Who Am I?
“The mind will merge only by self-inquiry: ‘Who am I?’ The thought ‘Who am I?’ will destroy all other thoughts and finally kill itself.”
~Śrī Raman Maharshi
Questioner: In contrast to the above verse, in my daily life, when I feel jealous, it feels more intuitive to ask, “Why am I jealous?” and not, “Who is jealous?” Please, speak on Maharshi’s method of self-inquiry—‘Who am I?’ because, at one place, he even goes on to say, “There is no such thing as the mind” and what I know of is just the mind.
Acharya Prashant: Self-inquiry is not merely a method. It is the foundation on which the entire edifice of not merely Vedanta but all spirituality stands. ‘Who am I’ pertains to the infinite possibilities available to the ego, including the possibility for the infinite.
When it is queried— ‘Who am I?’ Who am I at this juncture? Who am I right now?
Not ‘Who am I?’ in general; not ‘Who am I?’ as a fixed concept; not ‘Who am I?’ as a label, name tag, or permanent identity. Who am I right now?
Then a few things should be understood:
Who is the questioner?—The questioner has to be somebody who does not know; otherwise, why would he question at all? So who is the questioner?—The ego is the questioner because the ego is the only one who does not know. Above the ego is the Pure-Self or Truth, the Ultimate state of the ego. And because it is the Ultimate, and the Highest, and Pure, and Eminent; therefore, there is no way it does not know; it knows.
The pure-self is not going to come to inquire ‘Who am I?’ Why? Because it has no such question. It has nobody to ask a question to. The pure-self is also non-dual. If it is non-dual, how is it ever going to ask a question? If it is complete in itself and all-knowing, how is it ever going to feel bothered by a query? So the question ‘Who am I?’ does not really arise from the Truth. It arises to the ego.
The ego wants to know ‘Who am I?’ Who am I right now? About whom is the question ‘Who am I?’ Who is functional right now? Had the truth been functional right now, would there have been a possibility of discontentment leading to such a query? So who is being queried?—The ego is being queried. Who is raising the query?—The ego is raising the query. Clear?
And below the ego is insentient material: Jaḍapadārtha’ , ‘Stuff’, ‘Things’. They too are never going to feel bothered by a question pertaining to their identity. Is this table ever going to be vexed regarding its name? The table is never going to ask, “Who am I?” and the Truth is never going to ask, “Who am I?” Neither the table nor the Truth. So obviously, you know who asks ‘Who am I?’ — The ego asks ‘Who am I?’ about its present condition. And to whom does it ask this? There is nobody else to ask this question to. The ego raises this question to itself.
It is the ego that has to proceed on the path of self-inquiry, ‘Who am I?’ ‘What’s going on?’ ‘Who am I right now?’ In other words—’Where is my existence coming from?’ ‘Who am I?’ means ‘Where is my existence coming from?’ And how does the ego know of its existence in the first place? How do you know that you exist?—You know that you exist by your experiences. You know that you exist by your happiness, your sadness, all the various things that you go through, your responses, your reactions, your association with the world; that is what convinces you that you exist, correct?
So the ego is questioning itself regarding its very conviction, the conviction that it exists. It is asking, “Where are my thoughts,” for example, “coming from? Where are these feelings coming from? Because it is only my feelings that convince me that I exist. In deep sleep, I have no feelings. Then I do not claim that I exist. Do I? How do I feel so utterly sure that I exist? Because I experience, I think, I feel, I wonder, I touch, I smell, and hence I feel that I exist.” Remove all the sensory apparatus, and would you be able to tell yourself that you do exist? Would be difficult, right?
So the question ‘Who am I?’, translates to ‘Where is my existence coming from?' Translates to ‘Where are my thoughts, feelings, and experiences coming from?’ Are you getting it? Where is this stuff coming from? “I just thought of something, where did this come from? I just felt something, where did this feeling come from? I just felt something. What did I feel?—A terrible attraction. Where did this attraction come from? That's ‘Who am I?’
Now, who is responsible for answering this question?—The ego itself. What state of the ego is this question arising in?—The state in which the ego is feeling that terrible attraction. The ego is feeling a terrible attraction as it mostly keeps feeling, right? Just that sometimes we label it terrible, at other times we call it pretty mundane, normal, regular. So this state of the ego that is saying, “I am feeling a terrible attraction” is asking itself, “Where is this coming from?”
Now the respondent is the same as the questioner. Are you seeing this? Ego is asking the question to itself. What is the state of the questioner?—The questioner is almost unconscious. Which is proven by the fact that the questioner is feeling a terrible attraction. So this unconscious questioner is asking itself, “Where is this coming from?” Now there is a problem. Now the matter is stuck. Why?—The respondent is the same as the questioner, and the questioner is unconscious. If the questioner is unconscious, how can the answerer be any different? But even as the questioner is unconscious and asking, “Where is all this coming from?” the respondent has been entrusted with the responsibility to answer. Correct?
And the two are one (the questioner and the respondent). Their states are the same, they are mirror images, they are just one, the ego is questioning itself. So this unconscious one is asking itself, “What is this entire drama from? Where is the whole thing arising from?” And this entity here (gesturing with hands), the respondent, is now responsible to answer. What is the only way it can answer? — Remaining unconscious, it cannot answer, but it has to answer because the question has been posed to nobody but itself. So, under the pressure of the question, the respondent has to change. Under the pressure of the question, facing the responsibility to answer the question, this respondent has to change.
Now, at this moment, when the question was asked, both of these were unconscious; otherwise, why would there be a question at all? But now, it is facing the task of answering, so it (the respondent i.e. the ego) has to raise its capacity to answer. It has to become deserving to answer. This upward movement is called ‘Attention’. You are unconscious, but when faced with this question, you summon your attention, and you want to now see, "Ok, ok, I want to answer it", and in the process, you are raising your attention. Raising your attention means your consciousness levels are being raised. The haze on your mind has to be forcibly cleared away.
When this i.e. the respondent rises then this, the questioner, too has to rise, because the two of them are the same. But the answer won’t come because the question is asking, “Tell me the route. Where is the entire thing coming from?” To go to the route is to go to the very end. So this (respondent) has to rise even more, this (questioner) too has to rise, this (respondent) too has to rise. So the ego is asking itself, “Where am I coming from?” and finds that it has to change if it wants to answer this question. It is a special question. If you want to answer this question, then you cannot remain the one who asked this question. So at a certain level, hypothetically, the question is answered. But at that level, you find that the questioner is no more the one who asked the question. He has been far removed from his unconscious depths. He has been raised, elevated. He is no more the same, rather he is no more. He does not exist at all. That's the magic associated with ‘Who am I?’ If you really want to answer ‘Who am I?’, if you really succeed in answering ‘Who am I?’, then you will find that both the questioner and the respondent have disappeared. Is the process exactly clear to everybody? Where is the thing coming from? Now, look at a practical manifestation. You are angry and in the moment of anger, if you can ask “Where is this anger coming from?” You will find that you are no longer succumbing to anger. Now, where is the angry one who asked this question?—Gone. No more.
Any state of mind in which you ask the question, “Where is this thing coming from?” will disappear under the influence of this question. This question is a great sword. It cuts down the very hand that wields it. You ask this question, and you will be no more the one who asked this question. Are you getting it? The question will always arise from a relatively unconscious state, but to answer this question, you will have to become conscious. So the one who asks this question will have to disappear to get the answer. Which means there is nobody to receive the answer. Which means there is nobody to give the answer. Because the one who is receiving and the one who is giving are actually the same. So there is no answer, actually.
‘Who am I?’ never gets an answer. It's just that the questioner fades away.
If you get an answer to ‘Who am I?’, then you are playing some kind of fraud upon yourself. ‘Who am I?’ simply means, ‘I will not remain the one who asked this.’ That is the method, and it is not a method, I said. It is fundamental discretion. You have to know the self as separate from non self. This is Vivek. You have to know that the Ātma is not your glands or hormones. And if you do not ask, “Where is this coming from? Kahan se aaye bhaiya? (Where did you come from brother?)” then it is quite likely that you will misread just hormonal exuberance as something of the soul. ‘Who am I?’ does not allow you to make that mistake. ‘Who am I?’ says, “Oh, something is arising, something is happening, something is taking possession of you, something is just dominating you from within. Pause. This is the moment. Ask, ‘Hello sir, where are you coming from? Can you show your ticket? Carrying some identity card? Who are you? Where are you coming from? Ah... So you are coming from Mozambique, and I was under the impression that you are coming from Varanasi. No-no, you are not what I thought you to be. I was thinking that you are coming from the banks of the sacred Ganga. No-No, you are not that one. You are coming from some jungle. You are not the pious one I thought you to be.’”
To the more dramatically minded, ‘Who am I?’ can be taken as a tearing away of the mask. Your emotion, your thought, your identity comes to you and says, “You know, I am this, I am that.” And what do you do?—You tear away the mask. You don't even ask, “From where you are coming?” You just tear away the mask, and you say, “You don't even try this again. I know ‘who you are’, and ‘where you are coming from’.” The tough part is, you don't have to do this to anybody outside of you, you have to do this to yourself. The question is not ‘Who is John and who is Jenny?’ The question is ‘Who am I?’
So you have to disrobe yourself. You have to tear away your own masks. You have to uncover your own inner deviousness. Is the ‘Who Am I?’ method clear to everybody? Where is this thing coming from? And remember, you will never really come to know, not that it cannot be known, just that, the interest in knowing was arising from suffering. And if you ask this question deeply, the suffering will disappear, so your interest in pursuing this question will also disappear. So you will drop it, and you will find yourself busy with joyful affairs of life. And in joy, there is actually no need to ask ‘Who am I?’. ‘Who am I?’ is a question arising out of suffering. You pursue this question, the suffering abates. And then who wants to just keep pestering oneself with the query: ‘Who am I? Who am I?’ “Oh, I am so sad”, what’s the question to ask?—"From where is this sadness coming? What is the name of the sad one? Who is sad? Where does he draw his legitimacy from? Who told him that he has a right to exist? How does he convince himself to be?"
There is another way in which you can understand the whole thing if it is not already clear. There is some kind of demon that rides on your back. That rides on your back and keeps sucking your blood. And what do you want to do?—You want to run away. And you run away fast, very fast. The deeper it sinks its teeth into your neck, the faster you are compelled to run. But how does it matter ‘How fast you run?’ you are carrying the monster on your back. The monster is not merely relishing the blood, it is also enjoying a free ride. It's almost like being served hot meals on an airplane: Meals on wheels, meals on wings rather. The ‘Who Am I?’ method is about not running or acting so energetically under the influence of the monster, rather simply, pausing. You pause, and then you ask the monster, “Where are you coming from? Who are you?” And if you are asking this question, then you have to face the monster.
To face the monster, you will have to rip the monster away from your back and bring it in front of yourself. And then you find that the monster is actually just a feeble thing weighing 12 kilograms. It has no power really. It was able to infest you and torture you, just because you were supporting it by carrying it on its back. The moment you want to ask, “Who are you?” There is a disassociation. “Who are you? So we have to face each other, and if we have to face each other, then the two of us cannot be one. I am asking you. Who are you?” In asking yourself, ‘Who am I?’ you separate yourself from that which you are not. In asking yourself ‘Who am I?’ right now, you disassociate yourself from that which you are not. So this monster, which is a monster only in name, but actually something terribly lame, is now in front of you, not really in contact with you. There is a bit of detachment. There is a bit of dissociation. So it cannot now take you for a ride. You are liberated. You are liberated.
Now you stand as the pure ‘I’, free of the monster. When the query started, you were the impure ‘I’: The ego associated with the monster. You were ‘I + Monster’. But now you want to know ‘Who am I?’ So you have to ask the monster, “Sir, who are you? Till now, you were so much attached to me, physically united with me, that the two of us were really one. But now I want to snap this association. Who are you? Come in front and talk.” The association is snapped. Now the monster is a monster, and who are you now?—The pure ‘I’. That's the ‘Who Am I?’ thing. Who am I right now, honestly? And obviously, the only real method is honesty. Be it, ‘Who am I?’ or be it any method, it would fail if you are not honest in pursuing this austere dialogue, austere inner dialogue. “I am troubled.” What to do now? “Who is troubled? And where are his troubles coming from? What is the center of all these troubles? Who has a stake in remaining troubled?” So now you see that ‘Who am I?’ is a method for the wise one, who is no longer interested in remaining troubled. That often goes unsaid. It needs to be said. Why will you ever ask “Who am I?” if you are not really interested in getting rid of what you have become?
A fellow received a parcel from one of the e-commerce sites. It was to be delivered to somebody else. It carried the name of somebody else, but the delivery man erroneously delivered it to this fellow. And he was happy. He said, “Fine.” It contained a mobile phone, let's see. And he comes and tells me, “You know this is what I got. It just got delivered to me,” and I asked him, “To whom does it belong?” and he says, “Why would I be interested in knowing?” ‘Why would I be interested in knowing?’ That is the reason why we do not enter self-inquiry. Self-inquiry is an uncomfortable question. Why would you really want to know when not knowing is giving you pleasures? Why would you want to know when not knowing is so very pleasuresome? Hence, the one who is asking ‘Who am I?,’ must be the one who is already a bit frustrated with himself. Already someone, who is desirous of liberation. Otherwise, asking ‘Who am I?’ is an exercise in wild dishonesty.
These days it is almost a fad: If you are spiritual then you have to ask, ‘Who am I?.’ One could have felt amused by this ‘Who am I?’ circus, had it not been for the appalling inner conditions of the ones who are amusing themselves with this self-deception. ‘Who am I?’ has to arise when you no longer like the ‘I’. ‘Who am I?’ has to arise when the ‘I’ has already been seen as troublesome. You have to be someone who is prepared to receive uncomfortable answers. More so you have to be someone who is prepared to let go of the questioner and the answerer. Only then this query can proceed. Do you see how intimately it is linked to the ‘Kṣetra Kṣetrajña Vibhāga Yoga’ of ‘The Bhagavad Gita’? And Ramana Maharshi used to talk of these three in the same breath: ‘I am not’, ‘Who am I?’ and ‘So am I’. Naham, Koham, Soham. You cannot have just one of these. You need all three, at least two of them. Which two?—Naham and then Koham. You have to be someone who is first of all prepared to say, “This, I am not.” And only then you get the eligibility to ask “If this I am not, then who am I?” If you are someone who is first of all not ready to question his existing identities because they are a source of pleasure to him, then you have no right to indulge in the ‘Who Am I?’ business. ‘Who am I?’ has to be preceded by ‘Naham’; this I am not, this I am not, this I am not. You need to have that sincerity and that discretion. Without ‘Naham’, if you proceed with ‘Koham’, you will find that you cannot proceed at all. The entire journey of answering ‘Who am I?’ is a journey in negativa. You ask ‘Who am I?’ and some illusion gets negated, cleared off. And then you again ask ‘Who am I?’, then again some haze gets cleared off. That is what we call ‘the raising or elevation of consciousness’. If you are someone who is not prepared to get rid of his concepts about himself, then there is no point just repeating ‘Who am I? Who am I?’
