Agreement

[Iamit]

Traditional (TA) and Neo Advaita (NA) agree that Oneness is the only reality so there can be no disconnection from Oneness. So TA accept that it is already Oneness not realizing but say that there still needs to be realization. So it seems like TA has other concerns rather than just connection where NA does not.

A discussion about that difference might be of use to seekers if it can be conducted with respect, and without the desire to undermine and eliminate the other by reference to cults or similar abuse. If that sort of abuse continues in this thread, I suggest we do not give it the oxygen of a response and try to concentrate on the issues.

[blossomingtree]

These points have been covered in these threads you started:

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...d.php?t=118552

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...d.php?t=118220

Relevant articles:

http://www.spiritualteachers.org/neo...ta_article.htm

https://liveanddare.com/neo-advaita/4/

http://anaditeaching.com/neo-adviata...ary-awakening/

Showing references to it being called a cult is not abuse - if it's widely discussed, it deserves to be recognized in the space of discussion.

You cannot keep trying to shut down critique of Neo Advaita with mind games ("you are abusing me" "take him down, folks" "help! I am being attacked" "you are abusing discussion by daring to challenge" "how dare you speak poorly of Neo Advaita" etc.)

By the way, it's been 2am - 4:30am during your time here (in Wales), but I note it is mid afternoon in NZ.

Be well,

BT

[blossomingtree]

I think this quote from the above article is quite balanced:

Even though these post-modern teachings have been inspired by those authentic sages, it is important to clarify that they are not in the lineage of any of them. Ramana, Papaji and Nisargadatta did not leave any official representatives or lineage-holders. As Papaji said, “When there is a lineage, impurity enters in the teaching.”

While neo-advaita shares with Advaita many of its theoretical teachings, the approach to practice is radically different in the former, if not totally absent. The modern “adaptation” of Advaita that happened in the 20th century got morphed into something else, and this watered-down version got greatly popularized in the West.

This brought both good and bad results.

- Good results: It opened the doors of nondual spirituality for people that would not otherwise be attracted to it, serving as a platform for further inquiry. It has benefited people in abandoning certain conditioned beliefs.
- Bad results: The distortions, disappointment, superficial realizations, spiritual stagnation, and even abuse of power and sex.

[Iamit]

Responses on previous threads have been littered with abuse, including the one above referring again to NA as a cult. I would welcome a new discussion on the issues raised in the initial post in this thread from anyone who would care to comment directly on the issues raised without the abuse.

[Jyotir]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Responses on previous threads have been littered with abuse, including the one above referring again to NA as a cult. I would welcome a new discussion on the issues raised in the initial post in this thread from anyone who would care to comment directly on the issues raised without the abuse

Originally Posted by Iamit

Traditional (TA) and Neo Advaita (NA) agree that Oneness is the only reality so there can be no disconnection from Oneness. So TA accept that it is already Oneness not realizing but say that there still needs to be realization. So it seems like TA has other concerns rather than just connection where NA does not.

A discussion about that difference might be of use to seekers if it can be conducted with respect, and without the desire to undermine and eliminate the other by reference to cults or similar abuse. If that sort of abuse continues in this thread, I suggest we do not give it the oxygen of a response and try to concentrate on the issues.

Hello Iamit,

It seems neither fair, nor respectful to other members to refer to their sincere replies as "abuse" simply because they may disagree with your philosophy. I have now seen many of these accusations of "abuse", perhaps in at least a half dozen of your posts in other threads - not including the very OP of this, your own thread where "abuse" appears 4 times...so far), in which you make a plea for honest discussion and then make blanket innuendo/accusation of "abuse" in the next sentence. This obviously doesn't bode well for discussion of the topic from the outset.

This kind of preemptive evasion is even more craven and intellectually dishonest than the usual tactic of dismissal ("you are attacking me. Good bye and good luck" etc.) when people simply present ideas that are clarifying or contrary to the apparently standard tenets (or dogma depending on how one sees it) of Neo-Advaita philosophy so presented in your numerous threads.

I can sympathise how this may be frustrating to you but suggest that you try to engage people - for instance: it's disingenuous to say "I would welcome discussion" (when you demonstrate not to) - rather than dismiss them with personal disparagements and accusations of "abuse", which is really utter nonsense by both content and context. I for one, would invite you to get back to the real discussion (it's difficult to join in, when these kinds of hyper-defensive replies have become rote and predictable) - which includes taking responsibility for topics you yourself initiate.

As to this thread ironically entitled "Agreement"... is that actually what you demand from participants?

- - - - - - -

P.S. While the use of the term 'cult' is (imo) unfortunate as imbued with negative connotation - again ironically, it is supposedly cults that cannot tolerate disagreement - those contributions including the citing of various articles, were not simply 'name-calling', but rather did substantiate the philosophical points brought up. And (I believe) at least in some cases, it was the article itself, not the SF member who used the term.

~ J

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Hello Iamit,

It seems neither fair, nor respectful to other members to refer to their sincere replies as "abuse" simply because they may disagree with your philosophy. I have now seen many of these accusations of "abuse", perhaps in at least a half dozen of your posts in other threads - not including the very OP of this, your own thread where "abuse" appears 4 times...so far), in which you make a plea for honest discussion and then make blanket innuendo/accusation of "abuse" in the next sentence. This obviously doesn't bode well for discussion of the topic from the outset.

This kind of preemptive evasion is even more craven and intellectually dishonest than the usual tactic of dismissal ("you are attacking me. Good bye and good luck" etc.) when people simply present ideas that are clarifying or contrary to the apparently standard tenets (or dogma depending on how one sees it) of Neo-Advaita philosophy so presented in your numerous threads.

I can sympathise how this may be frustrating to you but suggest that you try to engage people - for instance: it's disingenuous to say "I would welcome discussion" (when you demonstrate not to) - rather than dismiss them with personal disparagements and accusations of "abuse", which is really utter nonsense by both content and context. I for one, would invite you to get back to the real discussion (it's difficult to join in, when these kinds of hyper-defensive replies have become rote and predictable) - which includes taking responsibility for topics you yourself initiate.

As to this thread ironically entitled "Agreement"... is that actually what you demand from participants?

- - - - - - -

P.S. While the use of the term 'cult' is (imo) unfortunate as imbued with negative connotation - again ironically, it is supposedly cults that cannot tolerate disagreement - those contributions including the citing of various articles, were not simply 'name-calling', but rather did substantiate the philosophical points brought up. And (I believe) at least in some cases, it was the article itself, not the SF member who used the term.

~ J

To lump people like Tony Parsons and other speakers on Neo Advaita together with the sometimes criminal behavoiur of cults is indeed abusive.

No demands for agreement, just a preference for discussion of the issues without abuse, in the attempt to reach mutual understanding.

[Jyotir]

Originally Posted by Iamit

To lump people like Tony Parsons and other speakers on Neo Advaita together with the sometimes criminal behavoiur of cults is indeed abusive.

No demands for agreement, just a preference for discussion of the issues without abuse, in the attempt to reach mutual understanding.

Hello Iamit,

I have to say once more that this now evident obsession with abuse seems a bit far fetched, and an unfortunate distraction from real discussion.
But ok...

I will concede that articles which associate Neo-Advaita proponents with cult behavior that is criminal as a matter of fact, may in some cases indicate poor reasoning, lame assumptions, confused thinking, intellectual dishonesty, or outright irresponsibility. However, by some of those very same criteria, Tony Parsons himself, by what I've read, could then be considered guilty of “abuse” of Traditional Advaita accordingly.

Therefore, I have now achieved “mutual understanding” with Tony Parsons (LOL).


~ J

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Hello Iamit,

I have to say once more that this now evident obsession with abuse seems a bit far fetched, and an unfortunate distraction from real discussion.
But ok...

I will concede that articles which associate Neo-Advaita proponents with cult behavior that is criminal as a matter of fact, may in some cases indicate poor reasoning, lame assumptions, confused thinking, intellectual dishonesty, or outright irresponsibility. However, by some of those very same criteria, Tony Parsons himself, by what I've read, could then be considered guilty of “abuse” of Traditional Advaita accordingly.

Therefore, I have now achieved “mutual understanding” with Tony Parsons (LOL).


~ J

Pleased to hear that Joytir. You will have difficulty finding quotes from Tony Parsons where he is abusive. He can be watched and read on line for anyone interested in finding that out. Lets hear the results of that exploration.

[blossomingtree]

Further, on the topic of Tony Parsons, then, some people with experience:

"Neo-Advaita:

The teaching style consists of a meeting where the “teacher” answers any random questions that the crowd comes up with. There is no structure nor any knowledge communicated in a logical manner, only specific slogans and insights given by reacting to the questions of the audience.

The teachers are good stand-up comedians and can entertain a crowd very well. It is really fun to spend time in those meetings. The apparent reality – such as the individual seeker and physical laws – is usually consistently denied and the focus is on the one and only message: “There is only Oneness”.

Here are some example statements from Tony Parsons from the many meetings I have attended:

“This is all there is”
“I do not see any people here. There are no people.”
“There is only Oneness”
“In this meetings there is a certain energy that creates an openness in which the Open Secret message can be heard”
“And do not worry about enlightenment, if you die from old age there will only be oneness”
“If I just repeat: All is oneness, all day long I would run out of a bloody audience, which is why I have to vary it …”

Conclusion

Neo-Advaita is a comfortable, spiritual, stand-up comedy. Seekers get high on positive group energy, have fun and usually enjoy themselves – and this may last up to a couple of days after the meeting. There is nothing to say against that. The chances, however, that this path will help a seeker to understand his true nature with confidence are as high as is finding a needle in a haystack. It is a gamble at the roulette table. There is nothing to say against some fun time in spiritual Las Vegas with Neo-Advaita.

Comparing “Neo-Advaita“ with Vedanta is like comparing a one-page cartoon with an Encyclopedia. The cartoon can be real fun and may help find some answers but it is very limited and has no depth. The Vedanta Encyclopedia has been tested for several thousand years and has set many thousands of people free. The only reason of existence (raison d’être) for the Vedanta teaching is to set people free. It is setting people free as we speak and will continue to do so successfully in the future. My conclusion is that if the student and the teacher are qualified; there is only one way out with Vedanta: Liberation.[/b].

https://www.advaita-vision.org/neo-a...ional-vedanta/

[Moondance]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Traditional (TA) and Neo Advaita (NA) agree that Oneness is the only reality so there can be no disconnection from Oneness. So TA accept that it is already Oneness not realizing but say that there still needs to be realization. So it seems like TA has other concerns rather than just connection where NA does not.

I’m neither TA nor NA. What is clear is that seekers wish to end their seeking. The end of seeking or awakening is otherwise known as realisation. Without realisation seeking continues. If there is contentment with seeking then that’s fine - Oneness presents as seeking (there’s a lot of it about.) In that scenario there is (as you put it) still connection to Oneness (since there’s nothing else available) but seeking continues.

The point is, you are either seeking or seeking has ended (realisation.)