Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Iamit
The paths, practises, ideas, and concepts available on offer in the spiritual supermarket are many and varied. Some require more than others. Characters vary and some seekers may value the requirements placed before them, while some may not see the need for them at all. There is an option available to suit every taste.
There is variation in how the destination is defined and how the distance between the seeker and sought is to be covered, and at least one idea asserts that there is already no distance between seeker and sought at all,
Conflict, if not condemnation, often arises between them, each claiming one to be right, and the other wrong, for example between Traditional and Neo Avaita.
A lot of this conflict could be avoided by accepting that one size does not fit all, that characters vary so that what suits one may not suit another. For example a mind that is usually successful at finding and applying solutions to problems may prefer a path and practise, while a mind that has found that a more difficult task may prefer an idea that requires no path or practise whatsoever. That roughly describes the issue between Traditional and Neo Advaita.
The point being made is that there is no need to be put off considering everything and anything in the search for what suits you, despite these conflicts that rage.
Good luck.
|
Great post, Iamit. I completely agree with these sentiments. There are innumerable factors which condition our perceived choices.
------
As a side note. I have to say that I'm a little uneasy with the designation, Neo Advaita.
The term was originally applied to the post Ramana teachers such as H. W. L. Poonja and subsequently Andrew Cohen and other students. And there is perhaps some validity in its use there as these were
modified Advaita Vedanta teachings. But now the term is used indiscriminately to cover basically any teaching which does not agree with or apply traditional Vedanta methodology.
This is an error (or at best, lazy) since many current speakers/teachers (who might be labeled Neo Advaita) are grounded in (among other things) Buddhism/Zen and Taoism (also Sufism, Christian mysticism etc.) They present an inclusive, non-sectarian form of nonduality which often draws on the essential core of the different traditions. They don't set themselves up as Advaita teachers as such so there is no basis on which to call them Neo Advaita.
Also, the term itself is (knowingly) pejorative - no modern nondualists refer to themselves as Neo Advaita.