Is the I capable of entering into a relationship with non-I? 

If it is, then the I would have to be in relationship with the world, the body, or the mind. Specifically, it would have to be an I-perceiver, an I-gross body, an I-energy body, or an I-mind. Is any of this possible?

Take the I-perceiver and, in particular, an I-seer. In the direct experience of seeing, is there any evidence that there is an I-seer? No, there is only seeing, and seeing does not itself reveal an I-seer. The latter is simply a thought, a superimposition that is “not there” in the direct experience of simply seeing. The same recognitions come in the cases of the I-hearer, the I-smeller, the I-taster, and the I-toucher. That is, there is no such thing.

Consider, next, the I-gross body. Accept, for the purpose of this line of inquiry, that the gross body exists. Then take seriously The Upanishads, which calls the gross body “the food body.” I take this to mean that the gross body depends upon “inputs”—most notably, food but also water, air, and so on. Put differently, it could be said that the gross body’s ability to persist in its existence depends upon have its ongoing needs met. In brief, the gross body is such as to have needs. Now, does the direct experience of simply being myself reveal that there are any needs to be met or inputs to receive? No. Then the I cannot be the gross body, and this means that the I cannot enter into a relationship with the gross body in such a way that they can get “mixed up.” (i.e., “I am the body”).

Consider, next, the energy body. We know that that there can be more energy or less energy flowing. In short, energy, in part, is a question of “more or less.” In the direct experience of pure being or of being myself, is there any sense of “more or less”? No. Pure being is pure being; I am simply myself. 

Consider, finally, the mind. The mind, Ramana Maharshi says, is nothing but “a bundle of thoughts.” Take but two: “I am the thinker” and “I am the knower.” Is there actually any evidence for an individuated I in “I am the thinker” or in “I am the knower?” No, there’s no individuated I found there. Consequently, I cannot enter into a relationship with the mind.

What is the first insight we discover? It is that the I is strictly non-relational. “Maya” is the name we may give to the illusory idea that I is–or can ever be–in relation with non-I.  Maya is just imagination.

In which case, what’s the second insight? It is that if I am to understand myself, I must “proceed” non-relationally. That is, I must “engage in” self-inquiry. For self-inquiry just is the holding onto I alone. And what is I alone? Find out!

it can also be said that self-inquiry amounts to “just being still” or to “just being” (summa iru as Ramana Maharshi used to say in Tamil). Why does self-inquiry amount to “just being?” Because there, in and as just being, is no relationship here whatsoever. Being is only being itself; I am only being myself. To abide as being, as myself is to directly know myself. And, of course, because I can never enter into a relationship with non-I, I can never actually leave myself, my inherently pristine nature.