Neo Advaita vs. Classical Advaita

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by jimrich

Is that true for you?
No, I don't know, do you?

Is this your own personal experience or just an assumption?


Is this something you actually know or is it a guess?


Please explaln that sentence.


Can you prove that?
Do you ever speak for and about your own life, experiences and reality? I'd love to see how life is for you and read about your own, personal experiences and knowledge rather than these rambling, speeches, lectures and judgements from you. Do you ever honestly speak for your self? Are you a prisoner of shame and guilt? Are you afraid of the 'I'/'me'/'mine' words?

When you said the ego can really mess one up I thought you were referring to the non dualists . My lines of thought went on from there .

You have asked a lot of questions which is fine and I will try and answer them .

In regards to not fooling self, I don't need the reflection as I am not denying or renouncing any self aspect of what I am .

I also know that there is a difference between realizing what you are and making an association to that . That is ego .

Self is unified as a realization . self is perceiving Self . There is no perceiving as Self beyond perception . This has been realization that pertains to no-one .

That's why it takes one to know one . The difference is in the point of perception known as the individual self that can reflect upon Self .

The non dualist who say they are not this .. are coming from the individual ego self . It is not Self beyond perception .

The ego as already stated is a sense or reflection of Self . All knowings, senses of what that is, is ego, beyond ego there are no senses, reflections, knowings .

They all relate to a mindful self .

In regards to my experiences / realizations, I used to roam the forums before you were here and went into great detail of the processes leading to Self realization and what transpires post realization .

I am not sure why you would pre judge that I can't actually back up from where i am coming from .. I haven't heard any of your realizations other than your love for the non dualists that write books to the non existent masses .

I have asked you how have you concluded that there is no-one here in a thread .. have you answered?


As an edit . I am wondering where half of the threads have gone lately . I think the moderators with all respect should give an explanation instead of just hitting the delete button . (just out of respect)


x daz x

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by shiningstars

Except, ironically, this whole thread, and recent ones from jimrich, speak to the opposite, God-Like.

It's difficult to take anyone seriously who proclaims they are not here to say it .

I am all ears and I am interested in individual experiences / realisations that bring about that conclusion .

As yet I haven't heard anything as to how the impression of being no-one comes about .

If an individual reckons they are no-one then that really is another form of identity / self association .

It's like someone saying I have no name . Well one has just named themselves that . lol .


x daz x

[shiningstars]

Originally Posted by God-Like

It's difficult to take anyone seriously who proclaims they are not here to say it .

I am all ears and I am interested in individual experiences / realisations that bring about that conclusion .

As yet I haven't heard anything as to how the impression of being no-one comes about .

If an individual reckons they are no-one then that really is another form of identity / self association .

It's like someone saying I have no name . Well one has just named themselves that . lol .


x daz x

Yes, being nobody is being somebody, that much should have been obvious. An excellent point by you.

My only real question here is how much self-deception is involved in adhering to a belief like this. Realization through practice is a different beast altogether. Hence Buddhists talk about not mixing up the fruit with the practice, or the map with the outcome.

Jyotir's post bears repeating on this topic -

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

shiningstars

[shiningstars]

Originally Posted by God-Like

As an edit . I am wondering where half of the threads have gone lately . I think the moderators with all respect should give an explanation instead of just hitting the delete button . (just out of respect)


x daz x

Good point, God-Like, and maybe moderation of creating multiple new threads on what is essentially the same topic.

shiningstars

[jimrich]

Originally Posted by God-Like

I also know that there is a difference between realizing what you are and making an association to that . That is ego .

So, what are you?

Self is unified as a realization . self is perceiving Self . There is no perceiving as Self beyond perception . This has been realization that pertains to no-one .

Pertains to Nothingness, the Void or empty phenomena?

That's why it takes one to know one .

And are "one"?

The ego as already stated is a sense or reflection of Self . All knowings, senses of what that is, is ego, beyond ego there are no senses, reflections, knowings .

I assume you are speaking of the Void or Nothingness.

In regards to my experiences / realizations, I used to roam the forums before you were here and went into great detail of the processes leading to Self realization and what transpires post realization .

I wish that you would continue to say what is real and true for you rather than make speeches, give lectures and offer opinions. Just be honest and say what is TRUE for you.

I am not sure why you would pre judge that I can't actually back up from where i am coming from ..

I have no idea what that means............

I haven't heard any of your realizations other than your love for the non dualists that write books to the non existent masses .

I could write a few pages about my "realizations" or "awakenings" and then others would rip them to shreds with either jealous hatred or fearful contempt so, if you want to read about or COMPARE realization stories, PM me or email me and we can tell stories out in a safe and respectful place.

I have asked you how have you concluded that there is no-one here in a thread .. have you answered?

Because there is only "this" or "empty phenomena" BUT no independent, individual self or ego. It may seem and feel like there is a "self-entity" here but, upon investigation, there is no separate, imagined self/ego here at all - just: aware, alive, empty phenomena (plural). I am really nothing appearing as something and fell into believing that this false me is real. Well it isn't! I am real but this false me is NOT. I, empty phenomena, am completely real but the apparent, worldly me, is completely false and unreal. The ultimate joke is that everything is both real and unreal. It's a Paradox!

As an edit . I am wondering where half of the threads have gone lately . I think the moderators with all respect should give an explanation instead of just hitting the delete button . (just out of respect)

I asked the Admin. to remove several of my threads that may have violated copyright laws and/or caused a lot of trouble such as the No doer thread in the Buddha forum. I could not validate the Buddha quote I used there which really enraged a lot of die-hard Buddhists over there so it was removed at my request.
I appreciate the respectful and friendly "tone" of this post so, let's try to stay friendly and respectful as much as possible while discussing complicated and touchy subjects such as this.
Thank you,
jim

[sky]

http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/good-ne...-theres-no-you

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by jimrich

Thanks 7, (I think?). I never was in "that".

Yep.


Actually, I did it as a joke but, if folks are "warned" by Jeff's story, then I'm happy for them. I'd think that common sense would show folks just how wrong and bad mean-spirited judgement, criticism and arrogance can be - especially if you grew up with it.


Yes, judgement and criticism SUCKS and many of us were traumatized by it in our early childhood!


Trauma, of any kind, will often lead to defenses like: Judgement, criticism, blaming, ill-will, animosity, FEAR and the "holier than Thou" attitude/defense. The damaged ego ALWAYS need it's defenses.


Very good! You must be a therapist of a counselor or perhaps a trauma Survivor. I'm impressed.

Thanks again,
and peace & blessings
jim

Hey there Jim, yes, I agree with all you've said. I didn't realise that was the Jeffness and not yourself...but still, thanks very much for sharing those thoughts of his. As a result, I was able to recognise how this harmful "no one exists" sort of philosophy has impacted and harmed some of those I care about. Who were vulnerable and working through trauma of their own, of course...unfortunately.

I suppose I am a trauma survivor of sorts, LOL, just as so many are. And I suppose I have become a sort of counsellor too...in part for friends and fam, as so many women do. But also, I do a lot of energy work with a focus on the heart. In spirit, there are two aspects which cannot really be separated...the heart doctor and the spiritual healer. I am a heart doctor (expert) and counsellor (in training, you could say...as this part is much harder, LOL...of course). And that is exactly because of the experience and my life-long love of inner work...though I have an odd proclivity for the work that is not common, even with energy work. Suppose that is the counsellor/listener/facilitator part...which is still quite partial.

Hardly anyone is much good at facilitating true spiritual healing, it seems...hahaha...not whilst getting their hands dirty at the same time. It requires deep engagement, humility, energy, grounding, centreing, and true presence to the unique individual consciousness AND his/her lived experience as it is present in that person's physical and spiritual being. Cannot be "full staff" yet though without opening to grace and without a heart-led consciousness that has found its feet in any situation. But I'm really making quite decent progress

Peace & blessings,
7L

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by God-Like

One eventually faces where there at and the denial will eventually cease .

If one has realised what they are, they won't stand corrected further down the line .

Individuals that intellectually refer themselves to not being here, or there or is no-one per se will eventually correct themselves .

Some believe a theory so much that they almost buy it, butt the jeffness is the self aspect that believes the theory or not .

The realisation blows the theory either way .


x daz x

Yes, agreed. I get what you're saying. You said it very well on the One, not Two thread also.

It's a bit like quantum reality versus the "large-scale" reality of classic physics that dealt with the visible universe, more or less. When you deal with classic physics, you speak of a larger scale, where humans exist, where physical objects exist, and where planets and stars exist. We have atoms and so forth, but they hang together in systems and subsystems to comprise our reality of concrete beings and things. Also there are (more of less) certain observable and concrete laws or rules we can use to describe relationships between things at this level.

But on the quantum level, there is none of that. And the laws, such as we have apprehended them, are so radically different that they have completely rewritten our understanding of reality. Though these quantum fundamentals typically speak more deeply to the mystic's sense of what is than the classical laws of the larger-scale reality do. For example, quantum entanglement and the reality of interbeing...and what interbeing really means. Point being, from our large-scale perspective as discrete human beings with individuated consciousness -- nothing exists in the same way at the quantum level as it does to our common understanding (large-scale level). Yet is also equally correct to say everything exists at both the quantum level and the large-scale level, even though we cannot yet make the connection. Even though it appears as though what exists at the large-scale level ceases to exist (in any recogniseable or quantifiable way) at the quantum level.

It all depends on both perspective (hahaha....right, LOL...as that's what quantum reality has been telling us, that we cannot ever be anything other than immersed in and co-creating our reality) and on wisdom, or a mystical, illuminated apprehension. There is always something, even if it seems like nothing or like nothing we know. If there is nothing, it is not only beyond mind, it is beyond interbeing and our individuated consciousness. It is beyond our physical universe, our quantum universe, and beyond even the dark matter and energy of the guides...the nonphysical universe (quantum or no, they say yes ).

There is always something, and we are that So much for non-being, LOL. I'll stick with interbeing

Now to bed...LOL.
Peace & blessings, Dazzer,
7L

[jimrich]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

As a result, I was able to recognise how this harmful "no one exists" sort of philosophy has impacted and harmed some of those I care about.

7, I'd be very interested to know exactly how this "no one exists" philosophy has impacted or harmed anyone so please offer some more details on that. Re: Jeff Foster, I'd google him to see what all he has to say and offer those in need.

I suppose I am a trauma survivor of sorts, LOL, just as so many are.

I'd be interested in your story, if and when you are comfortable telling it.

And I suppose I have become a sort of counsellor too...in part for friends and fam, as so many women do.

I can agree that females may be more able to show empathy to a trauma survivor than us men. My mother was much kinder than her sadistic, brutal and INSANE husband ever was.

I am a heart doctor (expert) and counsellor (in training, you could say...as this part is much harder, LOL...of course).

I'd say that counseling can be harder since a good counselor needs to have done their own inner work to be able to understand and EMPATHIZE with a damaged, hurting trauma Survivor and IMO, many so-called counselors are NOT emotionally resolved them selves so they make for very bad and even dangerous counselors.

Hardly anyone is much good at facilitating true spiritual healing, it seems...hahaha...not whilst getting their hands dirty at the same time.

True healing can only be done when the Healer is also "healed" or resolved.

But I'm really making quite decent progress

I applaud you.

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by jimrich

So, what are you?

Pertains to Nothingness, the Void or empty phenomena?


And are "one"?


I assume you are speaking of the Void or Nothingness.


I wish that you would continue to say what is real and true for you rather than make speeches, give lectures and offer opinions. Just be honest and say what is TRUE for you.


I have no idea what that means............


I could write a few pages about my "realizations" or "awakenings" and then others would rip them to shreds with either jealous hatred or fearful contempt so, if you want to read about or COMPARE realization stories, PM me or email me and we can tell stories out in a safe and respectful place.


Because there is only "this" or "empty phenomena" BUT no independent, individual self or ego. It may seem and feel like there is a "self-entity" here but, upon investigation, there is no separate, imagined self/ego here at all - just: aware, alive, empty phenomena (plural). I am really nothing appearing as something and fell into believing that this false me is real. Well it isn't! I am real but this false me is NOT. I, empty phenomena, am completely real but the apparent, worldly me, is completely false and unreal. The ultimate joke is that everything is both real and unreal. It's a Paradox!


I asked the Admin. to remove several of my threads that may have violated copyright laws and/or caused a lot of trouble such as the No doer thread in the Buddha forum. I could not validate the Buddha quote I used there which really enraged a lot of die-hard Buddhists over there so it was removed at my request.
I appreciate the respectful and friendly "tone" of this post so, let's try to stay friendly and respectful as much as possible while discussing complicated and touchy subjects such as this.
Thank you,
jim

What Am I . Well the realization itself doesn't flash anything up like I am this or that, there is only being what you are . I think your smart enough not to associate a name for that which we are .

You can from a mind perspective start to evaluate what is that which is being and attribute qualities like consciousness and awareness and spirit and whatnot if you like, but I don't .

What you are is what you are . What you are is aware of experiencing the mind of duality .

The void or nothingness for some relates to the mind still, the realization or being what you are without a thought of it is beyond the mind of duality .

When you ask me to say what is real or true in my eyes you do know you are making a dual suggestion that implies I am someone that has a belief in what is true or real . You see this is where the non-dualist fall down because if you really thought no-one was here, then one wouldn't ask the question to another . There is no other in the eyes of the non dualist . This is where living the perceived reality of non duality crumbles beneath one's non existent feet .

I understand that you don't want to share realizations on a public forums but you see you asked that of me to share ..

What investigation have you undertaken in regards to there not being anyone here? I mean seriously, there has to be a sense of what you are that is here in order to investigate .

The ego searches, the ego investigates . The ego is the sense of I am .

I understand about the deleted posts .



x daz x