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:
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
🙏🙏🙏
Tom Das 