|
Nan Yar? (Who
am I?)
Introduction
In 1901, when Bhagavan Sri Ramana was just twenty-one years old and was
living in a cave on the holy hill Arunachala, a humble and
self-effacing devotee named Sri Sivaprakasam Pillai began to visit him
and asked him many questions about spiritual philosophy and practice.
Sri Ramana, who seldom spoke in those early times, answered most of his
questions by writing either on the sandy ground, or on a slate or slips
of paper that Sri Sivaprakasam Pillai gave him.
Sri Sivaprakasam Pillai copied many of these questions and answers in a
notebook, but for more than twenty years he did not publish them.
However in 1923, at the request of other devotees, he published them
under the title Nan Yar? (நான் யார்?), which means
'Who am I?', or more precisely 'I [am] Who?', in a small booklet
containing thirty-two (if I remember correctly, or perhaps it was just
thirty) questions and answers.
During the ten years or so that followed the first publication of Nan
Yar? various versions of it were published, and various other
versions of it exist in manuscript form in the notebooks of Sri
Sivaprakasam Pillai. Each of these versions has a different number of
questions and answers, with slight variation in their actual wording,
and with a varying amount of content in some particular answers. The
standard and most authentic version, however, is the essay version that
Sri Ramana himself wrote a few years after the first version was
published.
Sri Ramana formed this essay version, which consists of twenty
paragraphs, by rewriting the first published question and answer
version, and possibly by drawing on some of the other versions, and
while doing so he made several improvements, removing all but the first
question, rearranging the order in which the ideas in his answers were
presented, and making some changes to the actual wordings.
Of all the changes he made, the most significant was to add an entirely
new
paragraph at the beginning of the essay. This opening paragraph serves as a
suitable introduction to the subject 'Who am I?', because it explains
that the reason why we need to know who we are is that happiness is our
real nature, and that we can therefore experience true and perfect
happiness only by knowing ourself as we really are.
The first question that Sri Sivaprakasam Pillai asked Sri Ramana was
"Who am I?", to which he replied simply, "Knowledge [or consciousness]
alone is I". The actual Tamil words spoken by Sri Sivaprakasam Pillai
were "nan yar?", which literally mean 'I [am] who?',
and the words that Sri Ramana wrote in reply with his finger on the
sandy ground were "arive nan".
The Tamil word arivu means 'knowledge' in the
broadest sense, and is therefore used to denote many different forms of
knowledge, including consciousness, wisdom, intelligence, learning,
sense perception, anything that is known, and even atma,
our real self, which is our fundamental knowledge 'I am'. In this
context, however, it means only our fundamental knowledge 'I am' – our
essential consciousness of our own being. The letter e
that he appended to arivu is a suffix that is
commonly used in Tamil to add emphasis to a word, conveying the sense
'itself', 'alone' or 'indeed', and the word nan
means 'I'.
In these two simple words, arive nan, Sri Ramana
summarised the essence of his experience of true self-knowledge, which
is the basis of the entire philosophy and science that he taught. What
he meant by these simple words is that our true and essential nature is
only our fundamental knowledge or consciousness 'I am', which is the
conclusion that we have to arrive at if we critically analyse our
experience of ourself in our three ordinary states of consciousness (as
explained in Happiness and the Art of Being,
particularly in chapter two, 'Who am I?').
The next question that Sri Sivaprakasam Pillai asked him was "What is
the nature of [such] knowledge?", to which he replied either "The
nature of knowledge is sat-chit-ananda" or more
probably just "sat-chit-ananda". The compound word sat-chit-ananda,
which is actually fused into one word, transliterated correctly as saccidananda,
is a well-known philosophical term, which is of Sanskrit origin, but
which is widely understood and frequently used in Tamil and all other
Indian languages. It is a term used to describe the nature of the
absolute reality, and though it is composed of three words, it is not
intended to imply that the absolute reality is composed of three
distinct elements, but only that the single non-dual nature of the one
absolute reality can be described in three different ways.
The word sat basically means 'being' or 'existing',
but by extension also means 'that which really is', 'reality', 'truth',
'existence', 'essence', 'real', 'true', 'good', 'right', or 'that which
is real, true, good or right'. The word chit means
'consciousness' or 'awareness', from a verbal root meaning 'to know',
'to be conscious of', 'to perceive', 'to observe', 'to attend to' or
'to be attentive'. And the word ananda means
'happiness', 'joy' or 'bliss'. Thus saccidananda,
or as it is more commonly spelt in roman script, sat-chit-ananda,
means 'being-consciousness-bliss', that is, being which is both
consciousness and bliss, or consciousness which is both being and
bliss, or bliss which is both being and consciousness.
Thus through these two first answers Sri Ramana revealed three
important truths about the nature of our essential self or real 'I'.
Firstly he revealed that our essential self is only consciousness.
Secondly he revealed that this consciousness is not our consciousness
of any other thing but only our consciousness of ourself – our
consciousness of our own being, that is, our being-consciousness or sat-chit.
Thus he implied that since we are in essence only this consciousness of
our own being, neither our self-consciousness nor our being are
separate from ourself, and hence our essential self-consciousness is
our very being, and our being is itself our consciousness of our being.
In other words, there is absolutely no distinction between our being
and our consciousness. Our being and our consciousness of being are
therefore one, and hence our real self is only this essential
self-conscious being, which we always experience as 'I am'. Thirdly he
revealed that this essential self-consciousness or being-consciousness
is not only our true being and our fundamental consciousness of our
being, but is also that which we experience as happiness. In other
words, we are being, we are consciousness, and we are happiness, and
hence our being, our consciousness and our happiness are not three
separate things, but are one indivisible non-dual whole – our single,
true and essential self.
When we are seemingly consciousness of otherness, as in we are in
waking and dream, we experience a mixture of relative happiness and
unhappiness, but when we are conscious of nothing other than ourself,
as we are in dreamless sleep, we experience absolute, unqualified
happiness. Since we experience absolutely no duality or otherness in
sleep, that is, since we know nothing other than 'I am' in sleep, what
we experience in sleep must be our essential self. Since we know that
we exist in sleep, our essential self is both our being and our
consciousness of our being, and since we know that we are happy in
sleep, our essential self is also happiness – the happiness of being
conscious of nothing other than our own being, 'I am'.
When Sri Ramana rewrote the original question and answer version of Nan
Yar? as the present essay, he highlighted the first question,
nan yar? (I [am]
who?), and his first two answers, arive nan
(knowledge [or consciousness] alone is I) and arivin sorupam
sat-chit-anandam (the nature of [this] knowledge is
being-consciousness-bliss), in bold type. The reason he did so is that
the rest of the second paragraph,
in which this question and two answers are contained, consists of ideas
that were not actually a part of the answers that he gave to Sri
Sivaprakasam Pillai.
Before its publication, a draft of the original question and answer
version was shown to Sri Ramana for his approval, and when he read it
he noticed that Sri Sivaprakasam Pillai had expanded his original
answer to the first question, adding a detailed list of things that we
mistake ourself to be, but that in fact we are not. On seeing this, he
remarked that he had not answered in such a detailed manner, but then
explained that, because Sri Sivaprakasam Pillai was familiar with neti
neti, he had added such detail thinking that it would help
him to understand his answer more clearly.
By the term neti neti, Sri Ramana meant the
rational process of self-analysis described in the ancient texts of vedanta,
a process that involves the analytical elimination or denial of
everything that is not 'I'. The word neti is a
compound of two words, na, which means 'not', and iti,
which means 'thus', and hence neti neti literally
means 'not thus, not thus'. The ancient texts of vedanta
use these words neti neti when explaining the
rational basis for the theory that our body, our senses, our
life-force, our mind and even the ignorance that we seemingly
experience in sleep are all not 'I'.
The rational and analytical process which is thus described in the
ancient texts of vedanta as neti neti
or 'not thus, not thus' is essentially the same as the logical analysis
of our experience of ourself that Sri Bhagavan taught us (which is
described in chapter two of Happiness and the Art of Being).
If we did not first critically analyse our experience of ourself in
this manner, we would not be able to understand either the reason why
we should seek true self-knowledge, or what exactly we should
scrutinise in order to know our real self.
So long as we imagine that we are really our physical body, our
thinking mind or any other object, we will imagine that we can know
ourself by attending to such things, and hence we will not be able to
understand what is really meant by the terms atma-vichara,
self-investigation, self-examination, self-scrutiny, self-enquiry,
self-attention, self-attentiveness or self-remembrance. Only when we
understand the essential theory that we are nothing other than our
fundamental non-dual self-consciousness – our adjunct-free
consciousness of our own mere being, which we experience just as 'I am'
and not as 'I am this' – will we be able to understand what actually is
the 'self' or 'I' that we should scrutinise or attend to.
Once we have understood that we are truly not our physical body, our
thinking mind or any other object known by us, we should not continue
thinking, 'this body is not I', 'this mind is not I', and so on, but
should withdraw our attention from all such things, and focus it wholly
and exclusively upon our real and essential being. We cannot know our
real self by thinking of anything that is not 'I', but only by
investigating, scrutinising or attending keenly to that which is really
'I' – to that which we really are, that is, to our essential
self-conscious being. Unless we withdraw our attention entirely from
all other things, we will not be able to focus it wholly and
exclusively upon our essential self-conscious being, which we always
experience as 'I am', and unless we focus it thus upon our essential
being, we will not be able to attain the non-dual experience of true
self-knowledge.
However, though Sri Ramana taught us how we should critically analyse
our experience of ourself in our three ordinary states of consciousness
in order to understand that we are nothing other than our essential
non-dual self-conscious being, 'I am', which is the only thing that we
experience in all these three states, and though this process of
self-analysis is essentially the same as the process that is described
in the ancient texts of vedanta as neti
neti, he would not himself have said, "Having done neti
[negation, elimination or denial of whatever is not ourself by
thinking] thus, all the abovesaid things are not 'I', not 'I', the knowledge
that [then] stands detached alone is 'I'", as Sri
Sivaprakasam Pillai wrote when he expanded his first answer arive
nan (knowledge alone is I) for his own clarification.
The qualification of the word 'knowledge' by the addition of the
defining clause 'that stands detached [separated or alone] having done neti
thus, all the abovesaid things are not I, not I' is potentially
misleading, because it could create the impression that simply by
thinking neti neti, 'not thus, not thus' or 'this
is not I, this is not I', we can detach our essential consciousness or
knowledge 'I am' from everything with which we now confuse it. In fact,
many scholars who attempt to explain the ancient texts of vedanta,
which often describe this process of neti neti or
negation of all that is not our real self, interpret it to be the
actual means by which we can attain self-knowledge. However, the sages
who first taught the rational process of self-analysis called neti
neti did not intend it to be understood as the actual
technique of practical or empirical research, but only as the
theoretical basis upon which the empirical technique of atma-vichara
or self-investigation should be based.
The reason why we confuse ourself – our essential consciousness 'I am'
– with our body, mind and other such adjuncts is that we do not clearly
know what we are. If we knew ourself as we really are, we could not
imagine ourself to be anything that we are not. Therefore the only
practical means by which we can separate our essential
self-consciousness 'I am' from everything that we now mistake it to be,
is to know ourself as we really are.
In order to know ourself clearly as we really are, "jñana-vichara
[scrutinising our consciousness to know] 'who am I?' alone is
the principal means", as Sri Ramana says in the final clause
of the first paragraph, which
he highlighted in bold type. The term jñana-vichara
literally means 'knowledge-investigation', and is the process (or
rather the state) of investigating our essential self-consciousness 'I
am', which is our primary knowledge and the base of all our other
knowledge, in order to attain true knowledge of our own real self. This
practice of jñana-vichara is described by Sri
Ramana in verse 19 of Upadesa Undiyar:
When
[we] scrutinise within [ourself] 'what is the place in which it [our
mind] rises as I?' [this false] 'I' will die. This [alone] is jñana-vichara.
What
Sri Ramana describes in this verse as our ezhum idam,
the 'rising place' or source of our mind or finite sense of 'I', is our
own essential self, our adjunct-free self-consciousness 'I am'. When we
scrutinise our essential self-conscious being, 'I am', which is the
source from which our limited adjunct-bound 'I' rises, this "I will
die", that is, it will cease to exist as such, because we will discover
that it is truly nothing other than our adjunct-free
self-consciousness.
When we look carefully at a snake that we imagine we see lying on the
ground in the dim light of night, we will discover that it is not
really a snake but is only a rope. Similarly, when we carefully
scrutinise our basic self-consciousness 'I am', which we now experience
as our mind, our limited consciousness that imagines itself to be a
body, we will discover that we are not really this finite mind or body,
but are only the one infinite non-dual self-consciousness – our
essential adjunct-free consciousness of our own being.
Therefore what Sri Ramana means in this first
paragraph by the term "knowledge-investigation 'who am I?'"
is not a mere intellectual analysis of our knowledge 'I am', but is an
actual examination or deep scrutiny of our fundamental knowledge or
consciousness 'I am' in order to know through direct experience what it
really is. Such an investigation or scrutiny cannot be done by
thinking, but only by turning our attention back on ourself to know our
own essential consciousness of being. When our attention or power of
knowing is turned outwards to know things other than ourself, it
becomes our thinking mind, but when it turns back inwards to know our
essential self, it remains in its natural state as our essential self –
that is, as our true non-dual self-conscious being.
The same truth that Sri Ramana expresses in this final clause of the first paragraph, "jñana-vichara
'who am I?' alone is the principal means" for us to know ourself, is
reiterated by him in many of the other paragraphs. For example, he
begins the sixth paragraph by
saying, "Only by [means of] the investigation 'who am I?' will [our]
mind subside [shrink, settle down, become still, disappear or cease to
be]", he begins the eighth paragraph
by saying, "To make the mind subside [permanently], there are no
adequate means other than vichara [investigation,
that is, the practice of vigilant self-scrutiny or self-attentiveness].
If restrained by other means, the mind will remain as if subsided,
[but] will emerge again", and he begins the eleventh
paragraph by saying, "As long as vishaya-vasanas
[latent impulsions or desires to attend to anything other than ourself]
exist in [our] mind, so long the investigation 'who am I?' is
necessary".
Besides using this Sanskrit term vichara, which
means 'investigation', 'examination' or 'scrutiny', Sri Ramana used
many other Tamil and Sanskrit words to describe the practice of
self-investigation. For example, in the sixth
paragraph he describes it not only as nanar ennum
vicharanai, which means the "investigation 'who am I?'", but
also as ahamukham, which means 'I-facing' or
'self-attention', antarmukham, which means
'inward-facing' or 'introversion', and summa iruppadu,
which means 'just being', 'silently being', 'peacefully being',
'motionlessly being' or 'being without doing anything', in the tenth paragraph he describes it as svarupa-dhyana,
which means 'self-meditation' or 'self-attentiveness', in the eleventh paragraph he describes it
as svarupa-smarana, which means 'self-remembrance',
and in the thirteenth paragraph
he describes it as atma-nishtha, which means
'self-abidance', and atma-chintana, which means
'self-contemplation' or the 'thought of self'.
All these words describe the same state of practice, namely the
thought-free state of just being self-conscious or self-attentive. This
simple practice of keeping our mind or attention fixed firmly in our
own essential self – this is, in our thought-free self-conscious being
– is clearly described by him in the sixteenth
paragraph, in which he says:
...
The name 'atma-vichara' [is truly applicable] only
to [the practice of] always being [abiding or remaining] having put
[placed, kept, seated, deposited, detained, fixed or established our]
mind in atma [our own real self] ...
In
both Sanskrit and Tamil the word atma, which
literally means 'self', is a philosophical term that denotes our own
true, essential and perfectly non-dual self-conscious being, 'I am'.
Hence the state that Sri Ramana describes in this sentence as sadakalamum
manattai atmavil vaittiruppadu is the state of just 'being',
in which we keep our mind firmly fixed or established in and as atma,
our own essential non-dual self-conscious being.
The compound word sada-kalamum means 'always' or
'at all times', manattai is the accusative form of manam,
which means 'mind', atmavil is the locative form of
atma and therefore
means 'in self', and vaittiruppadu is a compound of
two words, vaittu, which is a past participle
meaning 'having put', 'having placed', 'having kept', 'having seated',
'having fixed' or 'having established', and iruppadu,
which is a gerund formed from the verbal root iru,
which means 'be'. When it is used alone, this gerund iruppadu
means 'being', but when it is appended to a past participle to form a
compound gerund, it serves as an auxiliary verbal noun denoting a
continuity of whatever action or state is indicated by the past
participle. Therefore the compound word vaittiruppadu
can be interpreted either literally as meaning 'being having placed',
or idiomatically as denoting a continuous state of 'placing',
'seating', 'fixing' or 'keeping'. However there is actually no
essential difference between these two interpretations, because the
state in which we keep our mind continuously placed, seated, fixed or
established in atma or 'self' is not a state of
activity or 'doing', but is only the state of just 'being' as we really
are.
Thus in this sentence Sri Ramana clearly defines the exact meaning of
the term atma-vichara, saying that it denotes only
the state of just 'being' – the spiritual practice of keeping our mind
firmly established in and as atma, our own real
'self' or essential self-conscious being, 'I am'. In other words, atma-vichara
or the investigation 'who am I?' is only the practice of just being as
we really are – that is, just being in our true and natural state, in
which our mind has subsided peacefully in and as our own essential
self, our thought-free and therefore absolutely actionless
self-conscious being.
This simple practice of atma-vichara,
self-investigation, self-scrutiny or self-conscious being, is the only
means by which we can experience ourself as we really are, and hence it
is the central theme running throughout this profound but clear
treatise on the philosophy, science and art of true self-knowledge.
The translation that I give below is extracted from Happiness and the Art of Being,
in which I have in various contexts quoted and discussed the meaning of
each paragraph of Nan Yar?. Though this translation
is basically one that I made on my own, it is to a large extent based
upon the meanings that Sri Sadhu Om explained to me, and hence it is
quite similar to an earlier translation that he and I made together,
which is included in appendix one of Part One of The Path of Sri Ramana.
No translation can be perfect, but in this translation, as in all my
translations, I have attempted to express in English as clearly and as
accurately as possible both the vachyartha and the lakshyartha
– the literal meaning and the intended meaning – of Sri Ramana's words.
Therefore I have often given alternative meanings for certain words in
square brackets. Moreover, because Tamil grammar is very different to
English grammar, and because the structure of a Tamil sentence is
therefore very different to the structure of an English sentence, and
ideas are expressed in Tamil in a manner that is quite unlike the way
we express ideas in English, I have often had to add words in square
brackets that are not explicitly present in the Tamil original, but
whose sense is implied in the idiomatic manner in which Sri Bhagavan
expressed himself in Tamil. Therefore I hope that this translation
manages at least to some extent to convey the true depth of meaning
that Sri Ramana expresses in this profound and important treatise.
In the original Tamil, the paragraphs are not numbered, but for ease of
reference I have added the number of each paragraph as a sub-heading.
___________________________________________
Nan
Yar?
(Who am I?)
From
the original Tamil prose of
Bhagavan Sri Ramana
Translated by Michael James
PARAGRAPH
ONE
Since all living beings
desire to be always happy [and] devoid of misery, since all [of them]
have greatest love only for their own self, and since happiness alone
is the cause of love, [in order] to attain that happiness, which is
their own [true] nature that they experience daily in [dreamless]
sleep, which is devoid of the mind, knowing [their own real] self is
necessary. For that, jñana-vichara
[scrutinising our consciousness to know] 'who am I?' alone is
the principal means.1
PARAGRAPH
TWO
Who am I?
The sthula deha [the 'gross' or physical body],
which is [composed] of the sapta dhatus [the seven
constituents, namely chyle, blood, flesh, fat, marrow, bone and semen],
is not 'I'. The five jñanendriyas [sense organs],
namely the ears, skin, eyes, tongue and nose, which individually [and
respectively] know the five vishayas [sense
'domains' or types of sense perception], namely sound, touch [texture
and other qualities perceived by touch], form [shape, colour and other
qualities perceived by sight], taste and smell, are also not 'I'. The
five karmendriyas [organs of action], namely the
vocal cords, feet [or legs], hands [or arms], anus and genitals, which
[respectively] do the five actions, namely speaking, walking, holding
[or giving], defecation and [sexual] enjoyment, are also not 'I'. The pancha
vayus [the five 'winds', 'vital airs' or metabolic forces],
beginning with prana [breath], which perform the
five [metabolic] functions, beginning with respiration, are also not
'I'. The mind, which thinks, is also not 'I'. The ignorance [the
absence of all dualistic knowledge] that is combined with only vishaya-vasanas
[latent inclinations, impulsions, desires, liking or taste for sense
perceptions or sense enjoyments] when all sense perceptions and all
actions have been severed [as in sleep], is also not 'I'. Having done neti
[negation, elimination or denial of whatever is not ourself by
thinking] that all the abovesaid things are not 'I', not 'I', the knowledge
that [then] stands detached alone is 'I'. The
nature of [this] knowledge ['I am'] is
sat-chit-ananda
[being-consciousness-bliss].2
PARAGRAPH
THREE
If [our] mind, which is
the cause of all [dualistic, relative or objective] knowledge and of
all activity, subsides [becomes still, disappears or ceases to exist],
[our] perception of the world will cease. Just as knowledge of the
rope, which is the base [that underlies and supports the appearance of
the snake], will not arise unless knowledge of the imaginary snake
ceases, svarupa-darsana [true experiential
knowledge of our own essential nature or real self], which is the base
[that underlies and supports the appearance of the world], will not
arise unless [our] perception of the world, which is an imagination [or
fabrication], ceases.3
PARAGRAPH
FOUR
That which is called
'mind' is an atisaya sakti [an extraordinary or
wonderful power] that exists in atma-svarupa [our
essential self]. It projects all thoughts [or causes all thoughts to
appear]. When [we] see [what remains] having removed [relinquished,
discarded, dispelled, erased or destroyed] all [our] thoughts, [we will
discover that] solitarily [separate from or independent of thoughts]
there is no such thing as 'mind'; therefore thought alone is the svarupa
[the 'own form' or basic nature] of [our] mind. Having removed [all
our] thoughts, [we will discover that] there is no such thing as
'world' [existing separately or independently] as other [than our
thoughts]. In sleep there are no thoughts, [and consequently] there is
also no world; in waking and dream there are thoughts, [and
consequently] there is also a world. Just as a spider spins out [a]
thread from within itself and again draws [it back] into itself, so
[our] mind projects [this or some other] world from within itself and
again dissolves [it back] into itself. When [our] mind comes out from atma-svarupa
[our essential self], the world appears. Therefore when the world
appears, svarupa [our 'own form' or essential self]
does not appear [as it really is, that is, as the absolute and infinite
non-dual consciousness of just being]; when svarupa
appears (shines) [as it really is], the world does not appear. If [we]
go on investigating the nature of [our] mind, 'tan'
alone will finally appear as [the one underlying reality that we now
mistake to be our] mind. That which is [here] called 'tan'
[a Tamil reflexive pronoun meaning 'oneself' or 'ourself'] is only atma-svarupa
[our own essential self]. [Our] mind stands only by always following
[conforming or attaching itself to] a gross object [a physical body];
solitarily it does not stand. [Our] mind alone is spoken of as sukshma
sarira [our 'subtle body', that is, the subtle form or seed
of all the imaginary physical bodies that our mind creates and mistakes
to be itself] and as jiva [our 'soul' or individual
self].4
PARAGRAPH
FIVE
What rises in this body
as 'I', that alone is [our] mind. If [we] investigate in what place the
thought 'I' rises first in [our] body, [we] will come to know that [it
rises first] in [our] heart [the innermost core of our being]. That
alone is the birthplace of [our] mind. Even if [we] remain thinking 'I,
I', it will take [us] and leave [us] in that place. Of all the thoughts
that appear [or arise] in [our] mind, the thought 'I' alone
is the first thought. Only after this rises do other thoughts
rise. Only after the first person appears do the second and third
persons appear; without the first person the second and third persons
do not exist.5
PARAGRAPH
SIX
Only by [means of] the
investigation 'who am I?' will [our] mind subside [shrink, settle down,
become still, disappear or cease to be]; the thought 'who am I?' [that
is, the effort we make to attend to our essential being], having
destroyed all other thoughts, will itself in the end be destroyed like
a corpse-burning stick [that is, a stick that is used to stir a funeral
pyre to ensure that the corpse is burnt entirely]. If other thoughts
rise, without trying to complete them [we] must investigate to whom
they have occurred. However many thoughts rise, what [does it matter]?
As soon as each thought appears, if [we] vigilantly investigate to whom
it has occurred, 'to me' will be clear [that is, we will be clearly
reminded of ourself, to whom each thought occurs]. If [we thus]
investigate 'who am I?' [that is, if we turn our attention back towards
ourself and keep it fixed firmly, keenly and vigilantly upon our own
essential self-conscious being in order to discover what this 'me'
really is], [our] mind will return to its birthplace [the innermost
core of our being, which is the source from which it arose]; [and since
we thereby refrain from attending to it] the thought which had risen
will also subside. When [we] practise and practise in this manner, to
[our] mind the power to stand firmly established in its birthplace will
increase [that is, by repeatedly practising turning our attention
towards our mere being, which is the birthplace of our mind, our mind's
ability to remain as mere being will increase]. When [our] subtle mind
goes out through the portal of [our] brain and sense organs, gross
names and forms [the thoughts or mental images that constitute our
mind, and the objects that constitute this world] appear; when it
remains in [our] heart [the core of our being], names and forms
disappear. Only to [this state of] retaining [our] mind in [our] heart
without letting [it] go outwards [is] the name 'ahamukham'
['I-facing' or self-attention] or 'antarmukham'
['inward-facing' or introversion] [truly applicable]. Only to [the
state of] letting [it] go outwards [is] the name 'bahirmukham'
['outward-facing' or extroversion] [truly applicable]. Only when [our]
mind remains firmly established in [our] heart in this manner, will
[our primal thought] 'I', which is the root [base, foundation or
origin] of all thoughts, go [leave, disappear or cease to be], and will
[our] ever-existing [real] self alone shine. The
place [that is, the state or reality] devoid of even a little [trace]
of [our primal] thought 'I' is svarupa [our 'own
form' or essential self]. That alone is called 'mauna'
[silence]. Only to [this state of] just being [is] the name 'jñana-drishti'
['knowledge-seeing', that is, the experience of true knowledge] [truly
applicable]. That [state] which is just being is only [the state of]
making [our] mind to subside [settle down, melt, dissolve, disappear,
be absorbed or perish] in atma-svarupa [our own
essential self]. Besides [this state of non-dual being], these [states
of dualistic knowledge] which are knowing the thoughts of others,
knowing the three times [what happened in the past, what is happening
now, and what will happen in future], and knowing what is happening in
a distant place cannot be jñana-drishti [the
experience of true knowledge].6
PARAGRAPH
SEVEN
That which actually
exists is only atma-svarupa [our own essential
self]. The world, soul and God are kalpanaigal
[imaginations, mental creations or fabrications] in it [our essential
self], like [the imaginary] silver [that we see] in a shell. These
three [basic elements of relativity or duality] appear at the same time
and disappear at the same time. [Our] svarupa [our
'own form' or essential self] alone is the world; [our] svarupa
alone is 'I' [our mind or individual self]; [our] svarupa
alone is God; everything is siva-svarupa [our
essential self, which is siva, the absolute and
only truly existing reality].7
PARAGRAPH
EIGHT
To make the mind
subside [permanently], there are no adequate means other than vichara
[investigation, that is, the art of self-attentive being]. If
restrained by other means, the mind will remain as if subsided, [but]
will emerge again. Even by pranayama
[breath-restraint], the mind will subside; however, [though] the mind
remains subsided so long as the breath remains subsided, when the
breath emerges [or becomes manifest] it will also emerge and wander
under the sway of [its] vasanas [inclinations,
impulses or desires]. The birthplace both of the mind and of the prana
[the breath or life-force] is one. Thought alone is the svarupa
[the 'own form'] of the mind. The thought 'I' alone is the first [or
basic] thought of the mind; it alone is the ego. From where the ego
arises, from there alone the breath also arises. Therefore when the
mind subsides the prana also [subsides], [and] when
the prana subsides the mind also subsides. However
in sleep, even though the mind has subsided, the breath does not
subside. It is arranged thus by the ordinance of God for the purpose of
protecting the body, and so that other people do not wonder whether
that body has died. When the mind subsides in waking and in samadhi
[any of the various types of mental absorption that result from yogic
or other forms of spiritual practice], the prana
subsides. The prana is said to be the gross form of
the mind. Until the time of death the mind keeps the prana
in the body, and at the moment the body dies it [the mind] grabs and
takes it [the prana] away. Therefore pranayama
is just an aid to restrain the mind, but will not bring about mano-nasa
[the annihilation of the mind].8
PARAGRAPH
NINE
Just like pranayama,
murti-dhyana
[meditation upon a form of God], mantra-japa
[repetition of sacred words such as a name of God] and ahara-niyama
[restriction of diet, particularly the restriction of consuming only
vegetarian food] are [just] aids that restrain the mind [but will not
bring about its annihilation]. By both murti-dhyana
and mantra-japa the mind gains one-pointedness [or
concentration]. Just as, if [someone] gives a chain in the trunk of an
elephant, which is always moving [swinging about trying to catch hold
of something or other], that elephant will proceed holding it fast
without [grabbing and] holding fast anything else, so indeed the mind,
which is always moving [wandering about thinking of something or
other], will, if trained in [the practice of thinking of] any one
[particular] name or form [of God], remain holding it fast [without
thinking unnecessary thoughts about anything else]. Because the mind
spreads out [scattering its energy] as innumerable thoughts, each
thought becomes extremely weak. For the mind which has gained
one-pointedness when thoughts shrink and shrink [that is, which has
gained one-pointedness due to the progressive reduction of its
thoughts] and which has thereby gained strength, atma-vichara
[self-investigation, which is the art of self-attentive being] will be
easily accomplished. By mita sattvika ahara-niyama
[the restraint of consuming only a moderate quantity of pure or sattvika
food], which is the best among all restrictions, the sattva-guna
[the quality of calmness, clarity or 'being-ness'] of the mind will
increase and [thereby] help will arise for self-investigation.9
PARAGRAPH
TEN
Even though vishaya-vasanas
[our latent impulsions or desires to attend to things other than
ourself], which come from time immemorial, rise [as thoughts] in
countless numbers like ocean-waves, they will all be destroyed when svarupa-dhyana
[self-attentiveness] increases and increases. Without giving room to
the doubting thought, 'Is it possible to dissolve so many vasanas
and be [or remain] only as self?', [we] should cling tenaciously to
self-attentiveness. However great a sinner a person may be, if instead
of lamenting and weeping, 'I am a sinner! How am I going to be saved?',
[he] completely rejects the thought that he is a sinner and is zealous
[or steadfast] in self-attentiveness, he will certainly be reformed [or
transformed into the true 'form' of thought-free self-conscious being].10
PARAGRAPH
ELEVEN
As long as vishaya-vasanas
[latent impulsions or desires to attend to anything other than ourself]
exist in [our] mind, so long the investigation 'who am I?' is
necessary. As and when thoughts arise, then and there it is necessary
[for us] to annihilate them all by investigation [keen and vigilant
self-attentiveness] in the very place from which they arise. Being
[abiding or remaining] without attending to [anything] other [than
ourself] is vairagya [dispassion] or nirasa
[desirelessness]; being [abiding or remaining] without leaving
[separating from or letting go of our real] self is jñana
[knowledge]. In truth [these] two [desirelessness and true knowledge]
are only one. Just as a pearl-diver, tying a stone to his waist and
submerging, picks up a pearl which lies in the ocean, so each person,
submerging [beneath the surface activity of their mind] and sinking
[deep] within themself with vairagya [freedom from
desire or passion for anything other than being], can attain the pearl
of self. If one clings fast to uninterrupted svarupa-smarana
[self-remembrance] until one attains svarupa [one's
own essential self], that alone [will be] sufficient. So long as
enemies are within the fort, they will continue coming out from it. If
[we] continue destroying [or cutting down] all of them as and when they
come, the fort will [eventually] come into [our] possession.11
PARAGRAPH
TWELVE
God and guru
are in truth not different. Just as that [prey] which has been caught
in the jaws of a tiger will not return, so those who have been caught
in the glance of guru's grace will surely be saved
by him and will never instead be forsaken; nevertheless, it is
necessary [for them] to proceed [behave or act] unfailingly according
to the path that guru has shown.12
PARAGRAPH
THIRTEEN
Being completely
absorbed in atma-nishtha [self-abidance, the state
of just being as we really are], giving not even the slightest room to
the rising of any thought other than atma-chintana
[self-contemplation, the 'thought' of our own real self], is giving
ourself to God. Even though we place whatever amount of burden upon
God, that entire amount he will bear. Since one paramesvara
sakti [supreme power of God] is driving all activities [that
is, since it is causing and controlling everything that happens in this
world], why should we always think, 'it is necessary [for me] to act in
this way; it is necessary [for me] to act in that way', instead of
being [calm, peaceful and happy] having yielded [ourself together with
our entire burden] to that [supreme controlling power]? Though we know
that the train is carrying all the burdens, why should we who travel in
it suffer by carrying our small luggage on our head instead of leaving
it placed on that [train]?13
PARAGRAPH
FOURTEEN
What is called
happiness is only svarupa [the 'own form' or
essential nature] of atma [self]; happiness and atma-svarupa
[our own essential self] are not different. Atma-sukha
[the happiness of self] alone exists; that alone is real. Happiness is
not obtained from any of the objects of the world. We think that
happiness is obtained from them because of our lack of discrimination.
When [our] mind comes out, it experiences unhappiness. In truth,
whenever our thoughts [or wishes] are fulfilled, it [our mind] turns
back to its proper place [the core of our being, our real self, which
is the source from which it arose] and experiences only the happiness
of [our real] self. In the same way, at times of sleep, samadhi
[a state of intense contemplation or absorption of mind] and fainting,
and when a desired thing is obtained, and when termination occurs to a
disliked thing [that is, when our mind avoids or is relieved from some
experience that it dislikes], [our] mind becomes introverted and
experiences only the happiness of self. In this way [our] mind wavers
about without rest, going outwards leaving [our essential] self, and
[then] turning [back] inwards. At the foot of a tree the shade is
delightful. Outside the heat of the sun is severe. A person who is
wandering outside is cooled by going into the shade. Emerging outside
after a short while, he is unable to bear the heat, so he again comes
to the foot of the tree. In this way he continues, going from the shade
into the sunshine, and going [back] from the sunshine into the shade. A
person who acts in this manner is someone lacking in discrimination.
But a person of discrimination will not leave the shade. Similarly, the
mind of a jñani [a person of true self-knowledge]
does not leave brahman [the fundamental and
absolute reality, which is our own essential being or self]. But the
mind of an ajñani [a person lacking true
self-knowledge] continues to undergo misery by roaming about in the
world, and to obtain happiness by returning to brahman
for a short while. What is called the world is only thought [because
all that we know as the world is nothing but a series of mental images
or thoughts that we have formed in our mind by our power of
imagination]. When the world disappears, that is, when thought ceases,
[our] mind experiences happiness; when the world appears, it
experiences unhappiness.14
PARAGRAPH
FIFTEEN
Just as in the mere
presence of the sun, which rose without iccha
[wish, desire or liking], samkalpa [volition or
intention], [or] yatna [effort or exertion], a
crystal stone [or magnifying lens] will emit fire, a lotus will
blossom, water will evaporate, and people of the world will engage in
[or begin] their respective activities, do [those activities] and
subside [or cease being active], and [just as] in front of a magnet a
needle will move, [so] jivas [living beings], who
are caught in [the finite state governed by] muttozhil
[the threefold function of God, namely the creation, sustenance and
dissolution of the world] or panchakrityas [the
five functions of God, namely creation, sustenance, dissolution,
concealment and grace], which happen due to nothing but the special
nature of the presence of God, move [busy themselves, perform
activities, make effort or strive] and subside [cease being active,
become still or sleep] in accordance with their respective karmas
[that is, in accordance not only with their prarabdha karma
or destiny, which impels them to do whatever actions are necessary in
order for them to experience all the pleasant and unpleasant things
that they are destined to experience, but also with their karma
vasanas, their inclinations or impulsions to desire, think
and act in particular ways, which impel them to make effort to
experience certain pleasant things that they are not destined to
experience, and to avoid certain unpleasant things that they are
destined to experience]. Nevertheless, he [God] is not samkalpa
sahitar [a person connected with or possessing volition or
intention]. Even one karma does not adhere to him
[that is, he is not bound or affected by any karma
or action whatsoever]. That is like world-actions [the actions
happening here on earth] not adhering to [or affecting] the sun, and
[like] the qualities and defects of the other four elements [earth,
water, air and fire] not adhering to the all-pervading space.15
PARAGRAPH
SIXTEEN
Since in every [true
spiritual] treatise it is said that for attaining mukti
[spiritual emancipation, liberation or salvation] it is necessary [for
us] to restrain [our] mind, after knowing that mano-nigraha
[holding down, holding within, restraining, subduing, suppressing or
destroying our mind] is the ultimate intention [or purpose] of [such]
treatises, there is no benefit [to be gained] by studying without limit
[a countless number of] treatises. For restraining [our] mind it is
necessary [for us] to investigate ourself [in order to know] who [we
really are], [but] instead [of doing so] how [can we know ourself by]
investigating in treatises? It is necessary [for us] to know ourself
only by our own eye of jñana [true knowledge, that
is, by our own selfward-turned consciousness]. Does [a person called]
Raman need a mirror to know himself as Raman? [Our] 'self' is within
the pancha-kosas [the 'five sheaths' with which we
seem to have covered and obscured our true being, namely our physical
body, our prana or life force, our mind, our
intellect and the seeming darkness or ignorance of sleep], whereas
treatises are outside them. Therefore investigating in treatises
[hoping to be able thereby to know] ourself, whom we should investigate
[with an inward-turned attention] having removed [set aside, abandoned
or separated] all the pancha-kosas, is useless [or
unprofitable]. Knowing our yathartha svarupa [our
own real self or essential being] having investigated who is [our false
individual] self, who is in bondage [being bound within the imaginary
confines of our mind], is mukti [emancipation]. The
name 'atma-vichara' [is truly applicable] only to
[the practice of] always being [abiding or remaining] having put
[placed, kept, seated, deposited, detained, fixed or established our]
mind in atma [our own real self], whereas dhyana
[meditation] is imagining ourself to be sat-chit-ananda
brahman [the absolute reality, which is
being-consciousness-bliss]. At one time it will become necessary [for
us] to forget all that [we] have learnt.16
PARAGRAPH
SEVENTEEN
Just as no benefit [is
to be gained] by a person, who should sweep up and throw away rubbish,
scrutinising it, so no benefit [is to be gained] by a person, who
should know [his or her real] self, calculating that the tattvas,
which are concealing [our real] self, are this many, and scrutinising
their qualities, instead of gathering up and rejecting all of them. It
is necessary [for us] to consider the world [which is composed of these
tattvas] like a dream.17
PARAGRAPH
EIGHTEEN
Except that waking is dirgha
[long lasting] and dream is kshanika [momentary or
lasting for only a short while], there is no other difference [between
these two imaginary states of mental activity]. To the extent to which
all the vyavaharas [doings, activities, affairs or
occurrences] that happen in waking appear [at this present moment] to
be real, to that [same] extent even the vyavaharas
that happen in dream appear at that time to be real. In dream [our]
mind takes another body [to be itself]. In both waking and dream
thoughts and names-and-forms [the objects of the seemingly external
world] occur in one time [that is, simultaneously].18
PARAGRAPH
NINETEEN
There are not two
[classes of] minds, namely a good [class of] mind and a bad [class of]
mind. The mind is only one. Only vasanas
[impulsions or latent desires] are of two kinds, namely subha
[good or agreeable] and asubha [bad or
disagreeable]. When [a person's] mind is under the sway of subha-vasanas
[agreeable impulsions] it is said to be a good mind, and when it is
under the sway of asubha-vasanas [disagreeable
impulsions] a bad mind. However bad other people may appear to be,
disliking them is not proper [or appropriate]. Likes and dislikes are
both fit [for us] to dislike [or to renounce]. It is not proper [for
us] to let [our] mind [dwell] much on worldly matters. To the extent possible, it is not proper
[for us] to enter in the affairs of other people [an idiomatic way of
saying that we should mind our own business and not interfere in other
people's affairs]. All that one gives to others one is giving only to
oneself. If [everyone] knew this truth, who indeed would refrain from
giving?19
PARAGRAPH
TWENTY
If [our individual]
self rises, everything rises; if [our individual] self subsides [or
ceases], everything subsides [or ceases]. To whatever extent we behave
humbly, to that extent there is goodness [or virtue]. If [we] are
restraining [curbing, subduing, condensing, contracting or reducing
our] mind, wherever [we] may be [we] can be [or wherever we may be let
us be].20
_______________
NOTES
- The meaning
of paragraph one is discussed
on pages 91, 157-58 and 612 of Happiness and the Art of Being.
- The meaning
of paragraph two is discussed
on pages 158-60 of Happiness and the Art of Being.
- The meaning
of paragraph three is
discussed on pages 200-2 of Happiness and the Art of Being.
- The meaning
of paragraph four is
discussed on pages 202-5 and 371 of Happiness and the Art of Being.
- The meaning
of paragraph five is
discussed on pages 213-26 of Happiness and the Art of Being.
- The meaning
of paragraph six is discussed
on pages 182-200, 216, 218, 444-5, 451-3, 505, 506-8 and 512 of Happiness and the Art of Being.
- The meaning
of paragraph seven is
discussed on pages 201-2 and 274 of Happiness and the Art of Being.
- The meaning
of paragraph eight is
discussed on pages 491-4 and 496-8 of Happiness and the Art of Being.
- The meaning
of paragraph nine is
discussed on pages 493-502 of Happiness and the Art of Being.
- The meaning
of paragraph ten is discussed
on pages 510-5, 526 and 554-5 of Happiness and the Art of Being.
- The meaning
of paragraph eleven is
discussed on pages 155-6, 222, 510 and 514-30 of Happiness and the Art of Being.
- The meaning
of paragraph twelve is
discussed on pages 473-6 of Happiness and the Art of Being.
- The meaning
of paragraph thirteen is
discussed on pages 24, 223-4, 460-1, 465-8, 471-2, 512-3 and 526 of Happiness and the Art of Being.
- The meaning
of paragraph fourteen is
discussed on pages 92-4 and 203 of Happiness and the Art of Being.
- The meaning
of paragraph fifteen is
discussed on pages 281-4 of Happiness and the Art of Being.
- The meaning
of paragraph sixteen is
discussed on pages 439-40, 526-7 and 533-54 of Happiness and the Art of Being.
- The meaning
of paragraph seventeen is
discussed on pages 160-3 of Happiness and the Art of Being.
- The meaning
of paragraph eighteen is
discussed on pages 129-36 of Happiness and the Art of Being.
- The meaning
of paragraph nineteen is
discussed on pages 588-609 of Happiness and the Art of Being.
- The meaning
of paragraph twenty is
discussed on pages 588 and 609-10 of Happiness and the Art of Being.
Print-friendly
PDF copy of this page
To open a print-friendly PDF copy of this page, please click on the
following link:
Nan Yar? (Who am I?) –
introduction and translation by Michael James
Spanish
translation of Nan Yar?
This English translation of Nan Yar? has been
translated into Spanish by Pedro Rodea, and his translation is included
in his Spanish version of Sri Ramanopadesa Noonmalai,
which is available both as a PDF e-book and as a printed book
(listed along with other books on the Sri Ramana Maharshi page of the Ignitus
section on his website, AtivarnAshram).
|
