‘The practice of witnessing thoughts and events…was never even in the least recommended’ by Sri Ramana Maharshi | Sri Sadhu Om | The Path of Sri Ramana

~ Tom Das ~ 5 Comments

The following is written by Sri Sadhu Om, a direct devotee of Sri Ramana Maharshi’s, and is taken from the text ‘The Path of Sri Ramana – Part 1’, from one of the footnotes in Chapter 7. You can download the entire text for free here – it is a wonderful and rare text that explains the entire path to liberation. Please also see recommended reading for liberation here as well as the introductory articles on the homepage for more.

The practice of witnessing thoughts and events, which is much recommended nowadays by lecturers and writers, was never even in the least recommended by Sri Bhagavan, Indeed, whenever He was asked what should be done when thoughts rise (that is, when attention is diverted towards second or third persons) during sadhana, He always replied in the same manner as He had done to Sri Sivaprakasam Pillai in ‘Who am I?’, where He says:

“If other thoughts rise, one should, without attempting to complete them, enquire ‘To whom did they rise?’. What does it matter however many thoughts rise? At the very moment that each thought rises, if one vigilantly enquires ‘To whom did this rise ?’, it will be known ‘To me’. If one then enquires ‘Who am I?’, the mind (our power of attention) will turn back (from the thought) to its source (Self)”.

Moreover, when He says later in the same work, “Not attending to what-is-other (that is, to any second or third person) is non-attachment (vairagya) or desirelessness (nirasa)”, we should clearly understand that attending to (witnessing, watching, observing or seeing) anything other than Self is itself attachment, and when we understand thus we will realize how meaningless and impractical are such instructions as ‘Watch all thoughts and events with detachment’ or ‘Witness your thoughts, but be not attached to them’, which are taught by the so-called gurus of the present day.

————

Tom: The following excerpt is also taken from the same chapter, chapter 7, of The Path of Sri Ramana – Part 1:

Since, whether we know it or not, Self, which is now wrongly considered by us to be unknown, is verily our reality, the very nature of our (the Supreme Self’s) attention itself is Grace (anugraha). This means that whatever thing we attend to, witness*, observe or look at, that thing is nourished and will flourish, being blessed by Grace…

…Hence, when the power of attention of the mind is directed more and more towards second and third person objects, both the strength (kriya-bala) to attend to those objects and the ignorance – the five sense-knowledges in the form of thoughts about them – will grow more and more, and will never subside! Have we not already said that all our thoughts are nothing but attention paid to second and third person objects? Accordingly, the more we attend to the mind, the thoughts which are the forms (the second and third person objects) of the world, the more they will multiply and be nourished. This is indeed an obstacle. The more our attention – the glance of Grace (anugraha-drishti) – falls on it, the more the mind’s wavering nature and its ascendancy will increase. That is why it is impossible for the mind to negate anything by thinking ‘I am not this, I am not this’ (neti, neti). (Footnote to text here: This is why aspirants who, in order to destroy evil thoughts like lust, anger and so on, fight against them and thereby think about them fail in their attempts, while aspirants practising Self-enquiry, who pay their full attention to Self with an indifference towards their thoughts, bypass them easily)

On the other hand, if our (Self’s) attention is directed only towards ourself, our knowledge of our existence alone is nourished, and since the mind is not attended to, it is deprived of its strength, the support of our Grace. “Without use when left to stay, iron and mischief rust away” – in accordance with this Tamil proverb, since they are not attended to, all the ‘vasana-seeds, whose nature is to rise stealthily and mischievously, have to stay quiet, and thus they dry up like seeds deprived of water and become too weak to sprout out into thought-plants. Then, when the fire of Self-knowledge (jnana) blazes forth, these tendencies (vasanas), like well-dried firewood, become a prey to it.

This alone is how the total destruction of all tendencies (vasanakshaya) is effected.

Q. Do Neo-advaita teachings point to the same realisation as traditional Advaita Vedanta and Ramana Maharshi?

~ Tom Das ~ 1 Comment

Q. Tom, do you believe that the neo advaita teachings do point to the same realisation as Sri Ramana’s teachings? Because from what I have read of the neo advaita teachings, they do not even point to the Absolute Self in a clear way and are not even talking about the same realisation. They don’t speak of the Absolute Self but “the absolute appearing as the relative” in their words, so I think that following those teachings do not lead to the same realisation.

Tom: I agree, the neo-advaita teachings do not lead to the same genuine realisation in my view. They do not lead to genuine absolute love, non-duality and cessation of suffering. Please see the introductory articles on the tomdas.com homepage and my recommended reading list for more on this.

Q. YOU SAY NEO-ADVAITA CAN SOMETIMES BE HARMFUL. PLEASE CAN YOU EXPLAIN?

~ Tom Das ~ 2 Comments

Tom: it varies. Here in the UK there are quite a lot of neo-advaita teachers and being UK based myself, over the years I have dealt with many people who have been very traumatised by these teachings and I have guided them through the process of undoing many of the false concepts and beliefs present in neo-advaita teachings.

The neo-advaita ‘non-teachings’ can be very abrupt and triggering and not leave (apparent) people with any sense of agency or empowerment to deal with the consequences.

I have seen near psychotic breakdowns, severe anxiety and panic disorder, depersonalisation and derealisation, relationships fall apart, people losing their jobs, lots of confusion and disorientation, depression…

In my experience Neo-advaita tends to be a feel-good teaching in the moment for those it helps, and mainly is for the intellect.

It feels good in the moment but the sense of duality and confusion keeps on returning, and it doesn’t lead to a genuine realisation of truth or love. When one engages with genuine self-enquiry we come to see just how superficial the neo-advaita teachings are

Neo-Advaita is actually far away from the true teachings even though some of the words sound similar. In some ways neo-advaita is more intellectually coherent than true Advaita teachings, but that doesn’t make it true or effective.

In my experience the true teachings, such as the teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi, guide us directly and unfailingly to realisation, the shortest route so to speak, with the minimal amount of suffering along the way.

Q. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NEO-ADVAITA AND ADVAITA?

~ Tom Das ~ Leave a comment

Tom: Neo Advaita says all is already one, there is already no ego-self, and no need for any practice. In fact, any practice just perpetuates and strengthens the illusory notion of an ego-self. Suffering and worldly happenings are just things that occur to ‘nobody’.

Advaita says all is already one, there is already no ego-self, but due to ignorance there appears to be a world consisting of many people and things, of which you are one. Through self-enquiry, in which one places ones attention onto ones own self, the Subject, and ignores/turns away from objective phenomena, one can destroy this ignorance and realise that the apparent mutiplicity is an unreal illusion and there is only the formless self which is devoid of suffering. It is then seen that ignorance never actually occurred and there were never any actual people or things at all.

My own experience is that neo-advaita, whilst sounding intellectually coherent, does not lead to liberation at all and suffering, duality and egotism all actually continue, whereas Advaita, whilst appearing to be dualistic in some ways, is totally liberating and ends suffering and duality completely. They are actually quite distinct teachings that both claim to be ‘non-duality’.

Note that in my experience many prominent Advaita and Advaita Vedanta teachers actually teach distorted teachings, and that the genuine teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi are the best teachings I have come across to point the way to liberation.