MAHARSHI'S GOSPEL
BOOK II

I
SELF-ENQUIRY

Disciple: How is one to realise the Self?

Maharshi: Whose Self? Find out.

D: Mine, but who am I?

M: Find out yourself.

D: I don't know how.

M: Just think over the question. Who is it that says "I
don't know"? Who is the `I' in your statement? What is not known?

D: Somebody or something in me.

M: Who is that somebody? In whom?

D: Perhaps some power.

M: Find out.

D: Why was I born?

M: Who was born? The answer is the same to all your
questions.

D: Who am I?, then?

M: (Smiling.) You have come to examine me? You must
say who you are.

D: However much I may try, I do not seem to catch the `l'. It is not even clearly discernible.

Page 47
M:

Who is it that says that the `I' is not discernible? Are there two `I's in you that one is not discernible by the other?

D: Instead of enquiring `Who am I?', can I put the question to myself `Who are You?', since then, my mind may be fixed on You whom I consider to be God in the form of Guru. Perhaps, I would be nearer the goal of my quest by that enquiry than by asking myself `Who am I?'

M: Whatever form your enquiry may take, you must
finally come to the one I, the Self.

All these distinctions made between the `I' and `you',
Master and disciple etc. are merely a sign of one's ignorance. The `I-Supreme' alone is. To think otherwise is to delude oneself.

A Puranic story of Sage Ribhu and his disciple Nidagha, is particularly instructive in this context.

Although Ribhu taught his disciple the supreme Truth of the One Brahman without a second, Nidagha, in spite of his erudition and understanding, did not get sufficient conviction to adopt and follow the path of jnana ^[?], but settled down in his native town to lead a life devoted to the observance of ceremonial religion.

But the Sage loved his disciple as deeply as the latter venerated his Master. In spite of his age, Ribhu would himself go to his disciple in the town, just to see how far the latter had outgrown his ritualism. At
times the Sage went in disguise, so that he might observe how Nidagha would act when he did not know that he was being observed by his Master.

Page 48
On one such occasion Ribhu, who had put on the disguise of a village rustic, found Nidagha intently watching a royal procession. Unrecognised by the town dweller Nidagha, the village rustic enquired what the bustle was all about, and was told that the king was going in procession.

"Oh! It is the king. He goes in procession! But where is he?" asked the rustic.

"There, on the elephant", said Nidagha.

"You say the king is on the elephant. Yes, I see the two", said the rustic, "But which is the king and which is the elephant?"

"What!" exclaimed Nidagha, "You see the two, but do not know that the man above is the king and the animal below is the elephant? Where is the use of talking to a man like you?"

"Pray, be not impatient with an ignorant man like me", begged the rustic. "But you said `above' and `below', what do they mean?"

Nidagha could stand it no more. "You see the king and the elephant, the one above and the other below. Yet you want to know what is meant by `above' and `below'?" burst out Nidagha. "If things seen and words spoken can convey so little to you, action
alone can teach you. Bend forward, and you will know it all too well".

Page 49
The rustic did as he was told. Nidagha got on his shoulders and said "Know it now. I am above as the king, you are below as the elephant. Is that clear enough?"

"No, not yet", was the rustic's quiet reply. "You say you are above like the king, and I am below like the elephant. The `king', the `elephant', `above' and `below', so far it is clear. But pray, tell me what you mean by `I' and `you'?"

When Nidagha was thus confronted all of a sudden with the mighty problem of defining the `you' apart from the `I', light dawned on his mind. At once he jumped down and fell at his Master's feet saying, "Who else but my venerable Master, Ribhu, could have thus drawn my mind from the superficialities of physical existence to the true Being of the Self? Oh, benign Master, I crave thy blessings".

Therefore, while your aim is to transcend here and now these superficialities of physical existence through atma vichara , where is the scope for making the distinctions of `you' and `I', which pertain only to the body? When you turn the mind within, seeking the source of thought, where is the `you' and where is the `I'?

You should seek and be the Self that includes all.

D: But is it not funny that the `I' should be searching for the `I'? Does not the enquiry, `Who am I?' turn out in
the end an empty formula? Or, am I to put the question to myself endlessly, repeating it like some mantra ^[?]?

Page 50
M: Self-enquiry is certainly not an empty formula; it is
more than the repetition of any mantra. If the enquiry, `Who am I?' were a mere mental questioning, it would not be of much value. The very purpose of Self-enquiry is to focus the entire mind at its source. It is not, therefore, a case of one `I' searching for another `I'.

Much less is Self-enquiry an empty formula, for it involves an intense activity of the entire mind to keep it steadily poised in pure Self-awareness.

Self-enquiry is the one infallible means, the only direct one, to realise the unconditioned, Absolute Being that you really are.

D: Why should Self-enquiry alone be considered the direct means to jnana?

M: Because every kind of sadhana ^[?] except that of atma
vichara ^[?] presupposes the retention of the mind as the instrument for carrying on the sadhana, and without the mind it cannot be practised. The ego may take different and subtler forms at the different stages of one's practice, but is itself never destroyed.

When Janaka exclaimed, "Now I have discovered the thief who has been ruining me all along. He shall be dealt with summarily", the King was really referring to the ego or the mind.

Page 51
D: But the thief may well be apprehended by the other sadhanas as well.

M: The attempt to destroy the ego or the mind through
sadhanas other than atma vichara, is just like the thief assuming the guise of a policeman to catch the thief, that is himself. Atma vichara alone can reveal the truth that neither the ego nor the mind really exists, and enables one to realise the pure, undifferentiated Being of the Self or the Absolute.

Having realised the Self, nothing remains to be known, because it is perfect Bliss, it is the All.

D: In this life beset with limitations can I ever realise the bliss of the Self?

M: That bliss of the Self is always with you, and you
will find it for yourself, if you would seek it earnestly.

The cause of your misery is not in the life without; it is in you as the ego. You impose limitations on yourself and then make a vain struggle to transcend them. All unhappiness is due to the ego; with it comes all your trouble. What does it avail you to attribute to the happenings in life the cause of misery which is really within you? What happiness can you get from things extraneous to yourself? When you get it, how long will it last?

If you would deny the ego and scorch it by ignoring it, you would be free. If you accept it, it will impose limitations on you and throw you into a vain struggle
to transcend them. That was how the thief sought to `ruin' King Janaka.

Page 52
To be the Self that you really are is the only means to realise the bliss that is ever yours.

D: Not having realised the truth that the Self alone exists, should I not adopt bhakti ^[?] and yoga margas as being more suitable for purposes of sadhana than vichara marga ^[?]? Is not the realization of one's Absolute Being that is, Brahma jnana, something quite unattainable to a layman like me?

M: Brahma jnana is not a knowledge to be acquired, so
that acquiring it one may obtain happiness. It is one's ignorant outlook that one should give up. The Self you seek to know is verily yourself. Your supposed ignorance causes you needless grief like that of the ten foolish men who grieved the `loss' of the tenth man who was never lost.

The ten foolish men in the parable forded a stream and on reaching the other shore wanted to make sure that all of them had in fact safely crossed the stream. One of the ten began to count, but while counting others, left himself out. "I see only nine; sure enough, we have lost one. Who can it be?" he said. "Did you count correctly?" asked another, and did the counting himself. But he too counted only nine. One after the other each of the ten counted only nine, missing himself. "We are only nine" they all agreed, "but who is the missing one?" they asked themselves. Every effort they made to discover the
Page 53
`missing' individual failed. "Whoever he be that is drowned", said the most sentimental of ten fools, "we have lost him". So saying he burst into tears, and the rest of the nine followed suit.

Seeing them weeping on the river bank, a sympathetic wayfarer enquired for the cause. They related what had happened and said that even after counting themselves several times they could find no more than nine. On hearing the story, but seeing all the ten before him, the wayfarer guessed what had happened. In order to make them know for themselves that they were really ten, that all of them had come safe from the crossing, he told them "Let each of you count for himself but one after the other serially, one, two, three and so on, while I shall give you each a blow so that all of you may be sure of having been included in the count, and included only once. The tenth `missing' man will then be found." Hearing this they rejoiced at the prospect of finding their `lost' comrade and accepted the method suggested by the wayfarer.

While the kind wayfarer gave a blow to each of the ten in turn, he that got the blow counted himself aloud. "Ten" said the last man as he got the last blow in his turn. Bewildered they looked at one another, "We are ten" they said with one voice and thanked the wayfarer for having removed their grief.

That is the parable. From where was the tenth man brought in? Was he ever lost? By knowing that he
had been there all the while, did they learn anything new? The cause of their grief was not the real loss of any one of the ten, it was their own ignorance, rather their mere supposition that one of them was lost (though they could not find who he was), because they had counted only nine.

Page 54
Such is also the case with you. Truly there is no cause for you to be miserable and unhappy. You yourself impose limitations on your true nature of Infinite Being, and then weep that you are but a finite creature. Then you take up this or that sadhana to transcend the non-existent limitations. But if your sadhana itself assumes the existence of the limitations, how can it help you to transcend them?

Hence I say, know that you are really the Infinite, Pure Being, the Self Absolute. You are always that Self and nothing but that Self. Therefore, you can never be really ignorant of the Self; your ignorance is merely a formal ignorance, like the ignorance of the ten fools about the `lost' tenth man. It is this ignorance that caused them grief.

Know then that true knowledge does not create a new Being for you, it only removes your `ignorant ignorance'. Bliss is not added to your nature, it is merely revealed as your true and natural state, eternal and imperishable. The only way to be rid of your grief is to know and be the Self. How can this be unattainable?