Moondance |
22-11-2017 07:48 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jyotir
Hi Moondance,
It is ironic indeed - and nonsense - that a path, such as specifically delineated by some Neo-Advaita proponents, which focusses solely on Oneness as the only possible and EXCLUSIVE attribute of an infinite all-conscious Being (thereby imposing by that intellectual conceit, a limitation on it) - yet denies/divides by that same artificial structural requirement, that even Oneness as a permanent status of the Divine all-consciousness - whether sought or unsought - is still insufficient to arise as available, accessible to be recognized (also by virtue of oneness), and significantly - utilized - as aspect of that self-same Oneness inseparably within the seeker as the dynamic form of what is sought - which is the operative principle behind what 'seeking' is....e.g., the realizing of what IS, e.g., the becoming of Being.
Were this not so, everyone would already be realized; human beings would not be desire-bound, suffering, ignorant, etc., etc., etc., which is clearly not the case as evidenced by those phenomena arising as well within Oneness! Really, the "extraordinary position" you cite, is simply a clever rhetorical "story" that some NA proponents like to tell; understandably the mind tempts this attraction and attachment by its predominant inclination - - regardless of the truth content of it. In other words, an unexamined theory, or rather, the story theoretically assumes the posture of realization - conceptually (and therefore speciously/falsely) - as the realization itself, which is the rank pretense some aspirants rightly take issue with.
(And of course this 'debate' only has real value and utility in terms of what any seeker wants to employ (or walk away from) as part of a practical consecration, i.e., yoga, that they want to deliberately concentrate and accelerate. That is a given.)
This is not an issue of 'diversity of means' as some NA proponents erroneously opine (as yet another predictable feature of their often wrongly assumed and therefore misconstrued rhetorical house of cards*) - as in, "Truth is one paths are many", as what leads to truth, is truth itself - not falsehood. Granted, this particular element of so-called NA philosophy can be an aid in conceptualizing/'visualizing' and re-orienting as opposed to conventional material worldview, but only as a first step.
By itself, this purely conceptual artifice is not sufficient to lead from ignorance, but only go around itself in circles.
- - - - - - -* no wonder they often talk about "collapsing".
~ J
|
Yes, I agree with much of this but I’m still not keen to be drawn into this TA vs NA situation. The NA that I keep hearing about, for me, resembles a cartoon. The real story is that the satsang/direct pointing approach is (or can be) rich and varied. Yes, it’s not traditional Advaita Vedanta - but it doesn’t pretend to be (though many of these speakers are highly respectful of TA and other traditions.)
The ‘extraordinary position’ as mentioned above was, for me, unheard of until visiting this site. Even the most radically ‘pure’ nondualists reference ‘the end of seeking’, liberation, energetic shift to boundlessness etc. Most satsangers (and in this group I include Sri Nisargadatta, J Krishnamurti, Alan Watts and Ramesh Balsekar ) make the case for an aspirant being ripe. Ripe through spiritual associations and teachings. Or ripe through life experiences, challenges and setbacks. Or any mixture of those - and only in rare cases, none of those.
|