Trying to understand Self-inquiry

I take a question and answer between Maharsh and a devotee, and try to understand what he is getting at, as to how to transcend the ego. When I copy things from a word document, blogspot has the tendency to put words together which I'm too lazy to correct.

'Question 1: When I think ‘Who am I?’, the answer comes‘I am not this mortal body but I am chaitanya, atma, or para-atma.’ And suddenly another question arises — ‘Whyhas atma come into maya?’ or in other words ‘Why has Godcreated this world?’

Answer: To enquire ‘Who am I?’ really means trying tofind out the source of the ego or the ‘I’ thought. You are not tothink of other thoughts, such as ‘I am not this body, etc.’ Seeking the source of ‘I’ serves as a means of getting rid of all other thoughts. We should not give scope to other thoughts, such asyou mention, but must keep the attention fixed on finding outthe source of the ‘I’ thought, by asking (as each thought arises)to whom the thought arises and if the answer is ‘I get the thought’by asking further who is this ‘I’ and whence its source?"'


Who is this I, and whence is it's source? So perhaps that question can be asked of the personality. How did this sense of individuality, the personality ,that I arise, or who is it, and whence is it's source? Whence is it's source? Does it have one? Is the point that it doesn't exist? Or that it does and
I should abide in the source from which the personality (the ego) arises, and keep my attention fixed, the key thing is, though I believe people have been saying to keep attention on the 'I', or hold the "i". But that's not what Maharshi says. He says keep attention on it's source. That's a mysterious objective. What is the source of the personality, the ego, the I.
Maybe it's because if the source of the I is held, the i will merge into it. If I hold onto the I, what good does that do? Ego holds onto ego, ego fights ego. That can go on forever and cause a headache, dullness. But if I hold onto it's source. That's going deeper then the sense of individuality. That is probably the key in how it transcends a mental battle. So when something arises.
Who does it arise to? Is directing perhaps back to the personality, the ego for which it is arising. Now the question is, what is the ego's source, and holding the source, not the ego, not the "I", but it's source. That is such a huge difference. I arises, whence is it's source? What does whence mean?
From what source or origin? Even as I write, thoughts arise, there is the personality thinking about these things. Whence is it's source. From where does it's source arise? Or just where is it's source? I think it's saying where is the source of the I, not where is the origin of the source? Is that a correct use of whence?
That's the thing, these little things matter so much. It's not just semantical. You can spend years doing inquiry improperly. Technically, I imagine this is not instruction for a long-term practice. Practically, for most of us it probably will be because of long-standing habits. And even a deep glimpse or experience, I've had some, does not mean things aren't going to return.
But Maharshi is 'looking' from the perspective of the Self, (whatever that is), Brahman, that is all that is real to him, that is who he is, and he has no belief in anything else, no experience of anything apart from that, even if illusory. Brahman is all he expereinces, and all he is. So when maharshi gives a response, I don't think he's telling people how to stay in bondage for a long while and slowly progress.
He's giving instructions that if followed as deep as they are intended will immediately result in REalization, not in 5 minutes, but immediately. So if it's not, it seems helpful to analyze it, and see what he was getting at. One problem, I fret, is that, were the translators Realized, I would think that could potentially make a difference, unless like David GOdman, he's a brilliant translator and makes up for it.
But it's important that the words carry the intention of the one who was Realized in saying them. If there is a slight mix up of the word, source for something else, based on what that person thinks was meant based on their own not quite accurate view, based on taking themselves to be an individual even a spiritual one.
But I'm assuming the translation is good. So I think what he's saying, is all other thoughts should be disregarded because he says, "we should not give scope to other thoughts" I don't think that means for the next 5 years holding thoughts at bay. That means right now, from this moment on, the thoughts I've been thinking for the past 30 years are null and void, and are to be completely ignored as having any reality.
What else could it mean if he's speaking of directly realizing what he experiences. "but keep the attention fixed on finding the source of the 'I' thought". So disregard all thoughts, past, pressent, future, my whole life, all my experiences, everything, everyone I know, everything, completely disregard it, it is not good for me, and it will not help me.
And now, keep my attention fixed on finding the source of the 'I' thought. I asked Nome (my spiritual teacher) what is meant by I-thought, or I asked him if my intuition was correct that it refers to the sense of me. He said that it was. So it's not a disembodied 'I' somewhere. I needed that clarified. the sense of me, is the personality, as I'm writing this, there is this personality that is writing, that is thinking, that I perceive in someway even though it is not visual.
I'm assuming that is what is referred to by the I-thought. So what is it's source, and Maharshi says to keep my attention on finding it's source. There is the personality, I now that I've disregarded everything, keep my attention on finding it's source. That is so much deeper then "holding onto the "i"". He is giving instructions taht lay bare how to REalize right this moment. "by asking as each thought arises, "to whom does this thought arise?" and if the answer is I get the thought. Who is this 'I', and whence is it's source?
I should add, that makes sense, because if you hold onto I, or make yourself aware of the personality and hold it, you are still stuck. You can' transcend the personality by dealing with the personality. But here, it seems, he's calling attention first to the personality that is having the thought or experience, referring back to the one who is having it. For me, it seems helpful to be aware of the personality I take myself to be. The personality or ego is not really an object, it's not something that can be held. But is something I can make myself aware of, so I'm not taking it for granted. But that is not enough. He is saying, to search for the source of the personality. For instance I have a negative thought, I did in the last 5 minutes, there is the personality, which is who I take myself to be. What is the source of the persoanlity, while the actions are going on, has the potential it seems to take one beyond the ego, and I think that is what maharshi is getting at. The actinos presumably will still go on. While my attention is not on the personality, but aware of the personality and searching for it's source, perhaps to get so much deeper then the personality, or the "i". I just don't like calling it the "i", because I like to be literal when I'm trying to understand something so difficult to understand.