Agreement
 

Traditional (TA) and Neo Advaita (NA) agree that Oneness is the only reality so there can be no disconnection from Oneness. So TA accept that it is already Oneness not realizing but say that there still needs to be realization. So it seems like TA has other concerns rather than just connection where NA does not.

A discussion about that difference might be of use to seekers if it can be conducted with respect, and without the desire to undermine and eliminate the other by reference to cults or similar abuse. If that sort of abuse continues in this thread, I suggest we do not give it the oxygen of a response and try to concentrate on the issues.

These points have been covered in these threads you started:

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...d.php?t=118552

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...d.php?t=118220

Relevant articles:

http://www.spiritualteachers.org/neo...ta_article.htm

https://liveanddare.com/neo-advaita/4/

http://anaditeaching.com/neo-adviata...ary-awakening/

Showing references to it being called a cult is not abuse - if it's widely discussed, it deserves to be recognized in the space of discussion.

You cannot keep trying to shut down critique of Neo Advaita with mind games ("you are abusing me" "take him down, folks" "help! I am being attacked" "you are abusing discussion by daring to challenge" "how dare you speak poorly of Neo Advaita" etc.)

By the way, it's been 2am - 4:30am during your time here (in Wales), but I note it is mid afternoon in NZ.

Be well,

BT

I think this quote from the above article is quite balanced:

Even though these post-modern teachings have been inspired by those authentic sages, it is important to clarify that they are not in the lineage of any of them. Ramana, Papaji and Nisargadatta did not leave any official representatives or lineage-holders. As Papaji said, “When there is a lineage, impurity enters in the teaching.”

While neo-advaita shares with Advaita many of its theoretical teachings, the approach to practice is radically different in the former, if not totally absent. The modern “adaptation” of Advaita that happened in the 20th century got morphed into something else, and this watered-down version got greatly popularized in the West.

This brought both good and bad results.

- Good results: It opened the doors of nondual spirituality for people that would not otherwise be attracted to it, serving as a platform for further inquiry. It has benefited people in abandoning certain conditioned beliefs.
- Bad results: The distortions, disappointment, superficial realizations, spiritual stagnation, and even abuse of power and sex.

Responses on previous threads have been littered with abuse, including the one above referring again to NA as a cult. I would welcome a new discussion on the issues raised in the initial post in this thread from anyone who would care to comment directly on the issues raised without the abuse.

Hello Iamit,

It seems neither fair, nor respectful to other members to refer to their sincere replies as "abuse" simply because they may disagree with your philosophy. I have now seen many of these accusations of "abuse", perhaps in at least a half dozen of your posts in other threads - not including the very OP of this, your own thread where "abuse" appears 4 times...so far), in which you make a plea for honest discussion and then make blanket innuendo/accusation of "abuse" in the next sentence. This obviously doesn't bode well for discussion of the topic from the outset.

This kind of preemptive evasion is even more craven and intellectually dishonest than the usual tactic of dismissal ("you are attacking me. Good bye and good luck" etc.) when people simply present ideas that are clarifying or contrary to the apparently standard tenets (or dogma depending on how one sees it) of Neo-Advaita philosophy so presented in your numerous threads.

I can sympathise how this may be frustrating to you but suggest that you try to engage people - for instance: it's disingenuous to say "I would welcome discussion" (when you demonstrate not to) - rather than dismiss them with personal disparagements and accusations of "abuse", which is really utter nonsense by both content and context. I for one, would invite you to get back to the real discussion (it's difficult to join in, when these kinds of hyper-defensive replies have become rote and predictable) - which includes taking responsibility for topics you yourself initiate.

As to this thread ironically entitled "Agreement"... is that actually what you demand from participants?

- - - - - - -

P.S. While the use of the term 'cult' is (imo) unfortunate as imbued with negative connotation - again ironically, it is supposedly cults that cannot tolerate disagreement - those contributions including the citing of various articles, were not simply 'name-calling', but rather did substantiate the philosophical points brought up. And (I believe) at least in some cases, it was the article itself, not the SF member who used the term.

~ J

I’m neither TA nor NA. What is clear is that seekers wish to end their seeking. The end of seeking or awakening is otherwise known as realisation. Without realisation seeking continues. If there is contentment with seeking then that’s fine - Oneness presents as seeking (there’s a lot of it about.) In that scenario there is (as you put it) still connection to Oneness (since there’s nothing else available) but seeking continues.

The point is, you are either seeking or seeking has ended (realisation.)

To lump people like Tony Parsons and other speakers on Neo Advaita together with the sometimes criminal behavoiur of cults is indeed abusive.

No demands for agreement, just a preference for discussion of the issues without abuse, in the attempt to reach mutual understanding.

We have been round this before Moondance. Yes seeking may continue but not disconnection for it is already Oneness seeking. So there must be something else TA is concerned about other than connection. Whatever that something else may be, it will always be Oneness so who knows what they are concerned about when TA and NA agree on this. I presume they resent that the need for pracise disappears conceptually. But thats just because the West is more inclined to resonate with concepts. Its not intended to wind them up.

From reading all of these threads started by the OP and giving Neo-Advaita more of a reserved study, rather than just a casual 'look in' I have noticed a discrepancy between the practice and the advocate of it.

I'm all for 'losing the ego' and 'self inquiry' etc...however, it seems that the posts made by Iamit are totally incongruous with the very practice and philosophy of Neo-Advaita, or any school of Advaita for that matter.

I'm just being totally rational and logical, not meaning to criticise or condemn here...I am not a troll, merely trying to foster the awareness and realisation of Brahman or 'Oneness'. It just seems that Iamit has a very long way to go before 'losing the ego' or 'attaining Oneness' or even encapsulating the whole notion of 'non-duality' whether it be the modern or ancient version thereof.

My dear friend...just who is being 'abused'? who is being 'disrespected'? who is being 'trolled'? who is doing the 'seeking'? and isn't comparing one path of Advaita with another, duality within itself, defeating the whole purpose intended?

If you would like me to keep going on about how your own words and actions don't represent the path you follow, I shall...and like I said before, I am not being mean, rude or trolling in any way...if I could touch your hand and make you realise Brahman/Oneness for yourself, I would.

You will find people want to take positions and do so by agreeing and disagreeing, which isn't ever going to address the subject. It will only escalate into right and wrong, because the position relies completely on being right. At the bottom of this is a power game where the one who is right is the knower who wants to influence others with knowledge. That is at the heart of all the contention. You're just getting sucked into the game, and just need a quick shot of dgaf. teehee.