Neo Advaita vs. Classical Advaita
 

I would offer this piece by Tony Parsons to explain the current difference between Neo-Advaita & Classical Advaita.
https://www.theopensecret.com/traditionalnottwo.html
My take on it is that I already am That but I was programmed, by other programmed folks, to believe that I am a limited, separate person in a world of other separate, limited persons/objects and so I LOST my original sense of Oneness or Unity (not-two) at a very early age. I've been "seeking" for a long time and now, thanks to the new teachers like Tony, I can see that I never lost anything and always was and always will be That or whatever it's called. This is it! :hug3:

:hug3: Dear brother, we were not really programmed by "others," but rather we (as souls) agreed to the particular programming, the particular paradigm that we have been affected by. The soul is ultimately responsible for its own programming. Not our parents, teachers, society, etc. The soul.

The soul, prior to taking incarnation, fully agrees to experience the illusions of duality, limitation and separation. This has nothing to do with what "others" believe. (That is victim thinking, blaming others for our programming.)

The soul, prior to physical incarnation, already has an agreement with the two souls that are "to be" its Earth parents. They are already selected. The soul agrees to play the game of separation for awhile. This includes a basic agreement that yes, it will be affected by the programming of society, but in actuality the soul is really affected by its own programming, since the personal reality that it experiences is literally a projection of its own consciousness.

In pure Advaita terms, indeed all of this play of phenomenal existence is essentially a dream within Universal Consciousness.

Good afternoon, Jim (well, it is in Sydney anyway).

Like I said in the other post, 'classical advaita" or advaita vedanta has stronger ties to Dharma and Hinduism than its modern counterpart.

You will find that the majority of those who follow the 'old ways' and 'old teachings' are pretty much Hindu by default - even if Shankaracharya said that labels mean nothing.

The human habit of making everything old 'new again' to fit in with the beliefs of current society is totally symptomatic of the age we live in...it is called Kali Yuga, where people will make up anything to suit themselves.

Here is the history behind this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advait...Parampar%C4%81

I am part of this lineage.

:hug3: Dear brother, who or what is this "we"?

What are these "souls"?

Exactly what is "the soul"?

Please explain: "incarnation".

Please define: "illusions, duality, limitation and separation."

Hmmmm, interesting set of opinions. :wink:

Hi gang:
I just spent little time researching what others with more skill and knowledge than I have to say about Advaita and Neo-Advaita. My best sources are Rupert Spira and Jeff Foster, who has some very comical things to say about Neo-Advaita - google him. Actually, there are a lot of others who might be considered Neo-Advaitins such as Lisa Cairns and Jim Newman (obviously students of Tony Parsons) and the list goes on and on so take a look for your self.
The one item I find common with all of them is Identity - who/what are you/we/I? It seems to me that, unless someone KNOWS that they are the Absolute, Self, Reality, Brahman, God, Totality, Source, etc., they are just floundering around in the muck and mire of personal, egoic dramas that are neatly placed between birth and death. So Traditional or Neo, it seems to me that locating or recognizing that THOU ART THAT is the bottom line for both forms of non-duality (Advaita) so I do not see any significant difference in Traditional vs. Neo accept in maybe some of the SILLY details and concepts as presented in this hysterical cartoon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KXidr0z1RY

Or this from Jeff Foster at: http://www.lifewithoutacentre.com/wr...n-neo-advaita/
ON NEO-ADVAITA
There is a strange new club called ‘Neo-Advaita’. If you are a member of this club, apparently you will find yourself automatically regurgitating certain phrases at people when they are just trying to share their experiences with you – phrases such as “Who knows that? Who says that? There is no doer! There is no choice! That is just a concept! There is no me! You are in your story!”.

Jeff has some hilarious things to say about Neo-Advaita - check him out.

When I searched for Neo-Advaita on Youtube, https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...ry=neo-advaita ...an interesting and often comical array of videos came up like this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N71L...V9p pGavXLNIX
What fun! Even Advaita can be fun! LOL.........

Jim, anyone here could play that same word game that you're playing, that Tony Parsons also plays, and pick apart almost each little detail, which is another ego trick. For example, I could ask you, from your original post,

"Who is this 'my' that you speak of? Who is this 'I' that speaks? Please define this 'I'?" In fact, anyone could use the very same clever wordplay that you just used on me, which Mr. Parsons also likes to use, and use it on him, and he wouldn't be very amused, especially with the heavy over-use of the word "apparent" that he uses.

I could very fairly ask you, "Who are these 'other programmed folks' that you mentioned, Jim? Why are you pointing to 'others' as being programmed, instead of focusing more purely on your own spiritual responsibility for creating your own beliefs?"

I could even ask you, "Why do you give 'Tony Parsons' credit for the fact that you can 'now see that you never lost anything?' How is Mr. Parsons responsible for your own openness to be illuminated? Who are these so-called 'new teachers like Tony' that you speak of?" And on and on, you see.

Here's a simple fact: All human language sounds dualistic, even the way Mr. Parsons speaks, which any clever person can point out, so playing intellectual games of pointing out duality in common language is an exercise in philosophical tail-chasing. It's a losing battle, as all battles are, for there is absolutely no way to hold a conversation with another using verbal language that is completely duality-free or illusion-free, or even opinion-free, for your opening words in this thread are EQUALLY an 'interesting set of opinions' as well, to be fair, bro.

Hurt feelings
 

I asked you first so, after you...........

I asked you first and now I'm waiting for your answers!

I'm still waiting for your answers ....BRO!

Who hurt you, bro?

P.S Where's your Avatar?

It's easy!

Have learned how to do this very well. Can apply it in any situation and all it takes is mindful awareness, like consciously choosing to omit any word from common usage, even a whole basket full of personal pronouns if/whenever the mood strikes. Just need to remember it for when replying to something which calls itself 'Jim' next time. See? not hard at all.

Well, it's not a game of "Who Asked First," for my questions were given as examples of the kinds of questions that you asked me (and also examples of questions that I could ask), I was not really asking you those questions in hope of receiving specific answers to them.

I did answer you. I gave my response. Perhaps not the kind of specific answers that you wanted to those specific questions you asked me, but my response was a perfectly valid answer to your response.

You're my bro, my mate, and no one hurt me, Jim. Thank you for the interaction. HUGS. :hug3:

:hug: :hug2: :hug3: