Neo Advaita vs. Classical Advaita

[redstone]

[quote=jimrich]Hi gang:
I just spent little time researching what others with more skill and knowledge than I have to say about Advaita and Neo-Advaita. My best sources are Rupert Spira and Jeff Foster, who has some very comical things to say about Neo-Advaita - google him. Actually, there are a lot of others who might be considered Neo-Advaitins such as Lisa Cairns and Jim Newman (obviously students of Tony Parsons) and the list goes on and on so take a look for your self.
The one item I find common with all of them is Identity - who/what are you/we/I? It seems to me that, unless someone KNOWS that they are the Absolute, Self, Reality, Brahman, God, Totality, Source, etc., they are just floundering around in the muck and mire of personal, egoic dramas that are neatly placed between birth and death. So Traditional or Neo, it seems to me that locating or recognizing that THOU ART THAT is the bottom line for both forms of non-duality (Advaita) so I do not see any significant difference in Traditional vs. Neo accept in maybe some of the SILLY details and concepts as presented in this hysterical cartoon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KXidr0z1RY

Hi Jim
That is exactly the problem I (if you allow me to say that) have with Advaita, there is no direct path to it! Except through the death of the self!

I heard Tony Parsons refer to his identity or the structure of his self collapsing..and that there is only what is left! So all I can suggest about that is the energetic structure which was his own personal story before this happened has been de-energised previously through some insights gained from some discipline he was doing, the only way (I) know to do that is through analysis and insight in to what the limitations of the self are! It’s limited for sure….but it’s the insight that breaks the structure or the energetics of the self down, and he must have been a practioner of sorts, or of some kind of discipline before the story of who he once was collapsed!
I know Jim Newman (he still answers to that name) was an avid seeker before the story of who he once was collapsed…so he was obviously doing some sort of analysis of the self previously…wasn’t he a psychologist in his own story once? (he also used to go to Tony Parsons talks)

I can only liken the experience they went through of the self collapsing was as if it was a large building that was being planned for demolition, you would have to analise where to place the explosive charges to bring it down…some buildings don’t collapse in the way expected but do come down non the less!

So all I can say about Tony Parsons and Jim Newman as it’s the only two advaita guys I have come across, is they must have been chipping away at there own block for so long…(or de-energising the self gained through insights) that at some point there limited self was bound to come crashing in to the ground eventually.

[jimrich]

Originally Posted by awareness

Jim, anyone here could play that same word game that you're playing, that Tony Parsons also plays, and pick apart almost each little detail, which is another ego trick.

Hmmm.....

For example, I could ask you, from your original post,

"Who is this 'my' that you speak of? Who is this 'I' that speaks? Please define this 'I'?"

I hear you.

In fact, anyone could use the very same clever wordplay that you just used on me, which Mr. Parsons also likes to use, and use it on him, and he wouldn't be very amused, especially with the heavy over-use of the word "apparent" that he uses.

OK.

I could very fairly ask you, "Who are these 'other programmed folks' that you mentioned, Jim?

My parents and a few inlaws.

Why are you pointing to 'others' as being programmed, instead of focusing more purely on your own spiritual responsibility for creating your own beliefs?"

Because I'm HONEST.

I could even ask you, "Why do you give 'Tony Parsons' credit for the fact that you can 'now see that you never lost anything?'

Because it's true.

How is Mr. Parsons responsible for your own openness to be illuminated?

He isn't, Source is responsible.

Who are these so-called 'new teachers like Tony' that you speak of?"

And on and on, you see.

I see.

Here's a simple fact: All human language sounds dualistic, even the way Mr. Parsons speaks, which any clever person can point out, so playing intellectual games of pointing out duality in common language is an exercise in philosophical tail-chasing. It's a losing battle, as all battles are, for there is absolutely no way to hold a conversation with another using verbal language that is completely duality-free or illusion-free, or even opinion-free, for your opening words in this thread are EQUALLY an 'interesting set of opinions' as well, to be fair, bro.

Hmmm.

[jimrich]

Originally Posted by The Necromancer

It's easy!

Hmmm.

Have learned how to do this very well.

Good.

Can apply it in any situation and all it takes is mindful awareness, like consciously choosing to omit any word from common usage, even a whole basket full of personal pronouns if/whenever the mood strikes.

OK.

Just need to remember it for when replying to something which calls itself 'Jim' next time.

Yep.

See? not hard at all.

It's seen.

[jimrich]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well, it's not a game of "Who Asked First," for my questions were given as examples of the kinds of questions that you asked me (and also examples of questions that I could ask), I was not really asking you those questions in hope of receiving specific answers to them.

Oh.

I did answer you. I gave my response. Perhaps not the kind of specific answers that you wanted to those specific questions you asked me, but my response was a perfectly valid answer to your response.

Could be.

You're my bro, my mate, and no one hurt me, Jim. Thank you for the interaction. HUGS.

Thank you.

[jimrich]

Originally Posted by redstone

Originally Posted by redstone

Hi Jim
That is exactly the problem I (if you allow me to say that) have with Advaita, there is no direct path to it! Except through the death of the self!

I heard Tony Parsons refer to his identity or the structure of his self collapsing..and that there is only what is left! So all I can suggest about that is the energetic structure which was his own personal story before this happened has been de-energised previously through some insights gained from some discipline he was doing, the only way (I) know to do that is through analysis and insight in to what the limitations of the self are!

Hmmm, go on....

It’s limited for sure….but it’s the insight that breaks the structure or the energetics of the self down, and he must have been a practioner of sorts, or of some kind of discipline before the story of who he once was collapsed!

could be.

…wasn’t he a psychologist in his own story once?

I don't know.

I can only liken the experience they went through of the self collapsing was as if it was a large building that was being planned for demolition, you would have to analise where to place the explosive charges to bring it down…some buildings don’t collapse in the way expected but do come down non the less!

Really?

So all I can say about Tony Parsons and Jim Newman as it’s the only two advaita guys I have come across, is they must have been chipping away at there own block for so long…(or de-energising the self gained through insights) that at some point there limited self was bound to come crashing in to the ground eventually.

Yep.

[God-Like]

Think of it like .. I am that ..

I am being that and I am perceiving that .

The difference is within the perceiving .. which is limiting ..

Perceiving is rather like a reflection whereas 'being that' creates the reflection .



x daz x

[shivatar]

Originally Posted by jimrich

I would offer this piece by Tony Parsons to explain the current difference between Neo-Advaita & Classical Advaita.
https://www.theopensecret.com/traditionalnottwo.html
My take on it is that I already am That but I was programmed, by other programmed folks, to believe that I am a limited, separate person in a world of other separate, limited persons/objects and so I LOST my original sense of Oneness or Unity (not-two) at a very early age. I've been "seeking" for a long time and now, thanks to the new teachers like Tony, I can see that I never lost anything and always was and always will be That or whatever it's called. This is it!

Maybe you weren't programmed by other people. Maybe you choose the ignorance so you could experience the joy of discovery.

[Jyotir]

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

[shiningstars]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

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.

Excellent exposition, Jyotir.

[jimrich]

Awareness, in all fairness to you and your followers here, I will make one more attempt to respond to this post in a friendly and meaningful way............
[quote=awareness]

In pure Advaita terms, indeed all of this play of phenomenal existence is essentially a dream within Universal Consciousness.

If you are extra-terrestrial or spirit, there's not much that I can add here. I have 100s questions if and when you are willing to address any of them.
Respectfully yours,
jim