Non-duality
When I first started teaching, I tended towards direct pointing…
How do I deal with craving sense pleasures and neglect of spiritual practice?
Q: What would you say to someone (me) who persistently or often craves and desires so that remembrance of the Self seems to get neglected for spells, like it is sometimes a second priority? Presumably it is good to analyse the desire and see that the pleasure from it cannot be lasting and suffering from not always getting the desire is inevitable and see that there is a greater happiness in the absence of craving?
Tom: What does your heart say?
Q: That I neglect my heart feeling because I look to the Self as being outside the body embedded as oneness in the appearance of the world outside. I have actually just been watching your video with Roger Castillo where you talk about the yogic practise of abiding in the I AM . I used to be a lot more devotional early on in my seeking, now I feel I neglect that aspect, thanks Tom.
Tom: Be with your heart ❤ Don’t neglect the powerful devotional instinct if it moves you. Fall flat on your front and prostrate yourself if need be. Pour out your heart and soul in prayer, if moved to. Weep and worship, if called. And let me know how you’re doing ❤🙏❤ Many thanks for your questions 🙏
God and Guru are outdated
Following my recent post: ‘Do real gurus use Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, have websites and advertise?’, I received a few comments stating that words like ‘God’ and ‘Guru’ are outdated. And in many ways I agree. Both these words conjure up images of a patriarchal authoritarian culture of religion that is based in blind faith and superstition. However, here was my response to some of those comments:
Tom: I’ve noticed that words are very individual in how one relates to them. Some people are positively allergic to words like God and Guru, others revel in them, and many are somewhere in between.
No matter what words we use or do not use, some people will resonate, some people will not. In my view, we give ourselves the best chance to awaken when we see past the superficiality of the words used and look instead to what they point to.
When I was seeking, I gobbled up all the teachings I could find: theistic, non-theist, new-age, faith-based, understanding-based, practices, no practices – you name it, I was there, looking beyond the words, attempting to discover the substance beneath it.
What do you think? How do you seek (if you seek)? What resonates with you?
Peace to you all
❤
Clarifications on Self-Enquiry
Q. Hi Tom, when Ramana says in the book ‘Who am I’ ‘cultivate the constant and deep contemplative ‘remembrance’ (smrti) of the true nature of the Self’ – would this be like repeatedly bringing the attention back to what is here now with the understanding that the Self is all that is?
Tom: Not quite, although that can be part of it. It means to know:
(1) the essence of who you are, experientially, is unchanging and is also unaffected by gross and subtle objects
(2) there is no lasting fulfillment in objects, which are all transient
(3) the essence of you does nothing (the self is not a doer)
(4) it means to lose interest in objects as sources of pleasure, happiness or fulfillment as we bathe in the bliss of simply being (ourselves).
All this is captured by the words sat-chit-ananda (being-consciousness-bliss), which indicate the nature of the Self.
Turn away from the gross and subtle world-objects.
Not allowing the concept/thought ‘I’ to rise up, wielding the weapon ‘who am I’ to strike down any such thoughts, remain as the Self.
If this all sounds too complex, don’t worry: it is intuitively ‘grasped’, so to speak, through simply allowing the mind to rest and be still and allowing ‘the truth’, so to speak, to arise within naturally.
Ramana Maharshi: self-enquiry, knowledge and dispassion
Experiential vs Scientific truth
It’s important not to get mixed up between what is true in our experience (experiential truth) and what is true scientifically. Realising the difference between these two types of truth and how they are related will allow us to have a much clearer enquiry into suffering and how it can be ended. Let me illustrate these two ideas with a few brief examples:
Specific truths for you and scientific truths which are applicable for all cases
If you are scared of spiders, maybe every time you see a spider, a strong sensation of fear arises. This is an experiential truth, for you. For you, every time you see a spider, fear arises. This is the truth of your experience. However it does not mean that spiders are intrinsically scary. ie. it is not a scientific truth. We can conclude that at this moment in time you are scared of spiders, but we cannot extrapolate this finding that specifically related to a single individual and say it is always true for everyone.
Just because something is true for us, doesn’t mean it is true for everyone.
We can make this example even more obvious by using a more ridiculous example, such as someone being scared of ice cream. The experiential truth is that fear arises whenever ice cream is encountered, but we cannot conclude that scientifically speaking ice creams are scary.
This is contrary to something like the medication ibuprofen, which is, scientifically speaking, an analgesic or ‘pain killer’. It, broadly speaking, has the same effect on almost everyone, both scientifically, and also experientially.
The basic point here is that we must be careful when taking a specific example that is true for ourselves and then extrapolating this to make a general case that something is scientifically true.
Appearances vs reality
Here is another example. Take the sun rising and setting. Experientially it is true to say that each morning the sun rises in the East, then moves up and across the sky to be high up at midday, then gradually lowers and finally sets in the West. We can say that, experientially speaking, the sun’s path in the sky forms an arc. We can say, experientially speaking, the earth appears stationary and the sun is moving around it.
However scientifically speaking we know this is not true. A more complete scientific explanation that also accounts for this experience is that the earth moves around the sun which gives rise to the above described experience of the sun rising and setting.
Just because something appears to be true in our experience, doesn’t mean that is actually the case.
The point in this example is to illustrate that just because something appears to be true ie. is experientially true, it doesn’t mean that is actually the way it is, ie. scientifically true. However it is worth noting that understanding the scientific truth that the earth moved around the sun doesn’t actually change the experience that the sun rises and set. The raw sensory experience remains unchanged, it is just our understanding of the what gives rise to the experience that changes, and that in turn can change our perspective and our attitude and the decisions we make.
Optical illusions
Another simple example it the example of an optical illusion which appears to be one thing, but actually in reality is quite different. One of my favourite optically illusions is the checkerboard and cylinder illusions. This is an example of how the brain actually alters the way we perceive physical objects based upon is preconceptions of how things should look:
It’s difficult to believe if you have never seen this before, but the 2 squares marked A and B are actually exactly the same colour, but our brain change the way the colours are perceived as it ‘knows’ that in the shadow of the cylinder the squares ‘should’ appear darker. If you cover up the cylinder in the picture or look at the diagram below the illusion should become more obvious:
There are many more optical illusions you can see. Here is another simple one – both these lines are actually the same length scientifically speaking, but the experience is that line B appears longer that line A:
Why is this important?
This is particularly important in non-dual teachings where we are seeing there is no evidence for a doer, even though we think that it feels like a doer is present.
Just because it appears that we are the author of our thoughts and actions, doesn’t mean this is actually the way things are.
It also has ramifications for what I call The Awareness Teachings, in which we are taught that awareness or consciousness is ever-present experientially speaking whilst we are awake (ie. in the waking state), but that does not mean that scientifically speaking it is true that the essence of who we really are is awareness. This is an experiential truth, sure, but it may or may not be true scientifically speaking. Even if it is not true scientifically, that doesn’t mean the teaching has no value. In fact The Awareness Teachings in my view has incredible value, and that is why I teach it, but I teach it in a specific way that makes sense both experientially and scientifically.
Just because awareness/consciousness seems to be an unchanging part of our experience, doesn’t necessasarily mean that this is true scientifically speaking.
The other reason it is so important is that suffering itself is an experience. Therefore, freedom from suffering is also to do with our experience: learning to examine aspects of our experience and changing both our interaction with experience, our understanding of experience and even also changing the content of experience, such as changing our reactive habitual thoughts and behaviours if they are causative of suffering into something that is based on more truth, is less destructive in our relationships and society, and generates less suffering for ourselves and those around us.
Experiential truth is very important – why? Because suffering itself is an experience, and it is this that we are trying to understand and remove.
Where faith, wisdom, love and devotion meet
Grace, light and love are ever-present
Do real gurus use Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, have websites and advertise?
There is a notion going around some spiritual circles that ‘real gurus’ don’t advertise: they don’t have websites; they don’t go on Facebook or Twitter; and they definitely don’t have a blog. Of course, many genuinely awakened people don’t do any of these things – but the same could be said the the un-awakened too. ‘Real gurus’, apparently, sit around all day wearing nothing but a loin cloth, always speak in profound dolcit tones, and have a nice long wispy beard. Gotta have the beard.
Let me ask you, is life so limited? Is it really such a transgression to want to share something you’ve found? Listening to some people it does seem that way. I make no qualms about the fact that I do advertise, that there is a desire to reach out to others to share this wonderful discovery that I call Freedom. It’s not as if I try to hide it! And many people who have found ‘my teachings’ have benefitted from my sharing – not that I take any personal credit for any of this.
There is a natural desire to want to share what I have found. I don’t think this has to be the way it is for everyone, but it does seem to be the way it is over here in this body-mind called Tom. It doesn’t mean I’m not sharing something genuine. It doesn’t mean my realisation is only half-baked. It certainly doesn’t mean that I’m only in it for the money. If one day the desire to share this teaching stopped, and who knows, it might one day, then that would be fine too. For now, I’ll just keep on going. Why? Because that’s what’s happening.
Ramana Maharshi
Let’s look at a good example where the myth of not advertising comes from – the example of Ramana Maharshi. Now, many of you know that I have a deep resonance with his teachings and that a sense of devotion towards him spontaneously arose in me quite unexpectedly towards the end of my seeking journey. So I mean no offense at all when I use him as an example. Ramana Maharshi primarily taught in silence and wasn’t obviously/outwardly trying to share any teaching to the masses in an evangelical kind of way. Ramana didn’t travel around the world or even around India – he never really left the mountain of Arunachala once he got there as a teenager, and when he wasn’t being silent, he sometimes talked about the power of silence. Here is an example:
‘Silence of a realised being is most powerful. He sends out waves of spiritual influence which draw many people towards him. Yet he may sit in a cave and maintain complete silence. He never needs to go out among the public. If necessary he can use others as his instrument.’
Here is another example, again from Ramana Maharshi:
‘Contact with an enlightened sage is good. They will work through silence. By speaking their power is reduced. Silence is most powerful. Speech is always less powerful than silence…’
So there we have it. One of the most revered enlightened sages of modern times has said it clear as day. We can therefore deduce that if you’re on Facebook, you’re definitely not realised…right? Well not quite. Let’s take a look.
Shankara
If we take the example of Shankara, a giant of Vedic spirituality and considered to be the founder of Advaita Vedanta, we have a very different character outwardly. Shankara fervently travelled the length and breadth of 8th century India preaching and debating those who disagreed with him, setting up schools all across the subcontinent and advertising how his teachings were better and superior to those around him.
Interestingly Ramana Maharshi clearly considered Shankara to be somebody who was fully awakened or self-realised, and yet Shankara clearly went out ‘among the public’. Ramana translated several of Shankara’s works from Sanskrit into Tamil for the benefit of his devotees who were unable to read Sanskrit and described how Shankara’s teachings could lead to liberation. In Ramana’s translation of Shankara’s vivekachudamai, Ramana says of Shankara ‘Sri Sankara, guru of the world (jagathguru), shines as the form of Lord Shiva‘. A worthy complement indeed.
And yet this was a person who certainly did not just stay quiet or stay silent, and he definitely did go out into the public, contrary to the quotes from Ramana Maharshi above. What can we make of this apparent contradiction?
Nisargadatta Maharaj and his lineage
Lets take another example – that of Nisargadatta Maharaj, another revered sage from the 20th centuty. Whilst he did travel widely prior to his awakening, and a small amount afterwards too, he taught mainly from a room in a noisy street in Bombay. As far as I’m aware he didn’t really advertise much himself, but like Ramana, he permitted books about his teachings to be written and sold. So in this way, Nisargadatta would fit the model of a guru who did not solicit disciples and did not, overtly at least, go out to spread the word in public.
However, interestingly, Nisargadatta’s guru, Siddharameshwar Maharaj, travelled extensively around the state of Maharastra teaching those who came to him, sharing his teachings ‘out in the world’. He actively travelled around this part of India sharing his teahings with anyone who resonated with or who would listen to what he was saying.
In Nisargadatta’s lineage, they also teach using texts from Shankara. In verse 38 of Shankara’s Vivekachudamani it is written:
It is the very nature of the great souls to move of their own accord towards removing other’s troubles’
And in verse 37:
They themselves have crossed the dreadful ocean of the world. Without any selfish motive they help others to cross.
One of Ramana Maharshi’s favourite books is a Tamil Advaita classic called Kaivalya Navaneeta, or the Cream of Liberation. In verses 34 and 35 this is written:
I have already told you that the sages, liberated while alive, appear to be active in many ways according to their parabdha*. My good boy, hear me further, the activities of the sage are solely for the uplift of the world. He does not stand to lose or gain anything.
*Parabdha, refers to parabdha karma, which means the results of past actions that have not yet manifested. ie. the playing out of conditioning, or, if you want, destiny.
Samarth Ramdas
Sri Samarth Ramdas is one of the leading figures in Nisargadatta’s lineage from the 17th century. His written text Dasbodh became one of the main texts, perhaps the main text in Nisargadatta’s lineage. There is a story of Samarth Ramdas meeting Guru Hargobind, the sixth of the ten Sikh gurus. It goes like this:
Samarth Ramdas questions Guru Hargobind about his expensive attire, comparing him to the more austere Guru Nanak: “Guru Nanak was a Tyagi sadhu – a saint who had renounced the world. You are wearing arms and keeping an army and horses. You allow yourself to be addressed as Sacha Patshah, the True King. What sort of a sadhu are you?”
Guru Hargobind replied, “Internally a hermit, and externally a prince. Arms mean protection to the poor and destruction of the tyrant. Baba Nanak had not renounced the world but had renounced Maya, i.e. ego”
Ramdas responded by stating: “This appeals to my mind”.
Guru Hargobind here was teaching Ramdas that what is important is not the outward appearance, but the inward state of mind. Some saints are renunciates, like Guru Nanak, others are more ‘worldly’, at least in outward appearance. This is just the way it is. There is no choice in the matter.
Ramdas subsequently went on to do many things out in the world, contrary to what Ramana says in his statement above. Ramdas started to go out and gather many people around him in order to counter the recent Islamic teachings that had spread into India and convince people of the superiority of the Vedic traditions. He built temples, schools and even statues to promote his cause. In fact much of Ramdas’s magnum opus, Dasbodh, is about living in and dealing with the real world. Ramdas was also quite political, actively opposing the caste system, promoting women’s rights in both spiritual and non-spiritual arenas, recruiting female disciples and also backing a Hindu king to overthrow a Muslim one.
In start contrast to Ramana’s silent power, Ramdas said that sages who sat in one place were lesser saints than the ones who engaged in the world. Also in stark contrast to Ramana, Ramdas said that when he died it would be his books, ie. his words, that would carry the teachings forwards and these words should be cherished.
What a contrast! Here we have a silent sage promoting silence, and an active politically-inclined one promoting activity! What can we make of this?
Other examples in brief
I could go on: King Janaka is often given as an example of an enlightened sage who is wealthy and of the world. Vidyaranya, who wrote Pancadasi, a staple text in the Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta tradition, was very active politically and was political advisor to several kings of the day. More recently Swami Vivekananda and Swami Chinmayananda both set up ‘missions’ to spread the word and both travelled and advertised widely in order to do this.
Conclusion
I hope to any discerning reader, even without citing all these examples, it should be obvious that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with advertising, having a website or even, god-forbid, ‘tweeting’. These activities don’t automatically mean you are an ‘unenlightened’ waste of space. What is important is the purity of motivation and genuineness of insight-realisation. We don’t have to just believe what Ramana or Ramdas said, but we can think and see the reality of it all for ourselves.
As Guru Hargobind said, it is not about renouncing the world, but renouncing the ego. By this I mean seeing through the illusion of believing yourself to be a separate doer entity that authors its thoughts and actions (ie. insight), and the removal of the compulsive habitual tendencies (vasanas) that stem from that false belief (ie. purification).
I’ll leave you with a traditional description of an enlightened sage. It describes how a sage may be silent, but also may be active ‘like a python attacking its prey’! The point is that the unique conditioning of the purified body-mind of a ‘sage’ plays itself out in unique and often varied ways. Again we are quoting from Shankara’s Vivekachudamani, starting at verse 536 (apologies for the male chauvinist language assuming the sage is a ‘he’):
The enlightened sage (the knower of Brahman)…if people provide him with comforts and luxuries, he enjoys them and plays with them like a child. He bears no outward mark of a holy man…He may wear costly clothing or none…He may seem like a madman or like a child, or sometimes like an unclean spirit…Sometimes he appears to be a fool, sometimes a wiseman…Sometimes he is calm and silent. Sometimes he draws people to him, as a python attacks its prey. Sometimes people honor him greatly, sometimes they insult him. Sometimes they ignore him…He acts, yet is not bound by his action. He reaps the fruit of past actions, yet is unaffected by them.
❤ ❤ ❤
Tom Das 