Sunday, January 19, 2014

The "I" in "Me"

For a long time I have struggled with one question - "Who is the "I" in "Me"? My brain, thru' the exclusion principle, had reasoned that it itself, that is my brain itself, must be the "I", since it is the store house of my thoughts and my thoughts is what makes me who I am. I was comfortable with that idea, since it seemed rational, however, I was not comfortable for long. If that is all that is there to be known, if that is the ultimate truth, I should have been at peace with myself. As I had reasoned, knowing the ultimate truth will bring me peace, it will make me calm, it will quench my thirst, my brain will quieten down. Well, I was nowhere close and still ain't.

Hindu philosophy offers another explanation. It says, "I" is the atman. Atman is not any part of the body, not even brain.  It further says, it is not possible to know the "I" thru brain. An analogy to explain it more vividly - one does not need any light to see the sun, sun is seen in its own light, similarly, one does not need brain to see "I" the atman. Seeing atman is like self awakening. Seeing in this case, ofcourse,  is not the seeing thru' eye, it is to know, to experience, to awaken, to become self aware, to realize that "I" is different from the body and "I" is the only constant, hence it is the only truth.

Question is how to get to this "I" in "Me". Hindu philosophy says, you get there thru' guru. Guru, it says, is the only way.

The key takeaway for me has been that brain is not the way to get to "I". All this while I have been thinking that brain/intellect could be a way to get to the "I" in "Me". It was a revelation to me, when I heard what the Upanishad's say, that this is an independent path.

No comments:

Post a Comment