Advaita Vedanta

Ramana Maharshi on Devotion or Bhakti | Guru Vachaka Kovai

~ Tom Das ~ 1 Comment


Here are some verses from Guru Vachaka Kovai (Garland of Guru’s Sayings, a collection of Sri Ramana Maharshi’s teachings) on Bhakti:

314. Treading the path, one finds the world
Composed of ‘I’ and ‘this’
Transformed into the Guru Himself.
This steadiness of vision, this
Awareness of his presence bright
Everywhere is the true pupil’s
Worship of the Master.

512. Rare indeed is the non-dual jnana.
Yet fixing firmly one’s true love
On Siva’s Feet will easily lead
One to the Grace divine, the light
Which destroys illusion dark
And reveals the Real.

513. Through love firm fixing the Lord’s Feet
Ever in the heart, one can destroy
All false desires. And then the heart,
Now blossoming wide, beholds the true
Light of supreme awareness.

649. Do not wander endlessly
Searching in vain for certitude
Through strenuous study, listening, learning.
In love surrender to the Love
Supreme, the Lord, and reach
And hold the state supreme of Real
Being.

651. Those poor fools who have not savoured
The taste ineffable of Love
May go on talking of seven savours.
But we who have enjoyed Love’s sweetness,
We assert that this alone,
Love, is the sole true savour.

652. To disentangle life’s hard knots
One needs must understand the Self
As Love itself. Only when one knows
This Love supreme is moksha gained.
Of every creed this is the heart,
The real teaching.

720. Those with mind matured by bhakti,
Relishing, drinking in, its sweetness,
Deem bhakti supreme, the ever fresh
Nectar, as its own reward
 And yearn for more and more of it.

792. If all you wish for is fulfilled,
Think not that it is due to your
Tapas. Know it is but God’s
Good grace, and cling with more and more
Love to His Feet.

(Tom: note, this is how the Law of Attraction can lead one to liberation – it eventually encourages love of God more than love of Things, and this in turn takes one eventually to Self as described above)

965. If towards the Lord you take
One single step, then with much more
Than a mother’s love He takes
Nine steps towards you to accept you.
Such is the Guru’s Grace.

974. Unbroken Self-awareness is
The true, bright path of devotion or love.
Knowledge of our inherent nature
As indivisible Bliss supreme
Wells up as Love.

1205. The mark of bhakti true, total
Self-surrender at Siva’s Feet,
Is perfect peace without a thought
Or word of prayer or plaint.

1206. In the heart which grace divine
Has filled with radiant bliss, can there
Be room for any trivial care,
The symptom of the ignorance which
Is knowledge for the body-bound ego?

1209. When, the dense darkness of ignorance gone,
The heart’s wide open firmament
Is filled with peace serene, clear, bright,
An inner fount of love up springs
Which is devotion true, the pure
Auspiciousness of Siva Himself.

1210. The fortunate ones who in the Self
Abide forever, they alone,
Have realised the Truth. From others
Far indeed is that eternal
Home of grace supreme.

1211. True devotees are they who are
Forever to the Self alone
Devoted. Only they enjoy
Eternally the bliss supreme
Of all-transcendent, highest heaven.

Some Key and Essential Teachings from Adi Shankara’s Upadesa Sahasri (A Thousand Teachings) | A collection of picture quotes from Shankara | Advaita Vedanta Essentials

~ Tom Das ~ Leave a comment

You are free to download and share these pictures quotes which contain some key teachings of Advaita Vedanta courtesy of Adi Shankara, taken from the text Upadesa Sahasri (A Thousand Teachings):

The meaning of ‘Real’ and ‘Unreal’ in Advaita Vedanta | The Mirage analogy vs the Rope and Snake | The world and self-realisation

~ Tom Das ~ 3 Comments

Also see this post on Ajata Vada and this post on Turiya

‘Unreal’, both in Vedanta and in common parlance, means that which doesn’t actually exist; ‘real’ means that which exists.

This means that if something exists it is real, and vice versa. This is highlighted by the fact that in Sanskrit, the most common word for both ‘real’ and ‘exists’ is the same word ‘satya’ or ‘sat’. ie. the Sanskrit word ‘sat’ means both ‘real’ and ‘exists’. I have seen some commentators say that something can be unreal but still exist, and vice versa. In doing so they have uncoupled the meaning of these synonymous words, ‘real’ and ‘exists’, which is particularly ironic as in Sanskrit they are one and the same word, ‘sat’.

Vedanta texts say that which changes is unreal, or the things that are subject to change are unreal, meaning that which changes does not truly exist (ie. They do not exist in self-realisation, or they are non-existent when the self is realised).

Vedanta texts do not define ‘real’ as being ‘that which doesn’t change’, nor does the word ‘unreal’ simply refer to things that exist but change/are subject to change. Never do we see this false definition in the Vedanta scriptures.

I hope you can see the difference. If you cannot see the difference, then please reflect on the above as it is in important part of the teaching, and this is an important way the teaching is distorted by the ego-mind.

Note that if the teaching is distorted in this way it is likely not to lead to liberation.

So how does this all fit together?

The idea is that if you discover Sat (reality) in its true essence, meaning as it really or truly is, devoid of illusion or ignorance, all that is anitya (impermanent) will disappear, and so be revealed to be asat (unreal or non-existent), its only having appeared to exist due to ignorance/error.

This has been explained by Sri Ramana Maharshi many times, for example, see the following verses of Sri Ramana Paravidyopanishad:

88. That which survives in the experience of the real Self is the supreme state. [That] alone is real. All else is only unreal. This is the distinction between the real and the unreal, revealed to us by the teachings of all the sages.

91 As the dream world is known to be unreal for the reason that it vanishes upon waking, so this waking world is also proved to be unreal by its vanishing in the light of the real Self.

92 But ignorant men, who are averse to winning the supreme state, put forth an endless series of arguments, [trying to refute this teaching]. The sages clear the doubts generated by these arguments so that earnest aspirants may not be deluded by them.

We are then cautioned about teaching this teaching to those who are attached to the notion that they are the body mind (living in a world), or those who cling to the notion of the self being the owner of the body mind:

93 This teaching of the unreality of the world is not addressed to those who look upon the body itself as the Self, or consider the Self to be the owner of the body. For these people the world is real, not unreal.

However, for those who genuinely seek liberation, this teaching is given:

95 To those who seek deliverance, the teaching is that all these three are equally unreal. This teaching must [therefore] be accepted, exactly as it is taught, by those who are earnestly seeking to win deliverance by the extinction of ignorance.

How can something that we perceive be unreal? Sri Ramana explains:

98 Everyone who is ignorant [of the real Self] thinks the world is real because it is seen. This is no proof because it proves too much. The same reason would prove the reality of the mirage, the rope in the snake, etc.

And so the text continues in this vein, drumming home the teaching. See the introductory articles on tomdas.com to explore this further, especially this article. I have made a YouTube video on this that explains this more here.

AN OBJECTION TO THIS TEACHING – THE MIRAGE vs ROPE & SNAKE

Q. Tom, a mirage exists yet it is unreal. In the same sense a separate ego-mind-body-world exists yet is unreal in the sense that its existence is dependent. Knowing that on which it depends as oneself is bliss…..
Just some early morning musings…

Tom: this is not the vedanta teaching given in the Upanishads. This is a modern re-writing of the vedantic teaching.

Vedanta usually uses the rope and snake metaphor, eg, Sri Ramana Maharshi writes in Who Am I?:

Q. When will the realization of the Self be gained?
A. When the world which is what-is-seen has been removed, there will be realization of the Self which is the seer.

Q. Will there not be realization of the Self even while the world is there?
A. There will not be.

Q. Why?
If the mind, which is the cause (and base) of all knowledge (all objective knowledge) and all action, subsides, the perception of the world (jagat-drishti) will cease. Just as the knowledge of the rope, which is the base, will not be obtained unless the knowledge of the snake, the superimposition, goes, so the realization of Self (swarupa-darsanam), which is the base, will not be obtained unless the perception of the world (jagat-drishti) which is a superimposition, ceases.

And later from the same text:

When the mind comes out (rises) from Self, the world appears. Therefore, when the world appears, Self will not appear; and when Self appears (shines), the world will not appear.

And later:

The mind will subside only by means of the enquiry Who am I?’. The thought ‘Who am I?’ (which is but a means for turning our attention Selfwards), destroying all other thoughts, will itself finally be destroyed like the stick used for stirring the funeral pyre.

And later:

By repeatedly practising thus, the power of the mind to abide in its source increases. When the mind (the attention), which is subtle, goes out through the brain and sense-organs (which are gross), the names-and-forms (the objects of the world), which are gross, appear; when it abides in the heart (its source, Self), the names-and-forms disappear. Keeping the mind in the heart (through the above-described means of fixing our attention in Self), not allowing it to go out, alone is called ‘Selfwardness’ (ahamukham) or ‘introversion’ (antarmukham). Allowing it to go out from the heart alone is called ‘extroversion’ (bahirmukham). When the mind thus abides in the heart, the ‘I’ (the thought ‘I’, the ego), which is the root of all thoughts, having vanished, the ever-existing Self alone will shine.

And later:

The place (or state) where even the slightest trace of the thought ‘I’ does not exist, alone is Self (swarupam). That alone is called ‘Silence’ (maunam). To be still (summa iruppadu) in this manner alone is called ‘seeing through (the eye of) knowledge’ (jnana-drishti). To be still is to make the mind subside in Self (through Self-attention). Other than this, knowing the thoughts of others, knowing the three times (past, present and future), knowing events in distant places – all these can never be jnana-drishti (knowledge realisation).

And later:

What really exists is Self (atma-swarupam) alone. The world, soul and God are superimpositions in it like the silver in the mother-of-pearl; these three appear simultaneously and disappear simultaneously.

🙏🙏🙏

Does the liberated Jnani or Sage see the body, the mind, the world or the 3 states of deep sleep, waking and dream according to Sri Ramana Maharshi and Sri Adi Shankara? | Advaita Vedanta Essential teachings| Picture quotes

~ Tom Das ~ 8 Comments

You are welcome to download and share any of the following picture quotes – many more can be found on my Facebook page here in the photo albums.

Sri Ramana often said that the Jnani (self-realised or liberate Sage) is totally unaware of the body, the mind and the world, and that the liberated sage also has no awareness of the 3 states of dream, deep sleep or waking, all of which are a projection of ignorance (aka the mind). We will see below that Sri Shankara says the same.

Also see: Does the Sage (Jnani) see the world? Does the world appearance exist after liberation?

In the text Guru Vachaka Kovai (Garland of Guru’s Sayings) – a highly authoritative collection of Sri Ramana’s teachings recorded by Sri Muruganar, there are several verses that were written by Sri Ramana Maharshi himself, often highlighting key or especially important teachings. These verses were called ‘Sri Bhagavan’ – here is the 24th such verse from that text, which Sri Ramana himself wrote:

The Self-Realised Sage knows not whether the transient body comes and stays, or dies and leaves, even as a senseless drunkard knows not what happens to his clothes.

Guru Vachaka Kovai, Sri Bhagavan 24

We can see that Sri Ramana is saying that in truth the Jnani is not aware of the body at all.

This next quote is from Maharshi’s Gospel:

To him who is one with that Reality, there is neither the mind nor its three states, and therefore, neither introversion nor extroversion.

Maharshi’s Gospel (Chapter 6)

We can see here Sri Ramana is implying that it is the mind that gives rise to the 3 states (waking, dreaming, deep sleep) and for the Jnani there is no mind, nor the 3 states, therefore the Jnani’s (non-existent) mind cannot be said to be introverted nor extroverted (both of which are in relation to the body and the world of objects, of which the Jnani is unaware).

Taking about a different triad, the triad of jiva, jagat and iswara (individual person, the world, and the power that animates these – the prior verse specifies that this is the triad he is speaking of), Sri Ramana states that none of these remain in Self Realisation in the text Guru Ramana Vachana Mala:

Though these* (three) are unreal, they are not different from the Supreme Reality (Brahman); but the Supreme Reality is different (from these), because It exists without these* in the State of Self -Realisation

*the triad of jiva, jagat and Isvara; ie. the individual person, the world, and the personal God; these 3 do not exist in Self-Realisation

Guru Ramana Vachana Mala, verse 290

But doesn’t Sri Ramana teach us that for the Jnani they see the names and forms and body and mind AS THE SELF and not apart from the SELF? Yes, he does teach this, but this is a lower teaching, as he has also explained. See Sri Ramana’s own writing in Ulladu Narpadu verse 18:

18. To those who do not know and to those who do, the world is real. But to those who do not know, Reality is bounded by the world; while to those who know, Reality shines formless as the ground of the world. Such is the difference between them.

Careful readers will realised that Bhagavan Sri Ramana is saying that for the Jnani, only the substratum is real, and that the ‘world’ of the Jnani is the Pure consciousness only devoid of name and form, as he has already explained above.

Lakshmana Sarma (LS) was a close devotee of Sri Ramana Maharshi’s for over 20 years, and he was one of only 2 people to have private tuition with Sri Ramana Maharshi on the true meaning of Sri Ramana’s teachings. LS was unhappy about how Sri Ramana’s teachings had been misrepresented even by other devotees, so after consulting with Sri Ramana Maharshi he wrote several texts aimed at correcting these distorting teachings. In this post I have included some of what he said about this aspect of Sri Ramana Maharshi’s teachings, and also given LS’s comments and explanation on verse 18 above, which Sri Ramana Maharshi allegedly said was the correct interpretation.

Here are some more teachings of Sri Ramana’s in a similar vein. When read separately they are clear. When read together they surely give a definitive teaching (please also scroll past the pictures for teachings from Shankara on this same topic further below):

So Bhagavan Sri Ramana has give these types of teachings to us many times – see the introductory articles on the homepage of this website which explore many of these teachings even further – but so has Sri Shankara given us these same teachings in various places. Here are some quotes from Upadesa Sahasri (‘A Thousand Teachings’), the only non-commentarial work attributed to Adi Shankara that is universally agreed as being a genuine work of his:

All this world is unreal and proceeds from ignorance, because it is seen only by one afflicted by ignorance

Sri Shankara, Upadesa Sahasri 17.20

Having thus effaced the triad consisting of dreamless sleep, dream and waking experience, one crosses over the great sea of ignorance. For he is then established in his own Self, void of all attributes of the empirical world, pure, enlightened, and by his very nature liberated.

Sri Shankara, Upadesa Sahasri 17.58

Because I am without an eye*, I have no sight. As I have no ear either*, how could I have hearing? As I have no voice I can have no speech. As I have no mind, how could I have thought?

There cannot be action on the part of that which does not have life force (prana). There cannot be knowership on the part of that which has no mind. Neither can there be knowledge or ignorance on the part of me who am the Light of Pure Consciousness

*Shankara is quoting from Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3.8.8

Sri Shankara, Upadesa Sahasri 13.1, 13.2

Just as a dream is [apparently] real and valid until one awakens from it, so are the experiences of the waking state, such as identity with the body and the authoritativeness of perception and the other means of knowledge, real and valid until knowledge of the Self

Sri Shankara, Upadesa Sahasri 11.5

Of me who am ever-liberated, pure, rock-firm and changeless, not subject to modification, immortal, indestructible and so without a body, there is no hunger or thirst or grief or delusion or old age or death. For I am bodiless…

Sri Shankara, Upadesa Sahasri 13.3-13.4

There are many other places Shankara has given this same teaching, such as in his introduction to his commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad which you can view here and if you explore this website you will find many such similar teachings.

Below I have put together some picture quotes of Shankara’s teachings which I previously shared on Facebook (there are dozens more on Facebook!)- you are also welcome to share any picture quotes I have created:

And here are some verses of Sri Shankara’s that Sri Ramana Maharshi himself has translated (into Tamil – these are the English translations of his translations):

How to truly know that consciousness is the ground of being and the sole reality

~ Tom Das ~ Leave a comment

This is one of a series of introductory articles – please see the homepage of tomdas.com for more introductory articles. Also see: Recommended Reading: Books for Enlightenment, Liberation and Self-Realisation

This article was first published on Facebook here.

FIRST, A FALSE TEACHING:

‘…Look directly at your own experience. Can you find anything in your own direct experience apart from consciousness? Isn’t everything you perceive sense and know, all arising within your consciousness? More than that, isn’t everything arising not only within your consciousness, but as consciousness itself? And can you find a boundary to this consciousness, can you find a beginning or an end to this consciousness… and so on, and so on….’

Whilst this CAN be and IS a wonderful teaching as an entry point into the teaching*, this is ultimately a false teaching. And by false teaching, as I have just implied, I do not mean a bad teaching necessarily (although some false teachings are bad), by false teaching I mean, in this context, a teaching that is not truly or ultimately liberating.

(*As an aside, were it not for this kind of teaching, I myself probably would not have found the deeper teachings. It was these kinds of teachings that encourage one to explore one’s own direct experience that helped me get into this ‘subject of non-duality’. My mind did, in fact, dismiss the deeper teachings when I first came across them, as I thought them too ridiculous and absurd. It was only many years later that I was led to the deeper teachings, which answered all my questions and were ultimately liberating in my own personal experience.)

FLAWED LOGIC

Why is this a false teaching? Well, the logic is completely flawed and suffering is not removed once and for all (which is what happens with genuine liberation – or to be more accurate, in genuine liberation, suffering is seen never to have arisen in the first place).

Here is how the logic is flawed: you can only be conscious of things you are conscious of. You can only be aware of things that arise in your awareness. So it is a circular argument to say everything is consciousness because everything that arises in your consciousness is not apart from consciousness. The instrument we use, in this case our awareness or our consciousness, determines the nature of what we see/perceive. Because the instrument we are using is consciousness or awareness, this determines that everything perceived must necessarily arise within that awareness. This obviously does not mean that everything is awareness, or everything is consciousness.

For example if I give you a ruler, all you’ll be able to measure is distance. See if you can measure anything with a ruler that is not distance. That does not mean that ‘distance is the only thing that exists’ or ‘all there is is distance’, and that ‘distance is the only measurable thing’. It means that a ruler measures distance only.

Similarly, just as a ruler is only able to detect distance, consciousness only is aware of objects arising in consciousness.

Also see: Look – there’s no one here! (And other false teachings)

TAUTOLOGY

This form of circular reasoning in the field of logic is known as a tautology. Tautological statements often appear to be profound, but in fact provide us with no new information and just restate what is already known in a new or novel way.

An example of a tautological statement would be ‘the future is yet to come’. This may seem to be an inspiring, bold and novel statement, but actually no new information is given. By definition, the future has not yet occurred, so of course the future is yet to come. No new information has been imparted to us. In a particular context, this could actually be an inspiring statement, but this statement is rhetorical (rhetoric is the art of speaking and persuasion through speaking), not informative in its nature.

Similarly, all we can be aware of is what we are conscious of, or to put it a different way, we can only be conscious of those things that rise up in our consciousness. This does not mean that all is consciousness. It just means we are only conscious of what we are conscious of, which is nothing particularly profound, and provides us with no new information at all – it is a tautology.

OTHER PROBLEMS WITH THIS TEACHING

There are several more issues with these kinds of teachings that ask us to explore our own direct experience, not realising that our own direct experience is the problem, and that this ‘direct experience’ should be distrusted for us to discover something more genuine and more real and infinitely more blissful, in which no suffering and duality remains. In fact this trusting in our own direct experience of our body our mind and our senses, is a core part of what ignorance actually is.

NO BOUNDARIES IN CONSCIOUSNESS?

These teachings that encourage us to explore our own direct experience do not reveal to us the infinite, deathless nature of reality, what we truly are. They only give us proxies such as ‘can you find an edge or a border or a boundary to this consciousness? No? Therefore this consciousness is infinite’. Clearly this is just word-play and not the genuine infinite nature of consciousness that the scriptures and great sages are talking about at all. If all ‘infinite consciousness’ means is that we cannot find a boundary to consciousness, isn’t this a rather anticlimactic spiritual statement?

Can you see through a wall or around a corner? No? Well doesn’t that reveal that our own personal consciousness is FINITE and LIMITED? Can you smell better than a wolf or a dog? No? Doesn’t that represent a boundary to your perception and consciousness?

The word ‘infinite’ when applied to consciousness doesn’t mean these types of things at all. It is much grander (and simpler) that this. We are the Source. We are Pure Positivity. We are truly infinite. Not some re-interpretation of the word ‘infinite’ to mean ‘I cannot find a boundary to consciousness in my own direct experience’. This is just word-play.

If we, instead of indulging in word-play, turn towards our own intuitive inner knowing, it is obvious that these are false intellectualised teachings that remain on the surface level only, and that the term ‘infinite consciousness’ is pointing to a far deeper more magnificent truth of what we actually are.

Also see: Ramana Maharshi – three theories of reality of the world – the 3 levels of the teaching

COMMON CONSENSUS IS NOT A PROPER METHOD TO DETERMINE THE TRUTH

Perhaps because so many great teachers or authorities are saying the same thing, that makes it seem true, but this is also a false way of determining the truth. Majority opinion or a proclaimed authority stating something, doesn’t necessarily make it true at all. The idea is to discover this truth for yourself, yes in our own experience, but we will see this is not done by exploring our everyday experience, meaning it is not done by exploring our sense perceptions or our thoughts and seeing how they relate to our awareness or consciousness, or anything like this.

Also see:

Rupert Spira’s ‘Direct Path’ vs Traditional Advaita Vedanta and Sri Ramana Maharshi

THE BODY, THE BRAIN AND CONSCIOUSNESS

These teachings that encourage us to explore our everyday experience also do not really inform us whether or not consciousness depends on the body or brain, or whether or not consciousness is primary and the body and brain arise within it, or something else.

The logic goes ‘what you know of the body and the brain only arises in consciousness, therefore consciousness is primary and the body and brain are secondary’. Again, if you have not been brainwashed by these teachings, which are erroneous conceptual conclusions, it is easy to realise that this is false logic. Just because what we PERCEIVE to be the body or the brain arises within our consciousness, that does not mean that the Brain and body actually DEPEND on consciousness.

It is true that our PERCEPTION of the body/brain depends on consciousness, but that does not mean that there is not something real underlying our perception of the body, a real body/brain beyond our perception so to speak, which precedes consciousness.

The true teachings however resolve all these questions for us directly in our own experience, but not by exploring our own outer experience of thoughts sensations and objects, or how they relate to consciousness or awareness.

CONSCIOUSNESS AND DIFFERENT BODIES AND PERSPECTIVES

The false teachings also do not account for how one person may have one perspective of the world, and another person has a different perspective of the world. If all is one, then how can we account for all these seemingly different people with different sense perceptions, different knowledge, different skills, etc

And if consciousness is one, why can we not be aware of what everybody else is thinking, feeling, perceiving, knowing, etc?

And if consciousness is one, why do we have our own particular experience rather than someone else’s particular experience?

And how do we know that there aren’t in fact 8 billion or so different consciousnesses and not just one consciousness? How do we know?

Are not these scientific questions that require scientific answers?

None of these questions are answered by the false teachings, but they are all answered by the true teachings (genuinely, and not just intellectually), and we can discover this truth for ourself.

ETHICS AND TRAGEDY

The false teachings also do not give us a satisfactory answer for why terrible things happen in the world, or why a loving God or a singular consciousness could allow so many terrible things to happen.

The true teachings give a satisfactory answer to this question, again, not just intellectually, but actually in our direct experience.

SO IS ALL NOT CONSCIOUSNESS?

So, am I saying that all is NOT consciousness, and that all the great teachers, sages, and scriptures are wrong when they posit that all IS consciousness?

No! Not at all! What am I saying then? All IS consciousness, and Consciousness IS the ground of being, the sole reality.

All I’m saying is that this teaching of simply exploring one’s direct sensory and mental experience is not a correct method to truly discover that all is consciousness or to discover your true nature. This method of simply exploring one’s own direct experience is NOT a correct method, not a legitimate method, not a rational or logical method to determine that the ground of being, that the sole reality is a consciousness that is beyond the scope of words. It simply doesn’t, by itself, work. To repeat what I said at the start of this post – it is a good teaching in that it may form an entry point into the teaching, which is wonderful, but it is not a liberating teaching itself.

THERE IS ANOTHER WAY

There is another way. This other way has been encoded in the oldest spiritual teachings that still survive to this day, such as the Vedanta teachings of the Upanishads/Vedas, or the early Buddhist teachings that survive to this day. This other method that does work has been given out countless times by numerous sages in different times and different places. Of course this method is often corrupted over the course of time, distorted by the ego, through ignorance, through intellectual (flawed) logic, by the intellectuals and by the well-meaning (or not so well-meaning) ignorant ones (apparently). Many people who teach Vedanta and Buddhism,, some of whom are very prominent and well-respected, are demonstrably teaching something quite different to what the scriptures actually say.

However recently, this teaching has been given in a very pure and simple form by a great sage, Sri Ramana Maharshi.

TRUE TEACHINGS DO NOT ASK US TO EXPLORE OUR EVERYDAY EXPERIENCE IN ORDER TO FIND THE ULTIMATE TRUTH

Notice that never do the Vedanta teachings or the original Buddhist teachings ask us to make an examination of our everyday experience. Notice that never does Sri Ramana or Sri Krishna ask us to examine our everyday experience in order to discover the Truth.

THE TRUE TEACHINGS: ‘DISTRUST YOUR EVERYDAY EXPERIENCE‘

No, instead they ask us to distrust our everyday experience, to distrust what our senses show us, and to distrust what our thoughts may think or conclude about the world around us. They give us a different method.

This theme, as well as other themes, are explored more in this article here as well as in many of the introductory articles on the tomdas.com homepage:

Does Swami Sarvapriyananda teach the same as Swami Vivekananda and Sri Ramakrishna? | Swami Dayananda | Swami Satchidanendra Saraswati | Sri Ramana Maharshi | Advaita Vedanta

PARALLELS WITH MODERN DAY SCIENCE

Just as modern-day science has discovered apparently profound truths about the way the universe operates that seem completely contrary to the world our senses reveal to us, similarly, but much more profoundly, these genuine spiritual teachings reveal a truth that appears counter to what the mind and senses think and perceive to be true.

Contrary to our everyday experience, current quantum mechanics tells us that particles can exist in multiple different states at the same time, something called superimposition. This forms the basis of quantum computers in which quantum bits (qubits) can exist in superimposition as a combination of zero or one (which will later collapse into a one or a zero), whereas a classical bit in classical non-quantum computers can either be a one or a zero. This allows quantum computers to perform some calculations much quicker than classical computers, and even perform calculations that a classical computer would not be able to perform at all.

Einstein’s theory of special relativity reveals that the faster we are travelling, the slower time passes, so theoretically someone travelling at very high speeds will age less quickly compared to someone travelling at a lower speed (not a recommended anti-aging therapy by the way – you would need to travel at near light speed for this feature of special relativity to have any noticeable effect!). Again, this is a counter-intuitive discovery made by exploring more deeply than what our sense perceptions and thoughts present to us in our everyday experience, and discovering that these are not necessarily true.

And this is a key feature of science – it investigates and often contradicts what appears to be self-evident truths.

PLATO’S CAVE

Plato illustrated that we should not trust our own direct experience using the famous example of what has now become known as ‘Plato’s cave’.

The idea is that several human beings, living in a dimly lit cave, seeing only shadows on a wall of the cave, are not able to see themselves. They mistake the shadows dancing on the wall as themselves and as the sole reality. This is akin to trusting our own sense perceptions and thoughts, rather than discovering a more fundamental truth that may superficially seem opposed to what our senses and mind perceives and thinks to be true.

Plato was telling us that in order to discover a deeper truth, we must distrust what we take at face value on the body mind world level and investigate more deeply to find deeper truths that may apparently contradict what we see.

A classic example in science is that the earth seems flat, but when investigated we discover it is spherical, or that the sun and stars and planets appear to orbit around us in our own experience, but actually the solar system is heliocentric, not geocentric.

Similarly we must investigate deeper than our everyday experience to discover what we actually are.

INTUITIVELY WE ALREADY KNOW

Despite these deeper teachings revealing something to us that is contrary to what our mind and senses are telling us, intuitively, it is possible that these genuine deeper teachings ring true despite them seeming superficially incorrect or even perhaps absurd. And intuitively* it is possible for each and every one of us to know this spiritual truth for our self.

(*I am using this word intuitively to mean to know something without using the faculties of the mind, the body or the senses. Ultimately this intuitive knowledge is not for a person at all)

Also see The Non-Dual Vision of Jesus Christ and the teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi

HOW TO KNOW CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE GROUND OF BEING AND THE SOLE REALITY?

So, how to actually know this spiritual truth for oneself, that consciousness is the sole ground of reality? To this end I have put together a recommended reading list on my website, tomdas.com, and a group of introductory articles on the same website which you can read and look at yourself.

Due to the potentially radical natures of this teaching, these resources are aimed at those who are genuinely seeking liberation, and who are not just seeking mere entertainment (it is absolutely fine by the way if you are looking to kill a few hours! It is just not the intended audience of this material). It is also recommended that you read several of the resources with an open mind before jumping to any conclusions and dismissing these teachings.

Many people start to read these teachings, and when they seem counter to what they have already learnt and what they think they know, they dismiss the teachings. This is what I did when I first came across these teachings – it was only a few years later I was able to engage with them. The ego mind often clings to teachings that it likes and then it can feel secure in, and that it can understand, and rejects teachings that go against its preconceived views, but this is often an (unconscious?)attempt of the ego to preserve itself.

The reading list compiles teachings from different times and different places. Some of these teachings are ancient, some are less ancient, and some of these teachings were written very much in the modern day. All give the same essential teaching using different words, and each different expression of the teaching gives us a different flavour and different clues as to how this truth can be truly known.

A LABOUR OF LOVE FOR YOU

All of the above is available for free, without a subscription or without you having to give any of your personal information to anyone. Some of the books you will have to buy, but I do not receive any money when you purchase these books. Most of the books are available for free as downloads from tomdas.com

This has been done as a spontaneous labour of love for you. No, actually it was not a ‘labour’ at all, as ‘labour’ implies hard work – it flowed effortlessly and organically over time through interacting with various people. Most of the posts, including the recommended reading list itself and this post here, were a product of people asking me questions and my writing them answers, or a response to interacting with seekers and seeing the difficulties they are going through.

No, this is not a labour of love, this is a spontaneous expression of love, for you, and for anyone who is interested.

Wishing you well on your (apparent) journey

🙏🙏🙏

SOME COMMON QUESTIONS

Q. Tom, aren’t all these teachings pointing to the same thing, but in different ways? You may have found your way but that doesn’t mean these other ways are not pointing to the same truth.

Tom: unfortunately this is not true. While all teachings YOU come across in YOUR journey will help YOU towards the truth, that does not mean those specific teachings are actually specifically pointing to the same truth. Some people, when they come across the teachings I share, are able to see this at once, for others it can take several months of engaging with these teachings for them to start to see the genuine differences. I encourage you to engage with the teaching material, and if it resonates, go with it. Otherwise it is fine to go with a different teaching and a different teacher that resonates with you right now.

Q. Tom, it is great that you have so much love and devotion for your teacher Ramana Maharshi, but perhaps you are a bit biased towards him, no?

Tom: it is true that I have a great devotion towards Sri Ramana, but I genuinely do not feel I am being biased in my presentation. Quite the opposite. The reason I enjoy sharing his teachings is because he points the way to truth, not the other way around. There are many others who have also pointed this same way, and it is this way that is important, not my personal affection for a singular teacher. If other teachers, who have genuinely realised this truth for themselves, recommend this same way, then I will recommend them too! And this is demonstrated by the variety of teachers and teachings in my recommended reading list.

Q. Thanks Tom for putting all this together, but I really don’t feel it is for me. I prefer another teacher or teaching.

Tom: that is great – it is important you follow your heart when it comes to these things. If you do not resonate with what I share, and you resonate with something else, it is likely that this something else is going to be more beneficial for you right now. It is much better to follow your heart with these things, and engage with the teacher or teaching you think is right for you, than to engage with a teaching that is theoretically ‘the best’ but you are not genuinely engaged with on a heart level. If you follow your heart, and you are discerning in mind, you will surely find the way that is quickest for you, irrespective of whether or not you follow these teachings which I share. In 1 to 1 meetings with people I often stray from these teachings and meet the person where they are, whereas in satsang meetings I generally share these higher teachings. This is not always the case but is generally true. I will say that eventually all have to come to this teaching in their own way, and I hope it is obvious that it doesn’t have to be through me or what I share here.

Q. I already have a teacher and a teaching I follow. What should I do?

Tom: again, I encourage you to follow your heart on this matter. If you genuinely want to stay with your teacher and follow that teaching, then I encourage you to do so. However if you feel there is something lacking, then question them if that is possible or feel free to explore other teachers and teachings and find the right one for you – this is what I did. See if you can find someone who you trust and who is genuine. Even if the teacher is not fully realised, if you can trust them and if they are genuine, and if you connect/resonate with them, no doubt they will help you on your journey. One of my best teachers was someone who was not self-realised, but they were sincere and genuine, and I learnt a lot from them.

Q. Do I need a teacher for these teachings you share?

Tom: everybody needs a teacher. For some the teacher will be solely within (ie. no external teacher is required), and ultimately this teacher within is the only true teacher, but for others, perhaps for most, an external teacher is seemingly required. It is for you to discern and decide this matter for yourself.

Q. Isn’t the very idea of a teacher, or even a teaching, a hindrance on this path?

Tom: yes, it can be. But it can also be an essential help. When I first started teaching I often said how teacher is not that important, as all we need is already within us, but through teaching and having experience teaching others I have come to see how a teacher is necessary for most of the people who come to me. So now I emphasise the importance of being in close regular contact with a teacher, as I can see how beneficial this is in removing ignorance which seems to constantly creep back in. However this experience of mine may be due to selection bias, in that the people who are drawn to me may be the very ones who need a teacher, and perhaps I am less likely to come across those who do not need a teacher – so again, it is up to you to decide. My personal experience is that a teacher can be invaluable on this apparent spiritual journey and save you much time, but I leave that up to you to discern for yourself. Eventually all concepts, even that of a teacher, a teaching, a path – the very notion of liberation itself – these are all ultimately obstacles, but until then they can be most helpful. I hope this answer makes sense.

There are many other questions like these that I answer in the introductory articles on the homepage of tomdas.com and more that are also answered in the books in the recommended reading list. There are hundreds of free articles also available on tomdas.com and lots of videos on my YouTube channel that answer almost every conceivable question on this path. If there is a question that has not been answered, you are welcome to simply ask me!

With love and best wishes

Namaste

Tom

🙏🙏🙏

‘It is wrong to call Self the Witness’ – Sri Ramana Maharshi

~ Tom Das ~ 7 Comments

The following is an excerpt from this post: Is the Self a witness? Or is it everything? Or both?

Sri Ramana Maharshi has taught us in Guru Vachaka Kovai verse 98 (Guru Vachaka Kovai is the most authoritative record of Sri Ramana Maharshi’s verbal teachings according to Sri Ramana Ashram):

98. Unless the body is taken to be ‘I’, otherness – the world of moving and unmoving objects – cannot be seen. Hence, because otherness – the creatures and their Creator – does not exist, it is wrong to call Self the Witness.

Sri Sadhu Om, a direct devotee of Sri Ramana Maharshi, writes in his commentary on this verse:

Descriptions of self as the ‘witness of the individual soul’ (jiva sakshi) or the ‘witness of everything’ (sarva sakshi), which can be found in some sacred texts, are not true but are only figurative (upacara), because only when other things are known would the one who knows them be a ‘witness’ of them. Since self does not know anything in the state of absolute oneness, which is devoid of any other thing, to what can it be a witness? Therefore describing self as a ‘witness’ is incorrect.

What both Sri Ramana Maharshi and Sri Sadhu Om are saying is that objects only appear when the ego/ignorance is present. In Self-realisation, there are no objects, only the Self, so in truth the Self cannot be said to be a witness.

In verse 869 of Guru Vachaka Kovai Sri Ramana teaches us:

869. ’Tis a foolish fancy to ascribe the role of ‘witness’ to the Self, the luminous Sun, the mighty sky of Pure Awareness. In the Self Immutable there is no room for maya’s darkness void. The Self is one sole whole without a second.

Here is an alternative translation of the same verse, with Sri Sadhu Om’s commentary, which essentially states in truth, ie. in realisation, there is no Maya in the Self. It is only for ajnani’s, ie. the ignorant, that consider the Self to be a witness of phenomena/maya:

869. The role [dharma] of seeing is ascribed to Self – the space of consciousness, the sun – only in the imagination of ajnanis, [because] maya, the empty ignorance [of seeing otherness], never exists in Self, the support [sthanu], [and also because] Self is without a second.

Sri Sadhu Om’s comments: Since Self is in truth that which transcends all roles and all qualities, and since It exists as one without a second, to glorify It as the ‘witness of all’ [sarva-sakshi] or as the ‘knower of all’ [sarvajna] is merely the folly of ignorant people.

Also see: The practice of witnessing thoughts and events was never even in the least recommended by Sri Ramana Maharshi

Q. The sage and the ignorant both have a body – what is the difference between them? Sri Ramana Maharshi | Aham Sphurana | Verse 17 Ulladu Narpadu 40 verses on Reality

~ Tom Das ~ Leave a comment

The following is from the text Aham Sphurana from the entry dated 15th September, 1936. Some of the language is quite difficult so I have summarised the points in my comments which, as usual, are in italicised red:

Questioner: The Jnani [Tom: knower, enlightened sage] and ajnani [Tom: non-knower, the ignorant one] both have a body; what is the difference between them?

Tom: See Sri Ramana’s text ’40 Verses on Reality’ (Ulladu Narpadu), Bhagavan writes in verse 17:

17. To those who do not know the Self and to those who do, the body is the ‘I’. But to those who do not know the Self the ‘I’ is bounded by the body; while to those who within the body know the Self the ‘I’ shines boundless. Such is the difference between them.


Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi: The mistake made by the ajnani is that he limits his “I” to the body. Both the Jnani and the ajnani have a body, and both say ‘I am the body’. The difference lies in the fact that in the case of the Jnani the diaphanous [Tom: subtle] stream of consciousness needed to sustain life in the body is an upadhi [Tom: adjunct, superimposed object], whereas in the case of the other, that macilent [Tom: thin or subtle] ray of reflected consciousness [known as body-consciousness] is the one and only consciousness he is aware of.

I Am is the truth. Body-consciousness is an obnubilating [Tom: obscuring] limitation which obscures Revelation of the Self in the case of the ajnani and an upadhi in the case of the Jnani. You are always the same “I”, whatever state it is that may be passing in front of you. In sleep “I” remains without a body. That same “I” remains undisturbed and unmutilated in the jagrat [Tom: waking] and swapna [Tom: dream] states also.

Tom: To summarise the above paragraph, which contains some convoluted language, Bhagavan says that for the Jnani, the body is a mere appearance in Consciousness (Upadhi) which doesn’t cover his true identity as Self/Consciousness, whereas for the ajnani, the body is the sole identity and this obscures the vision of Truth of ‘I’ or ‘I AM’ or ‘True Self’. However, we will see below that this description is only from the relative point of view, and that truly there is no body for the Jnani in Truth.

Only, in these states, we abandon our actual identity with “I” and imagine ourselves to be perishable bodies made of matter. Despite this confusion on our part, “I” remains happily without a body in truth always, although we assume that we are within the body. Although by us imagined to be within the body, the Real “I” ever is without any body or other limitation, being the Absolute Immutable Self Itself. One’s ignorant outlook is not merely ‘I am the body.’; it lies in having confounded the Self with the not-Self, such as the mind, intellect or body. Does the Real “I” formulate or proclaim the idea of it being this or that? Is it not always perfectly silent? It is the spurious “I” which is capable of rumbustiousness or obstreperousness, and which says, ‘I am this.’ or ‘I am that.’.The body is insentient and cannot say so. Our mistake lies in thinking “I” to be what “I” is not. “I” cannot be insentient; therefore “I” is not the inert body. What then is this “I”? “I” means Sentience or Awareness which is not adumbrated by the faculty of thought-manufacture- i.e., the aham vritti.

The body’s movements are confounded with “I” and excruciating agony is the result. Whether the body and mind work or not, “I” remains free and happy i.e., in its nativistic or intrinsic state of ecstatic, Eternal Emancipation. The ajnani’s “I” is limited to his body and mind only; that is where his whole error lies. The Jnani’s “I” includes the body and everything else. For the Emancipated-one there cannot be anything apart from “I” the Self. He sees no other. Verily everything is only Himself. In the case of the ajnani, some phantasmagoric, intermediate entity known as ahankaram [Tom: ego] arises between the body and the Self and gives rise to all sorts of trouble. If its source is sought, it disappears, leaving the Self alone behind, as the solitary residue. Continuous and intense inward-pointed scrutiny of the mind results in its disappearance.

Tom: similar to my previous comments, Bhagavan is saying essentially the same thing here, namely that the Jnani is not identified with the body whereas the ajnani is. There is also a hint that in truth there is no body, and this is made slightly clearer below.

Bhagavan also says that it is this phantom ego which arises and claims to be I and also claims to be the body, and it is this that ‘gives rise to all sorts of trouble’. The method of self-enquiry is thereafter briefly described – seek the source of this ego, and via this continuous intense inward pointedness of mind, the mind disappears and Self-knowledge remains.

Q.: Since the Jnani has a tangible body, what happens to the soul in that body after its death?

B.: Others say that the Jnani has a body, and talk of jivanmukti, videhamukti, mukti by means of making the body disappear in a flash of blazing light, etc.; the Jnani’s experience of Reality is altogether unconditioned and totally absolute. His experience is that he has no body. If others see him as being one with a body, or as possessing a body, can that affect him? He does not identify himself with the body even whilst the body is yet alive. Can the death of the body then affect him?

Tom: for a moment here Bhagavan Sri Ramana speaks in absolute terms, declaring that for the Self or Jnani, there is no body at all. Below, however, Bhagavan will flip back into speaking in relative terms, presumably due to the nature of the question and the state of the questioner:

Q.: But just now Bhagawan said that the Jnani also says “I am the body.”.

B.: Yes. His “I” includes the body. His experience is that for him there cannot be anything apart from “I”. If the body is destroyed there is no loss for the “I”. “I” remains the same as ever. If the body feels dead let it raise questions. Can it? No; being inert it cannot. “I” never dies and it does not ask any question. Who then dies and who asks questions?

Q.: For whom are all the sacred-books then? They cannot be for the real “I”. They must be for the unreal “I”. The real one would not require them. Am I correct?

B.: Yes, yes.

Q.: Is it not strange that an unreal entity should have so many sacred-books written for him?

B.: Quite so. Death is merely a thought and nothing more. He who thinks raises questions and experiences troubles. Let the thinker tell us what happens to him in death.

Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya Om