[blossomingtree]

A prior, related post:

*Links underlined*

I do understand why so called "NA" tries to set up a NA v "Anyone else" context as - either: it's because TA is jealous of us! - or it's West v East - or it just depends on your personality to the probably most honest answer I have seen in my viewpoint: NA suits people who are tired of being told they are not good enough and want self assurance that they have, without any work on their part, "arrived") - and most recently, [color="Blue"]anger at the tried and tested way - the wish to dethrone (lol renegade!) + NA is a rebellion against the "totalitarian" regime of Advaita-Vedanta (whoah that's a new one!) + we need to defend ourselves against the mad persecution of Advaita-Vedanta and other dangerous traditionalists.


Because that gives them, like e.g. a Church of Scientology, an assumption of legitimacy and equivalence. There is no equivalence, however in my opinion (rationale below), and why it should be seen at best as a dabbling exercise. Furthermore, its utility is diminished not only through its stature as a relative imposter, in my opinion, but in the rare admission that its followers have fundamentally not found true joy, compassion or Gnosis evident in so many other traditions. This is only to be expected in such a course.

Here's a prior post of mine which encapsulates how I see this topic (below). I hope you find it useful to understand my perspective (and hopefully this time you will not try to again incite the Board and forum participants to try to cast me as an abuser - quite a dishonest and unkind tactic IMO - in your desperate attempts to shut down discussion and review.

Be well

I think to imagine that it is a West v East or TA v NA issue or Traditionalist v Modern context is incorrect, and merely takes the bait {sort of like the #fakenews #alternativefacts context - there are no alternative facts, period, to discuss it is to acknowledge that which isn't accurate in the first place, a clever play}

This is certainly not an issue of West or East or Traditional Advaita-Vedanta v Neo-Advaita or popularity more v less.

To imagine it is is to have taken that particular bait, in my opinion. The key, fundamental difference is really are the teachings as promulgated genuine and fulsome spiritual teachings or not? i.e. Do they advance the highest teachings/Truths found in a number of religions: Buddhism, Sufism, Advaita-Vedanta, mystical Christianity, Daoism etc.

There is no mindset of popularity, culture or religion here, IMO. You have to remember that Advaita-Vedanta and many other religions co-exist very peacefully and harmoniously; some would say co-operatively too - you help him and I will help her and we will meet at the same place out there, beyond these categories - high five!

The only reason that this so called Neo-Advaita issue is being responded to is because it is simply a shallow imitation of any genuine spiritual tradition, and it is baited to attract the simple minded, ignorant, or those that just don't know, and yet are {sincerely} looking for some spiritual guidance. Unfortunately its effects range from long term ignorance (given that it does not actually generate meaningful deep insights) to more corruption (such as when some people think that they don't, or perhaps other people, don't 'really' exist, and/or All is One anyway so 'whatever' I do is fine) i.e. the mental cognition of the insight of genuine teachers cannot help but be nigh inevitably corrupted in its original intention.

You see, what is so tricky and pseudo-smart about the so-called NA writings is that they utilize some "truths" discovered in (let's use for this example) Advaita-Vedanta, and also piggy back off the same terminology. So, to the untrained eye and heart, it has semblances of truth in it.

To piggy back off Jyotir's example of Paris, they describe the sights of the Eiffel Tower (having piggy backed off of the travellers' actual journey) using similar words, they can describe the bridges, the people, the vibrant taste of its cuisine {mmm croissants!!} and so parts of it could be true {if it were really true}.

But this remains very different to the actual reaching of said destination, which is what the original Adepts did reach and used words to "hint at" and best {within the capacity of words, which is inherently limited} provide a flavor of the possible.

Furthermore, it goes beyond a trip in that the transformation and journey cannot help but change the individual - sort of like the characteristics of a genuine pilgrim, who is forged in and through the fires of Truth/Search - there is a distinctively different taste and flavor in such people experientially and also through their insights and spiritual development.

As you know the spiritual tradition is nothing but a journey back to Source (which no-one has left, but which still requires some effort to deeply realize and manifest).

Neo-Advaita is nothing but a forgery in that regard, stunting the very people it could have helped, by promulgating views such as there is nothing to do, nothing to realize. By short-circuiting the very search, journey and practice that leads people to these inner realizations and experiences, it belies the very intention, depth and authenticity of the original Adepts/Masters' sharings.

In Zen there is a saying: "Before one studies Zen, mountains are mountains and waters are waters; after a first glimpse into the truth of Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and waters are no longer waters; after enlightenment, mountains are once again mountains and waters once again waters."

No-one in Zen graduates without years of intensive practice, lifelong practice and yet the destination is inevitably sweet because the realizations are the fruition of the work that was put in.

Finally, Iamit's own discourse shows another level of conceit in that it attracts people who are "tired of being told they are not good enough". It suits personalities who are perhaps tired and older and want to feel that things are enough. I definitely sympathize with that, and wish such people well. There is no need for anyone to feel unworthy and I also have never seen that message in any other tradition - but people obviously interpret messages differently. Iamit also mentioned suffering still exists - well, compare that to the Adepts

So anyway, in conclusion, the classification and context of discussion is not a "versus" - whether that's people, culture, modernity, or religion, as Iamx would like to put it, it's a simple case of fraudulent activity masking as the real deal. That is the pertinent point and pivot of discussion. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but at least people deserve to know - hey this ain't Europe!

BT