th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
@Mark “He who thinks has never really thought.” You got it, Mark. That’s the idea. Thinking is just the noise between our ears.
on April 18th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
@Tom Great quote, thanks. ‘I’ needed that. ‘I’ was just thinking about this. Then I saw the blog link under the other article. At first we seem to be the false ‘I’. The we wake up from that illusion. The ego, which has been pretending to be I, is shown for what it is. We find ourselves nyeti - not this. Gradually, what we are opens and moves forward. We drown in the ocean of love, then all of our world is lost in infinity. We wake up from the final illusion of the world.
Then the Upanishadic saying is true - I am That, Thou art That, All This is That. As the unity deepens, a new value emerges. Another surprise.
In quite a bit of the literature, people say things like “any teacher that says I am enlightened is not because they said I” I becomes the dirty word. (laughs) But heres the surprise - its back. Only now, ‘I’ is everything, unbroken, unbounded.
It illustrates from where Ramana Maharishi spoke.
(PS - Yogananda was the originator of the quote (without the because) in response to a reporter. I think his statement was directed more at enlightenment as a concept. Any concept of enlightenment is automatically wrong.(laughs) It is not something the mind can conceive. So teachers tend not to make claims like this.
PS - thanks for all the inspiration
Davidya’s last blog post..The evolving I
on April 18th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
@Davidya Now you know why I do these quotes. They are useful and powerful.
As for the “you can’t be enlightened because you said “I am enlightened”: the first time I heard that I thought “what a crock of sh*t!” It was a semi-popular spiritual teacher who has had some experience with awakening. He goes to great lengths to say “this body-mind” instead of “I”. Ridiculous. I’m glad to know where it came from. And it is still a crock. The word “I” is completely empty, at least as it refers to the point in space called Tom or Davidya. It refers to nothing. Yet look at Nisargadatta. He’s saying things like “I’m everything.” He clearly means more than the little Indian man sitting on the rug.
All I can say is Words, Words, Words!! You can say whatever you want, because none of them are really true. Adya says, “all words are simply teaching strategies.” Much better! Or the Zen concept of two words canceling each other out like two arrows meeting in midair.
on April 18th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Well put, Tom. I do notice that the awake tend to be subtle about it, to try and circumvent concepts. Like Adya talks about his experience but doesn’t go making statements about it. Making postures and artificial avoidance points to self-concepts and an immature realization.
For some reason “All I can say is Words, Words, Words!! You can say whatever you want, because none of them are really true.” struck me as like words to a song. (laughs)
on April 18th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
There is a deeper value to words though, one thats harder to see with English. Words have a meaning - and that is the part thats the illusion as it may not be the same meaning from one person to another. But words also have another characteristic - sound. Sound is vibration and it moves out and reverberates around. Vibration is the fundamental thing that expresses everything.
In Sanskrit (unlike most languages), there is a relationship between the sound of a word and its meaning (form). This draws the meaning much closer to sync with reality. Also, when things first express, they start as vibration alone, give rise to fields and so forth into expression. If one can be still and silent at that level of first vibration (called Ritam Bara Pragyan - that consciousness which accepts only truth), we can listen to sounds and they will trigger related forms. In other words, they are a way to codify and share experience. This is the hidden secret of Sanskrit chants. They are encoded experiences. Cool eh?
on April 18th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
And yet you guys seem to be communicating fine with words.
Words are social as well as individual. Between everything and nothing there lies . . .
Evan’s last blog post..Blogs I Can Recommend
on April 18th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
@Evan Excellent!! Thanks for pointing that out. As Nisargadatta Maharaj said, “And between these two my life turns.”
Trackbacks