Within the Advaitic framework articulated by Ramana Maharshi, Self-Inquiry is presented as the direct and supreme means to liberation, grounded in the universality of the “I”-sense that is common to all. In principle, therefore, the method is not confined by religious, social, or cultural boundaries, since the Self to which it points is held to be the same in everyone. Yet this universality at the level of truth does not automatically translate into universal practical suitability at the level of method. The capacity to turn attention steadily toward the subtle sense of “I” and trace it back to its source is not equally developed in all seekers. Thus, while the path is universally valid in essence, its effective adoption depends on the maturity and condition of the individual mind.

Ramana repeatedly emphasized that many seekers find the mind too restless, outward-turned, or gross to sustain genuine Self-Inquiry without support. For such aspirants, he recommended preparatory disciplines: devotion to a chosen form of the divine, repetition of a sacred name, ethical living, meditation, and surrender to God or guru. These practices serve to purify and steady the mind, cultivating discrimination and dispassion, and thereby render it more fit for the subtle work of Self-attention. Traditional Advaitic criteria such as mental discipline, forbearance, and an inclination toward introspective understanding are seen as especially helpful. When these qualities are present to a sufficient degree, Self-Inquiry can function as a primary or even sole practice.

A crucial point in Ramana’s teaching is that the effectiveness of Self-Inquiry hinges on its quality rather than its mere outward form. It is not a matter of mechanically repeating the question “Who am I?” as a mental mantra, nor of spinning conceptual theories about the self. Instead, it is an inward turning of attention, a direct attending to the felt sense of “I” and a persistent tracing of that sense back to its source, remaining there as far as possible. When the practice degenerates into discursive thought or abstract speculation, it ceases to be true inquiry in his sense and loses its liberating power. Hence, the method demands both subtlety of understanding and steadiness of application.

Ramana also acknowledged that different temperaments are naturally drawn to different approaches. Those with a predominantly intellectual or contemplative bent may find Self-Inquiry congenial from the outset, whereas those whose nature is devotional or action-oriented may progress more readily through worship, service, or surrender. Yet he consistently indicated that these diverse paths, when pursued with sincerity and depth, converge upon the same inner realization, which can be described as Self-attention or the dissolution of the ego in the Self. In this way, Self-Inquiry can be seen both as a distinct method suited to certain seekers at certain stages, and as the implicit culmination toward which all authentic spiritual disciplines ultimately tend.