Hi jimrich,
As far as I can see, the major difference between Neo Advaita vs. Classical Advaita, is that within the so-called ‘Neo-Advaita’ movement, both exponents and followers possess a predominantly or even exclusively conceptual and intellectual understanding of some principles, that are as often misunderstood in terms of both premise and application, as they are replicated and reinforced in clever dialogue.
These tenets appear to be based on numerous faulty and unquestioned assumptions - what amounts to a rigid doctrine, and self-proclaimed as “radical”, largely because they are without the direct knowing through actual realization, which, was always implied by ‘Classical’, e.g., a legitimate assumption, because realization was traditionally understood to be an absolute requirement of the yoga.
It is the facile modern dispensing of that requirement for direct knowing by identity - realisation - and replacing it with a superficial separative indirect conceptual re-orientation as the realisation itself, which appears to suffice in-and-of-itself and constituting the so-called ‘radical’ element, but which actually renders it ineffective as a practice by obviating real practice accordingly.
The actual ‘practice’ apparently then becomes the subsequent dependence on clever word-games and intellectual debate, convoluted defences, and invalidation and intellectual coercion of sorts (often by rotely citing the accepted doctrine), in order to promote and sustain the belief system. And they’ve evidently gotten much facility, popularity, and validation through abundant internet access in that regard, both in dissemination and assimilation, by attracting droves of disaffected intellectuals looking for (imo) ‘the big easy answer’. They have also received much deserved and valid criticism as a result, as well.
It appears to be much like so-called ‘born-again’ Christianity in this respect - although intellectual and not devotional - but structurally similar: “I preach” (that’s my practice), but “you practice” (what I preach). By virtue of my preaching, it means I have practiced and therefore implicitly understand, therefore I preach. But since you need to practice what I preach (because you evidently are misperceiving reality as indicated by your 'stories' about a 'person', with 'volition', etc....), that means you don’t yet understand - until you feel confident in preaching by understanding the doctrine! That seems to be the Neo-Advaitin’s ‘radical’ often misguided intellectual evangelical ‘revolution’.
Further, the understanding that any conceptual description can never be adequate to convey the actual realization - if in fact one has achieved it - was traditionally a caution regarding the systematic intellectual codification of these conceptual principles - what the Neo brand appears to be using as the very substance of their own facile self-serving defence, which is wholly dependent on the invalidation of others’ belief systems as ‘fatally flawed’, because not fundamentally the Neo-Advaita view, in which, as another conceit of doctrine, often proposes (or arrogantly assumes) itself as the exclusive arbiter of reality perception and spiritual achievement - all others not real, not effective, not attainable through other methods - simply because not following the (assumed superior) fundamental (Neo-Advaita) exclusively 'correct' approach to spirituality. That is frequently the message.
Any attempted discussion which points out the flaws of reasoning, the specious assumptions and the intellectually indulgent conceits, or significantly - other different but equivalent methods - is then summarily invalidated by the clever negation that, “your words are merely conceptual games and ‘stories’ that are illusions and can never capture or refute the ‘real’ reality represented by my Neo-Advaita words and principles which represent the true reality beyond the capacity of language to describe.” That’s a standard rebuttal.
Clever conceptual conceit (unquestioned assumptions), intellectually codified as self-defensive doctrine (theory), exclusive invalidating debate by intellectual negation - through a mistakenly objective 'neti-neti', not a subjective realization. Otherwise none of the previous would be necessary, and which are common attributes of Neo-Advaita.
This so-called ‘new’ form is simply a doctrinaire instant-mix-and-serve version, in the same way that contemporary so-called ‘born-again’ Christians, in completely mis-construing Christ‘s Teaching in toto as merely a superficial intellectual conceptual truth to be accepted as theory, but not utilized in practice towards a true realization, e.g., theoretically; theory as substance; not symbolic of deeper esoteric possibilities represented by it, and therefore necessarily incomplete, partial, and limiting to the very necessity of practice which it cleverly avoids. It’s a myopic conceptual/intellectual doctrine, like Ayn Rand’s ‘Objectivism’ (although the inverse). This conceptual trap is the very caution traditionally emphasized by Buddhists, AND Classical Advaita, but apparently regarded as authentic substance in ‘Neo’-Advaita.
The entire premise is apparently based on a mere intellectual acceptance of conceptual theory as the entire realization. In other words, by virtue of a mental understanding one implicitly becomes a realized Advaitin, when really, that is the first baby-step of re-orientation towards a difficult and arduous ongoing practice which may lead to what the ‘Neo’ believes they have already achieved by virtue of a facile mental acceptance of a misconstrued principle.
In the suggested piece it is (imo) fairly shocking and abundantly clear that the numerous unexamined fallacious assumptions, followed by weak and faulty reasoning are the foundational premises for this modern ’school of thought’ - and it appears to be not much more - is evidenced by patently specious ideas. For instance:
That ‘social conditioning’ is the origin of ego and a sense of personal self. That is an utterly superficial modern (and incorrect) view entirely based on external social observation of metaphysical results - not causes - and the 19th &20th Century nascent objective clinical science of psychology, not the subjective experience and examination of consciousness through yoga as directly experienced and mastered by aspirants for hundreds or thousands of years.
Neo-Advaita hasn’t discovered anything new - they’ve simply avoided the essential by talking a good talk around it, and giving it a ‘namarupa’.
Just my .02 fwiw.
~ J
|