There is no entity by [the] name of ‘mind.’ Because of the emergence of thought, we surmise some thing from which they start: that we term mind. When we probe to see what it is, there is nothing like it. After it has ‘vanished,’ Peace will be found to remain eternal.

–Ramana Maharshi as cited in Robert Wolfe’s Ramana Maharshi: Teachings of Self-Realization

We can generalize Ramana Maharshi’s seminal point: (A) An action occurs, and there is a post hoc imputation of a doer to the action. (B) A thought appears, and there is a post hoc imputation of a thinker of the thought. (C) A physical sensation is felt, and there is a post hoc imputation of “an experiencer” or “a body” that experiences this sensation. (D) A sight appears, and there is a post hoc attribution of an independent seer to whom it appeared. And so on.

The key to Ramana’s analysis is “the surmising” that there is (must be) “some thing” from which the objective experience–a thought, a feeling, a sensation, a perception–appeared.

Explore: Is there some thing?

What, of course, there seems to be (this is the presumption, the surmise) is a separate self. Robert Wolfe would invite us to ask: “Is there a self?”

Here, there’s a mistake that can be made when it comes to self-inquiry (atma vichara). When one asks, “Who am I?” or “What am I?,” it can be assumed that the questioner exists such that the question can be put. It can further be assumed that the “who” or “what” is some quality or “coloration” of the questioner.

Yet what self-inquiry is “really about” is the revelation that there is, nor has there ever been, “some thing” like a questioner. The discovery, or recognition, is that there’s not some thing here period.

On account of probing, it’s seen that the apparent entity “vanishes,” says Ramana Maharshi by way of metaphorical concession. Obviously, neither the mind nor the self was ever here to begin with.