In the traditional understanding of Self-Inquiry, one of the most pervasive obstacles is the tendency to remain on the level of thought. The mind habitually proliferates ideas, memories, and emotions, and this restlessness easily turns the inquiry into an exercise in analysis or philosophy. Instead of tracing the living sense of “I” back to its source, attention drifts into conceptual answers such as “I am consciousness” or “I am the witness,” which remain mental constructs. This same habit leads to identifying with conventional roles—body, profession, personality traits—rather than allowing those identifications to be questioned at their root. Thus, the very instrument meant to be examined, the thinking mind, continually diverts the process back into familiar patterns of commentary and explanation.

Another common difficulty lies in the way the question is approached in practice. Rather than a direct, experiential turning toward the sense of “I,” it is often repeated mechanically, as though it were a mantra to be chanted. This superficial approach lacks the depth of genuine introspection and easily becomes a mere mental habit. When the inquiry is confined to brief, formal periods and not carried into the flow of daily life, it tends to remain fragile and easily overrun by old tendencies. The lack of sustained, one-pointed attention leads many to feel that “nothing is happening,” and this perceived stagnation frequently results in impatience and abandonment of the practice.

A further obstacle is the subtle resistance of the ego-structure itself. The sense of being a separate doer or experiencer instinctively seeks to preserve its continuity, even within spiritual practice. This can appear as pride in one’s progress, discouragement about one’s failures, or the quiet conviction that “I” am the one who will attain realization. At a deeper level, there may be an unspoken fear that genuine insight will dissolve familiar identities and undermine the usual sense of control. This fear of annihilation, though often unconscious, can manifest as hesitation, distraction, or a preference for safer, more conceptual forms of spirituality.

Finally, expectations about what realization should look or feel like can obstruct the simplicity of the method. The mind may look for dramatic experiences, visions, or extraordinary states and overlook the subtle, ordinary clarity that the inquiry points toward. Temporary states of peace or bliss may be mistaken for the goal, leading to attachment to experiences rather than to the source from which they arise. In all these ways—conceptualization, superficial repetition, lack of persistence, and egoic resistance—the attention is drawn outward to objects and states, instead of resting steadily in the very sense of “I” that Self-Inquiry seeks to illuminate.