"Ramana Maharshi's Forty Verses on What Is"
🕉️ 🔱 Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Arunachala Ramanaya 🔱 🕉️
From the Book: Ramana Maharshi’s Forty Verses on What Is - A compilation of the writings and talks on Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu - By Michael James (published by Sandra Derksen)
Extract from: Editor’s note
Michael’s explanation about not capitalising ‘s’ in ‘self’
There is one point I would like to mention and on which I had to ask Michael’s advice. I noticed that he did not capitalise the ‘s’ in ‘self’ or ‘self-investigation’, among other terms, something I was used to doing myself and encountered when reading texts by others who write and talk about ‘the Self’. I want to share his detailed explanation with you, because it provides an important clarification that can deepen your understanding of Bhagavan’s teachings and who you actually are; to my knowledge, he is unique in this usage.
Michael avoids the term ‘the Self’ as it is usually written in English books. One reason is that there is no such term in either Sanskrit or Tamil, because they contain no definitive articles (‘the’) and, secondly, there are no capital letters.
Another reason is when we talk of ‘the Self’ we are reifying it. We make it sound like ‘the Self’ is something, but obviously there is no such thing as ‘the Self’ other than the thing whose self it is. Everything is itself. The lamp post is itself, the road is itself, the water in the lake is itself, you are yourself, I am myself. From where can we extract some separate thing called ‘the Self’? If we talk about something, ‘the Self’, then it seems to imply something other than ourself. So, we do not naturally talk about ‘the Self’: ‘the Self’ is now going for a walk, ‘the Self’ is now leaving a message. We do not talk like that, we say ‘I’: I myself am doing it. So, using the word ‘Self’ as a noun with a definitive article, ‘the’, reifies it.
‘Self’ is better understood as a pronoun because the word ‘self’ refers to something. Whose self is it? You are yourself, I am myself. So, if you use ‘self’ it can have a meaning only in a particular context, like any pronoun. If you say ‘he’, ‘she’ or ‘it’, that has to refer to something, and if it is not clear from the context what it is referring to, it is meaningless. If you have got a group of fifty people and you say, ‘He and she are the ones I am looking for’, which he and she? There are so many he’s and she’s. So we can use pronouns only in context where it is clear what the pronoun is referring to. Pronouns do not have a fixed reference, their reference is determined by the context.
The only pronoun that could arguably have a fixed reference is ‘I’, because when we each use the term ‘I’, we are always referring to ourself. But if you say ‘I’ you are referring to someone different than when I say ‘I’. That is, when we use the word ‘I’ in the usual sense, in the superficial sense that we usually use it, for me ‘I’ refers to Sandra, for Michael ‘I’ refers to himself. That is, of course, not the real meaning of ‘I’, but that is the sense in which we usually use the word ‘I’. So ‘self’ is like that, ‘self’ is regarded as a pronoun, which is why Michael generally translates the Sanskrit term ātman, and the equivalent term in Tamil, namely taṉ, as ‘oneself’ or ‘ourself’. That is a more natural way of expressing it in English.
Also, when we use capital letters, when we talk about ‘the Self’ with a capital ‘S’ and another ‘self’ with a small ‘s’, there is implied duality there, as if there are two selves. Something that Bhagavan repeatedly said is that there are not two selves, there is only one self. What we actually are is the pure awareness ‘I am’ without any adjuncts. But now we experience ourself mixed and conflated with adjuncts, as ‘I am Michael’, ‘I am Sandra’, ‘I am whoever’. That is the same ‘I am’, but the ‘I am’ in pure condition is our real nature, the ‘I am’ mixed and conflated is ego. So it is not that there are two selves, it is ourself as we actually are and ourself as ego, just like the rope and the snake are not two different things. There is only one thing there. What is actually there is just a rope. But the difference between the snake and the rope is not a difference in substance, it is a difference in appearance. So in some places it may be useful to make a distinction between ego and our real nature.
Often when we use the word ‘self’, or when Bhagavan uses the word ‘self’, it is not specifically referring to ego or to our real nature. For example, in the word ātma-vicāra, is the ātma in ātma-vicāra ego or is it our real nature? Well, it is not necessary to say, because we begin by investigating what seems to be ego and we discover it to be our real nature. That is, if you look carefully at the snake, you see it is a rope. If you look carefully at ego, you see it is pure awareness. It ceases as ego and it remains as pure awareness. That is, it ceases to appear as ego. So ātma-vicāra is usually translated as ‘self-enquiry’. Michael thinks a more useful and accurate translation is ‘self-investigation’. But whether you use ‘self-enquiry’ or ‘self-investigation’ most people will put a capital ‘S’ for that. But why put a capital ‘S’ there? We are not investigating some big self that we do not know, we are investigating the very self that we are. So by introducing capitals that you sometimes use and sometimes do not use, you are limiting the meaning, because when you put a small ‘s’ it means ego, if you put a big ‘S’ it means our real nature. It just creates an unnecessary dichotomy, an unnecessary and false duality, that does not actually exist. Sometimes ātma means ego, for example, in the term ātma-samarpaṇa, which means self-surrender. What is the self that needs to be surrendered? Obviously that is not our real nature, it is ego. So that is another reason why Michael prefers not to use capitals.
Then people sometimes use capitals, for example, for ‘consciousness’ or ‘awareness’. Sometimes they put a capital and sometimes they do not. But again, you make it sound like there are two ‘consciousnesses’, two ‘awarenesses’. That is just creating a confusion. Bhagavan did distinguish between pure consciousness and the adjunct-mixed consciousness that we call ‘ego’. But that does not mean that there are two ‘consciousnesses’. It is one consciousness: one in its pure condition and one and the same consciousness mixed and conflated with adjuncts, which is called cidābhāsa, the semblance of awareness. So as soon as you start using capitals you have to decide in each case whether you are referring to what is real or to what is unreal — whether you are referring to the reality, or whether you are referring to the appearance. If it is the reality, you have to put a capital ‘S’, if it the appearance you have to put a small ‘s’. But what if you do not want to specify if you are talking about the reality or the appearance, you are just talking about the thing in general? So it creates an unnecessary confusion that is not there.
All duality is false. That is, thinking in terms of two selves, a big ‘Self’ and a small ‘self’, is not helpful, because it is missing the whole point of Bhagavan’s teachings. Michael affirms this is an important point. It is not just a matter of literary style, it is a matter of conveying what Bhagavan is saying in the clearest and most accurate way that is true to how he expressed himself.
A free book sample is available (includes ‘Introduction by Michael James’) on:
https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZol6NVZvajJMSyzNgz6hM4lY75mkzrbjgY7&fbclid=IwAR020rUa3su0MIDiVU4hO2XpkhIhBsBK0bmt_XY33csWqNSbrqTecwtphFw
