Two Ways to Cancel the Self

Why Ramana Preserves the “I Am” while the (early), pre Mahayana Buddha eliminates it

By Bodhangkur

Here is a rigorous conceptual comparison of Ramana Maharshi’s rollback of ‘I am THIS’ (L3) and the Buddha’s nirvāṇa-as-cessation, in Finn’s system of:

· L1: “am” (factory baseline), everyone’s ground experience

· L2: “I am” (self-reference, non-relational)

· L3: “I am THIS” (relational, social, survival-self with world-noise)

Both Ramana and the Buddha attempt to roll back L3, but for entirely different motives, using radically different ontologies, and aiming at different terminus states.

1. Why “I am THIS” (L3) is the problem for both

In Finn’s architecture:

· L3 = the relativised identity

o “I am this person”

o “I am this role”

o “I am this body”

o “I am this vulnerable emergent in a dangerous world”

L3 brings:

· fear,

· craving,

· loss,

· shame,

· status,

· threat,

· unpredictability,

· relational pain,

· desire for control.

Thus L3 = dukkha in Buddhist terms
and L3 = ‘THIS’ = samsaric distortion in Vedantic/Ramanic terms.

So both the Buddha and Ramana diagnose:
the relationally constructed self is the troublemaker.

But they take wholly different paths and arrive at wholly different endpoints.

2. Ramana’s rollback: from “I am THIS” → “I am”

Ramana’s goal

To eliminate the “THIS” component and stabilise in the pure, non-relational “I am.”

This creates:

· stillness

· bliss

· fearlessness

· timelessness

· spacelessness

· self-contained unity

· absolute-seeming identity

Ramana does not dissolve the “I.”
He purifies it by removing references.

In Finn’s terms:

Ramana maintains the L2 self-model and charges it with 100% attention → creating a perfected “I am” field.

Ramana’s motive

· To remove relational pain

· To stabilise identity

· To achieve a perfect, self-contained core

· To neutralise fear

· To absolutise the “I am” experience as bliss

His is a preservation move:

Keep the self, remove the noise.
Keep identity, remove relativity.

Ramana’s end state

The pristine self:
a bright, stabilized, non-relational kernel:
“I am.”

This is a positive presence.

He calls it “Self” (ātma), but as we demonstrated:
this is simply the non-relational self-model.

3. The Buddha’s rollback: from “I am THIS” → no “I am” → phenomenon without owner

The Buddha’s goal

To eliminate all three layers, not just L3:

· L3 (I am THIS) → must go

· L2 (I am) → must go

· L1 (am) → even this must be understood as conditioned, not a self

The Buddha’s aim is cessation (nirodha) of all:

· ownership sensations

· self-claiming

· subject-object duality

· craving linked to “I”

· the reflex “this is me / mine / myself”

The Buddha’s motive

To end dukkha, which arises not only from
“I am THIS”
but from
“I am.”

His diagnosis goes deeper:

· The “I am” feeling is also a construction.

· Experience occurs without a core experiencer.

· The “I am” is the first delusion (asmimāna).

· Even bare being (am) is dependently arisen.

Thus the Buddha sees the entire self-stack (L1–L3) as conditioned and to be transcended.

The Buddha’s end state

Nibbāna = cessation of the sense of “I am.”

This is absence, not presence:

· no core

· no reflexive “for-me-ness”

· no kernel

· no pivot

· a non-owner field of sensations

· a non-referential openness without a centre

The Buddha does not restore the pristine core.
He dissolves the core entirely.

In Finn’s terms:

The Buddha deletes the whole stack.
No ‘I’. No ‘am’. No factory self. No metaphysical kernel.

4. Why they aim at rollback for different reasons

Ramana’s reason: stabilise identity by removing relational corruption

· Pain comes from relational identity.

· Remove relational identity → pain goes away.

· The remaining self is perfect.

· Stability = bliss.

· Loneliness eliminated because “no other.”

· Fear eliminated because “no second.”

Ramana wants to secure
a stable, absolute, perfect self-experience.

This is a self-preserving move.

Buddha’s reason: eliminate identity because all identity produces clinging

· Pain comes from any identification.

· Even the “I am” has clinging potential.

· Even the factory baseline creates attachment.

· Identity itself is the root mechanism of suffering.

· The only permanent solution is no identity at all.

The (early) Buddha wants to achieve
the end of the selfing (indeed rebirthing) process entirely.

This is a self-dissolving move.

5. Direct Contrast in Finn’s System

Layer	Ramana’s View	Buddha’s View
L1: “am”	foundational, precious, the inner Heart	conditioned, not-self, to be seen through
L2: “I am”	the perfect kernel, the goal	the remaining foothold of delusion
L3: “I am THIS”	distortion to be removed	distortion to be removed

Resulting Goal

· Ramana: L3 → remove → stabilise L2

· Buddha: L3 → remove → L2 → remove → L1 → understood as non-self → cease the entire stack

6. The Deepest Finnian Insight

Ramana absolutises presence.
The Buddha absolutises absence.

Or in Finn’s terms:

· Ramana chooses 100% internal reference → perfect, full, charged “I am”

· Buddha erases internal reference → perfect, empty, uncharged non-self

Both are rollbacks,
but toward opposite poles of the same architecture.

7. The Summary

Ramana, the Brahmin, solves suffering by collapsing identity back to the pristine (eternal) “I am” and offering continuity without suffering.

The (early) Buddha solves suffering by eliminating the “I am” altogether without continuity.

Home