Spiritual Forums

Home


Donate!


Articles


CHAT!


Shop


 
Welcome to Spiritual Forums!.

We created this community for people from all backgrounds to discuss Spiritual, Paranormal, Metaphysical, Philosophical, Supernatural, and Esoteric subjects. From Astral Projection to Zen, all topics are welcome. We hope you enjoy your visits.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to most discussions and articles. By joining our free community you will be able to post messages, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos, and gain access to our Chat Rooms, Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please, join our community today! !

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, check our FAQs before contacting support. Please read our forum rules, since they are enforced by our volunteer staff. This will help you avoid any infractions and issues.

Go Back   Spiritual Forums > Spirituality & Beliefs > Non Duality

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old 23-11-2017, 11:33 AM
Moondance Moondance is offline
Experiencer
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: UK
Posts: 268
  Moondance's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamit
Yes and no doubt there are many more descriptions of the destination. So be I say and lets respect all.

Good to see you’re still around, Iamit. I don’t always agree with you (especially on a particular sticking point) but I appreciate your contribution to the forum.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 25-11-2017, 11:28 AM
Iamit Iamit is offline
Master
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: West Wales. u.k
Posts: 1,002
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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

Yes that is probably a clear description of TA and the attitude of its devotees (of which you are no doubt one). But not a clear description of NA, no doubt due to your opposition to it. You have clearly described your reasons for your opposition.

What is not mentioned is why NA may work for some characters who are fed with being told they are lacking something just as they are.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 27-11-2017, 05:32 AM
blossomingtree blossomingtree is offline
Suspended
Ascender
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 937
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamit
What is not mentioned is why NA may work for some characters who are fed with being told they are lacking something just as they are.

This seems to be a very honest comment, iamx. I definitely sympathize with the desire to be at home and no longer seek anything else. To that end, I apologize to you for any hurt caused, it is not my wish to hurt your feelings; at the same time, as this is a spiritual forum, I will not desist from valid discussions of Neo-Advaita, especially for the sake of other seekers. I am glad for you that you have found what you wanted however and wish you well in that journey.

Namaste.

BT

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...3&postcount=77
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 27-11-2017, 10:36 AM
Iamit Iamit is offline
Master
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: West Wales. u.k
Posts: 1,002
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moondance
Good to see you’re still around, Iamit. I don’t always agree with you (especially on a particular sticking point) but I appreciate your contribution to the forum.

Yes thanks. Frustrating to have personal remarks disrupt discussion but while there are those, like you, willing to compare points of view to reach mutual understanding then I will engage with that so that seekers can have some fair comparisons to consider.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 27-11-2017, 10:44 AM
Iamit Iamit is offline
Master
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: West Wales. u.k
Posts: 1,002
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by blossomingtree
This seems to be a very honest comment, iamx. I definitely sympathize with the desire to be at home and no longer seek anything else. To that end, I apologize to you for any hurt caused, it is not my wish to hurt your feelings; at the same time, as this is a spiritual forum, I will not desist from valid discussions of Neo-Advaita, especially for the sake of other seekers. I am glad for you that you have found what you wanted however and wish you well in that journey.

Namaste.

BT

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...3&postcount=77

My feelings are fine but thanks anyway. Before our Hindu friend departed, (I will miss him), I asked him a question about balance in the manifestation. You have also studied extensively so would welcome comments from TA perspective.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 27-11-2017, 10:40 PM
blossomingtree blossomingtree is offline
Suspended
Ascender
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 937
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamit
My feelings are fine but thanks anyway. Before our Hindu friend departed, (I will miss him), I asked him a question about balance in the manifestation. You have also studied extensively so would welcome comments from TA perspective.

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...=118552&page=6
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 28-11-2017, 04:20 PM
Jyotir Jyotir is offline
Master
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,847
 
. . . . . . . . . .
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 28-11-2017, 04:25 PM
Jyotir Jyotir is offline
Master
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,847
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamit
Yes that is probably a clear description of TA and the attitude of its devotees (of which you are no doubt one). But not a clear description of NA, no doubt due to your opposition to it. You have clearly described your reasons for your opposition.

What is not mentioned is why NA may work for some characters who are fed with being told they are lacking something just as they are.
Hello Iamit,

First, I need to say that I am not opposed to 'NA', but rather, simply find little utility in its (imo) misleading restrictions, as I also find the same prohibiting restrictions in so-called 'Traditional' Advaita. So much for "no doubt". Humility also has Oneness as its basis, but we often ironically see a deficiency in that regard within the doctrinal effrontery of NA rhetoric. To wit...
Who's feeding and who is fed-up?
Quote:
What is not mentioned is why NA may work for some characters who are fed with being told they are lacking something just as they are
This point seems to arise quite frequently in NA rhetoric and it is a rank misattribution; a ‘red herring’ foisted onto the public discussion - and the tradition - by proponents (such as Tony Parsons) of the crypto-dualist rhetoric known as Neo-Advaita. The source of the misattribution comes from a specious and apparently unquestioned assumption (among many evident and prevalent in NA) that traditional non-dual teaching creates or demands the necessity of “lack” or “unworthiness” as a programme requirement, e.g., as a feature of the yoga, as a necessity and impulsive basis of practice, which is entirely specious, which NA supposedly then cleverly rejects as a ‘radical’ departure.

Really, and even a casual due diligence (vs. a conveniently clever intellectual complacency) would reveal that: this dubious imposition of what is usually either a formally codified or culturally informal attribute of many distracted or distorted RELIGIOUS doctrines, is not and has never been part of any legitimate yoga, the basis of which in whatever form, has been the core principle of an inalienable equality due to the fact (again, ironic in this case) of the oneness of all being, which is therefore universally available, accessible, and importantly - realizable - by the conscious deliberate acceleration and concentration of the general Cosmic evolution of consciousness, in and through the practice of yoga by any individual ‘awakened’ to the opportunity of that potential as a possibility.

The self-reflected recognition of that potential, while that so-called ’awakening’ could be described as a kind of minor intellectual realization in-and-of itself, which does mark a significant departure, at the same time does not in-and-of-itself constitute the full realization of what that emergent conceptual theory suggests or represents to the inherent limitations of the reasoning mind. Mind is not the whole of being - except maybe (ironically) in the dualistic conception of Neo-Advaitins! This is the traditional caution and here it is evident why. Neo-Advaitins evidently have read (and written) travel brochures, but yet have wishfully imagined themselves by virtue of that practice (and it is indeed a practice, simply disavowed in another wishful self-hypnosis of denial) - that they have actually arrived in Paris just by reading the brochure!

This important principle is not a deficiency (again ironic) of traditional yoga e.g. Advaita/Jnana, but (again), a misattribution ascribed to the yoga, when in truth it is an attribute of the fundamental conditions of physical reality itself, a Cosmic Ignorance (of Self) which the yoga seeks to transform utilizing the UNCONDITIONAL which although veiled, is inseparably part and parcel of those conditions! What is frequently demonstrated in the circularly rationalized notion that conceptual theory - which is intrinsically CONDITIONAL - not only constitutes the practice (or conveniently - it’s circumvention) or worse - it constitutes the actual realization, is that according to mind/mental cognition, mind is the whole of reality which is implied by the inherently limiting circularly reasoned tenets of so-called Neo-Advaita, that reality/Oneness may be realized in and through the mind.

It is precisely that hazard of ignorant cognition - especially of mind in predominantly mental human beings - which is regarded as a/the major caution in numerous traditions due to the inherent self-deception of mind and mental activity. Unfortunately in naively rejecting this caution, so-called NA has unwittingly adopted the very duplicity of mental process and made it the central feature of its ‘philosophy’ which is therefore why it is really one of crypto-dualism, and not truly non-dual.

It’s an intellectual trap, stuck in its own mental reasoning, and why it appeals to those of intellectual temperament, perhaps
Quote:
“…why NA may work for some characters…”
Yes indeed, the “Walts” (Walter Mittys) of spiritually aspiring humanity…we need them too!


~ J



Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 28-11-2017, 04:41 PM
Shivani Devi Shivani Devi is offline
Master
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 10,861
  Shivani Devi's Avatar
I totally agree, Jyotir 100% and something so true and amazing just needs to be said twice!

Well, before the first one was deleted anyway. lol
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 28-11-2017, 10:43 PM
blossomingtree blossomingtree is offline
Suspended
Ascender
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 937
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jyotir
Hello Iamit,

First, I need to say that I am not opposed to 'NA', but rather, simply find little utility in its (imo) misleading restrictions, as I also find the same prohibiting restrictions in so-called 'Traditional' Advaita. So much for "no doubt". Humility also has Oneness as its basis, but we often ironically see a deficiency in that regard within the doctrinal effrontery of NA rhetoric. To wit...
Who's feeding and who is fed-up?

...

Really, and even a casual due diligence (vs. a conveniently clever intellectual complacency) would reveal that: this dubious imposition of what is usually either a formally codified or culturally informal attribute of many distracted or distorted RELIGIOUS doctrines, is not and has never been part of any legitimate yoga, the basis of which in whatever form, has been the core principle of an inalienable equality due to the fact (again, ironic in this case) of the oneness of all being, which is therefore universally available, accessible, and importantly - realizable - by the conscious deliberate acceleration and concentration of the general Cosmic evolution of consciousness, in and through the practice of yoga by any individual ‘awakened’ to the opportunity of that potential as a possibility.

..

It is precisely that hazard of ignorant cognition - especially of mind in predominantly mental human beings - which is regarded as a/the major caution in numerous traditions due to the inherent self-deception of mind and mental activity. Unfortunately in naively rejecting this caution, so-called NA has unwittingly adopted the very duplicity of mental process and made it the central feature of its ‘philosophy’ which is therefore why it is really one of crypto-dualism, and not truly non-dual.

It’s an intellectual trap, stuck in its own mental reasoning, and why it appeals to those of intellectual temperament, perhaps Yes indeed, the “Walts” (Walter Mittys) of spiritually aspiring humanity…we need them too!


~ J




Thank you Jyotir, for an articulate, insightful post based in (IMO) spiritual truths; it is also my assessment {although mine lacks the skills of articulate explanation and patience (hehe)}

BT
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) Spiritual Forums