You Can See i to I When You Transcend the Ego

Jahanavi Shandilya
In school, children are constantly reminded to "put the donkey last". Relegating the 'I'or the first person singular — that this page now uses in the lower case — to last place might have been nothing more than a teacher's fetish for the rules of English grammar.
However, the principle underlying the tradition of putting the 'donkey'— a euphemism for the first person singular — last could possibly arise from the realisation that the idea of an individual who identifies his body with himself is an anthropomorphic concept that reeks of self-importance and arrogance. In other words, it's the ego-expression that, though shackled by the body-mind entity, deludes itself to be master of all it surveys. Contrast the concept of the individual 'i'and its infinitesimal smallness and limitations, with that of the more expansive and inclusive 'I'that refers to unlimited awareness.
The 'I'is all-pervasive; but the 'i'is restricted to the one individual who occupies a certain space. If the 'I'is infinite consciousness — without beginning or end — it is understood to be pure.
When it's not, it's impure and that notion is represented by 'i', a mere speck or less in the vastness of infinite consciousness. Sage Vasishta took great pains to explain to Prince Rama the difference between the bada 'I'and the chhota 'i': When its own reality is seen the 'I'does not appear as the ego-sense any more, but as the one infinite reality, 'I'.
In fact, 'I'becomes entity-less. When this truth is revealed to one with a pure mind, says Vasishta, his ignorance is at once dispelled; but others cling to their own false notion like a child clinging to the notion of the existence of a ghost. Craving for heaven and even for liberation arises in one's heart only as long as the 'i'is seen as an entity. So there is only unhappiness. The notion of 'i'as 'I'can be got rid of only through self-knowledge.
Only by the constant remem-brance of the truth that the self is a pure reflection in the infinite consciousness does the notion of an anthropomorphic 'i-ness'cease to grow. The world-appearance is a juggler's trick; all subject-object relationships between it and me is foolish. When this understanding takes root, 'i-ness'is uprooted. When it is seen that it is the 'i'that gives rise to the notion of a 'world', both of them cease in peace.
However, continues Sage Vasishta, the higher form of 'I-ness', which gives rise to the feeling "I am one with the entire universe, there is nothing apart from me", is the understanding of the enlightened person. Another type of 'I-ness'is when one feels that the 'I'is extremely subtle and atomic in nature and therefore different from and independent of everything in this universe.
This, too, is conducive to liberation. It is the individual 'i-ness'that identifies the self with the body and this is to be abandoned.
By persistent culti-vation of the higher form of 'I-ness', the lower form is eradicated. Until then, all references to the individual must necessarily be represented by the lower case 'i'.
In due course even the higher form of 'I-ness'should be abandoned, Vasishta advises Rama. Then one may either engage oneself in all activity or remain in seclusion: For such a one there is no fear of downfall.