Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Moondance
Very insightful observation, Gem. It’s an important distinction.
He’s not a teacher of Advaita Vedanta methodology. And this type of direct pointing is not new. Neo Advaita is a complete misnomer.
I have heard the term sloppily applied to Ramana Maharshi, Alan Watts, Eckhart Tolle, Sri Nisargadatta, U G Krishnamurti, J Krishnamurti, Ramesh Balsekar, Wei Wu Wei… I could go on. This is not a movement. It’s a different approach - one of direct pointing, sharing, reporting. It often borrows from the traditions while stripping out that which is superstitious, archaic and superfluous.
If this approach is not effective then people will naturally drift away from it. In that sense the whole thing is self-regulating.
|
I don't know much about Advaita or it's contemporary variations, so could only have ill informed opinions about that - if I cared at all.
To me it comes down to 'the art of listening', which means the mind won't raise agreements and disagreements... and it is very similar to talking to friends, like, nothing seeking a profound truth or anything. When the speaker speaks you 'relate' to it so as to understand it. Thus I don't need to know what Advaita is or concern myself or Parsons being right or wrong. Then there's no noise in my head forming any argument. Ain't no body got time fer dat!.
I practice in the Buddhist discipline of vipassana, which is very different to Parsons seeming 'no-practice', though it does bear similarities to Tolle's meditations, and I have heard J. Krishnamurti talks on meditation, which again are different. Of course Ramana's self inquiry is different again.
The meditation to me is, when Parsons, Ramana or other spiritual teacher speaks, I notice how it moves myself, because it can reveal a sense of lack accompanied by the impression that the speaker has something 'I want'. Then I understand what is being pointed out, because I become self-aware, as the one who knows what the mind is doing.
Hence there is no practice, as Parsons says, apart from being aware of 'this', which is just the same as listening to the speaker, and not something I'm gonna do later on. Even as I write this I know readers will be forming arguments to agree, disagree, find me right or wrong and so forth, but it's not for me to be aware of the noise in other people's heads, only to be aware of my own mental movements. If I'm trying to be right, or make someone else wrong or right, then that's something I need to be aware of, and the entire motive driving that need.
It is far easier for me to simply listen, try to understand what is meant, and reply in some meaningful way, so that's all I want to do.