Neo Advaita vs. Classical Advaita

[Iamit]

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?
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 Yes indeed, the “Walts” (Walter Mittys) of spiritually aspiring humanity…we need them too!


~ J

Yes not everyone finds utility in NA or TA come to that. It varies as characters vary.

We can drop the reference to "lacking" if you find it problematic and call it something to be done rather than nothing to be done. Not all NA describes the objective in the same way. I would describe it as the end of the feeling of disconnection from Oneness. NA is said to end that feeling by a resonance with the concept All is One. For me its a vibration between two frequencies which happen to be on the same wavelenth at the time of the resonance. The frequency/vibration of the mind looking for the solution on behalf of the seeker, and the frequency/vibration of the concept.

Assuming the vibration/frequency of the concept remains constant, for me the issue is then about whether the frequency/vibration of the mind of the seeker can only be in tune with it, and resonate with it, after it has followed a path or practise. For me, to determine where the mind of another might be at in terms of its frequency/vibration would be a very difficult determination to make. So I am prepared to take the assertion of the seeker that such a resonance has occurred and the feeling of disconnection has ended. Others may not be prepared to take that and condemn the experience because it does not conform to their idea about that experience. But of course they have no idea about what that experience is/was like for the other because they are not that other having the experience.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Iamit

But of course they have no idea about what that experience was like for the other because they are not that other.

That's strange, because I was taught they were.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

That's strange, because I was taught they were.

Do you know what the experience of another is like for them?:)

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Yes not everyone finds utility in NA or TA come to that. It varies as characters vary.

We can drop the reference to "lacking" if you find it problematic and call it something to be done rather than nothing to be done. Not all NA describes the objective in the same way. I would describe it as the end of the feeling of disconnection from Oneness. NA is said to end that feeling by a resonance with the concept All is One. For me its a vibration between two frequencies which happen to be on the same wavelenth at the time of the resonance. The frequency/vibration of the mind looking for the solution on behalf of the seeker, and the frequency/vibration of the concept.

Assuming the vibration/frequency of the concept remains constant, for me the issue is then about whether the frequency/vibration of the mind of the seeker can only be in tune with it, and resonate with it, after it has followed a path or practise. For me, to determine where the mind of another might be at in terms of its frequency/vibration would be a very difficult determination to make. So I am prepared to take the assertion of the seeker that such a resonance has occurred and the feeling of disconnection has ended. Others may not be prepared to take that and condemn the experience because it does not conform to their idea about that experience. But of course they have no idea about what that experience is/was like for the other because they are not that other having the experience.

*Links underlined*

There is a lot to parse in this - many psychological tricks embedded in this - which is perhaps not surprising (unfortunately): .. but for the record, I think you are again trying to subvert discussion by using smoke and mirrors - casting it as an issue of competition or disposition - when it is not - it is a misappropriation in its essence (see below)

I do understand why so called "NA" tries to frame the context as - either: it's because TA is jealous of us! - or it's West v East - or it just depends on your personality to the probably most honest answer I have seen in my viewpoint: NA suits people who are tired of being told they are not good enough and want self assurance that they have, without any work on their part, "arrived")

Because that gives them, like e.g. a Church of Scientology, an assumption of legitimacy and equivalence. There is no equivalence, however in my opinion (rationale below), and why it should be seen at best as a dabbling exercise. Furthermore, its utility is diminished not only through its stature as a relative imposter, in my opinion, but in the rare admission that its followers have fundamentally not found true joy, compassion or Gnosis evident in so many other traditions. This is only to be expected in such a course.

Here's a prior post of mine which encapsulates how I see this topic (below). I hope you find it useful to understand my perspective (and hopefully this time you will not try to again incite the Board and forum participants to try to cast me as an abuser - quite a dishonest and unkind tactic IMO - in your desperate attempts to shut down discussion and review.

Be well

BT

I think to imagine that it is a West v East or TA v NA issue or Traditionalist v Modern context is incorrect, and merely takes the bait {sort of like the #fakenews #alternativefacts context - there are no alternative facts, period, to discuss it is to acknowledge that which isn't accurate in the first place, a clever play}

This is certainly not an issue of West or East or Traditional Advaita-Vedanta v Neo-Advaita or popularity more v less.

To imagine it is is to have taken that particular bait, in my opinion. The key, fundamental difference is really are the teachings as promulgated genuine and fulsome spiritual teachings or not? i.e. Do they advance the highest teachings/Truths found in a number of religions: Buddhism, Sufism, Advaita-Vedanta, mystical Christianity, Daoism etc.

There is no mindset of popularity, culture or religion here, IMO. You have to remember that Advaita-Vedanta and many other religions co-exist very peacefully and harmoniously; some would say co-operatively too - you help him and I will help her and we will meet at the same place out there, beyond these categories - high five!

The only reason that this so called Neo-Advaita issue is being responded to is because it is simply a shallow imitation of any genuine spiritual tradition, and it is baited to attract the simple minded, ignorant, or those that just don't know, and yet are {sincerely} looking for some spiritual guidance. Unfortunately its effects range from long term ignorance (given that it does not actually generate meaningful deep insights) to more corruption (such as when some people think that they don't, or perhaps other people, don't 'really' exist, and/or All is One anyway so 'whatever' I do is fine) i.e. the mental cognition of the insight of genuine teachers cannot help but be nigh inevitably corrupted in its original intention.

You see, what is so tricky and pseudo-smart about the so-called NA writings is that they utilize some "truths" discovered in (let's use for this example) Advaita-Vedanta, and also piggy back off the same terminology. So, to the untrained eye and heart, it has semblances of truth in it.

To piggy back off Jyotir's example of Paris, they describe the sights of the Eiffel Tower (having piggy backed off of the travellers' actual journey) using similar words, they can describe the bridges, the people, the vibrant taste of its cuisine {mmm croissants!!} and so parts of it could be true {if it were really true}.

But this remains very different to the actual reaching of said destination, which is what the original Adepts did reach and used words to "hint at" and best {within the capacity of words, which is inherently limited} provide a flavor of the possible.

Furthermore, it goes beyond a trip in that the transformation and journey cannot help but change the individual - sort of like the characteristics of a genuine pilgrim, who is forged in and through the fires of Truth/Search - there is a distinctively different taste and flavor in such people experientially and also through their insights and spiritual development.

As you know the spiritual tradition is nothing but a journey back to Source (which no-one has left, but which still requires some effort to deeply realize and manifest).

Neo-Advaita is nothing but a forgery in that regard, stunting the very people it could have helped, by promulgating views such as there is nothing to do, nothing to realize. By short-circuiting the very search, journey and practice that leads people to these inner realizations and experiences, it belies the very intention, depth and authenticity of the original Adepts/Masters' sharings.

In Zen there is a saying: "Before one studies Zen, mountains are mountains and waters are waters; after a first glimpse into the truth of Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and waters are no longer waters; after enlightenment, mountains are once again mountains and waters once again waters."

No-one in Zen graduates without years of intensive practice, lifelong practice and yet the destination is inevitably sweet because the realizations are the fruition of the work that was put in.

Finally, Iamit's own discourse shows another level of conceit in that it attracts people who are "tired of being told they are not good enough". It suits personalities who are perhaps tired and older and want to feel that things are enough. I definitely sympathize with that, and wish such people well. There is no need for anyone to feel unworthy and I also have never seen that message in any other tradition - but people obviously interpret messages differently. Iamit also mentioned suffering still exists - well, compare that to the Adepts

So anyway, in conclusion, the classification and context of discussion is not a "versus" - whether that's people, culture, modernity, or religion, as Iamx would like to put it, it's a simple case of fraudulent activity masking as the real deal. That is the pertinent point and pivot of discussion. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but at least people deserve to know - hey this ain't Europe!

BT

[no1wakesup]

"The relentless need to set right against wrong very successfully demonstrates the incomprehension of a message that points to that which is beyond both."

[Jyotir]

Originally Posted by no1wakesup

.
"The relentless need to set right against wrong very successfully demonstrates the incomprehension of a message that points to that which is beyond both."

Hi no1wakesup,

That the bolded portions can be seen as equivalents demonstrates that the entire unattributed quotation is substantially intended as a moral recrimination in its own 'right'.

How about this reformation?:

The relentless message that points, demonstrates the need to very successfully set right against wrong comprehension of that which is beyond both.

~ J

[Jyotir]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Yes not everyone finds utility in NA or TA come to that. It varies as characters vary.

We can drop the reference to "lacking" if you find it problematic and call it something to be done rather than nothing to be done. Not all NA describes the objective in the same way. I would describe it as the end of the feeling of disconnection from Oneness. NA is said to end that feeling by a resonance with the concept All is One. For me its a vibration between two frequencies which happen to be on the same wavelenth at the time of the resonance. The frequency/vibration of the mind looking for the solution on behalf of the seeker, and the frequency/vibration of the concept.

Assuming the vibration/frequency of the concept remains constant, for me the issue is then about whether the frequency/vibration of the mind of the seeker can only be in tune with it, and resonate with it, after it has followed a path or practise. For me, to determine where the mind of another might be at in terms of its frequency/vibration would be a very difficult determination to make. So I am prepared to take the assertion of the seeker that such a resonance has occurred and the feeling of disconnection has ended. Others may not be prepared to take that and condemn the experience because it does not conform to their idea about that experience. But of course they have no idea about what that experience is/was like for the other because they are not that other having the experience.

Hello Iamit,

I beg to differ with your (qualified) dualist conception of reality posing as non-dual. Shame!

I contend that if you intend to be a spokesperson you’d behoove yourself to consider the following:

1) “Resonance” (as applied in your usage) implies differentiation.

2) Oneness implies direct subjective identity. (iow, there is no 'objectivity' if all is One)

Therefore, IT IS POSSIBLE - and possibly inevitable - to be conscious of ‘another person’s’ ‘resonance of consciousness/conscious focus’ in and through 'resonance' with “them”, since, by virtue of that oneness…one IS that ‘person’ as a direct identity of self....regardless of how differentiated.

This (btw) is the operative basis of intuition, and as well, the efficacy of satsang -
- especially in the case of the guru who has integrally and permanently realized that oneness.

~ J

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Hello Iamit,

I beg to differ with your (qualified) dualist conception of reality posing as non-dual. Shame!

I contend that if you intend to be a spokesperson you’d behoove yourself to consider the following:

1) “Resonance” (as applied in your usage) implies differentiation.

2) Oneness implies direct subjective identity. (iow, there is no 'objectivity' if all is One)

Therefore, IT IS POSSIBLE - and possibly inevitable - to be conscious of ‘another person’s’ ‘resonance of consciousness/conscious focus’ in and through 'resonance' with “them”, since, by virtue of that oneness…one IS that ‘person’ as a direct identity of self....regardless of how differentiated.

This (btw) is the operative basis of intuition, and as well, the efficacy of satsang -
- especially in the case of the guru who has integrally and permanently realized that oneness.

~ J

From what you say do you regard your intuition as trustworthy enough (free from the distortion of conditioning that you may not be aware of) to know what the experience of another feels like for them? Are you sure that there are not aspects of your conditioning that remain hidden (repressed, too painful to remember) that may distort your intuition?

For example characteristics that were punished (rejection/ condemnation) which you now find unacceptable in yourself, and as a consequence critisise in others. This is known as projection.

:)

[no1wakesup]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Hi no1wakesup,

That the bolded portions can be seen as equivalents demonstrates that the entire unattributed quotation is substantially intended as a moral recrimination in its own 'right'.

How about this reformation?:


The relentless message that points, demonstrates the need to very successfully set right against wrong comprehension of that which is beyond both.

~ J

Either will suffice as everything said on this forum is unknowingly unattributed anyway. Yet again, hearing that from a mind still identified with a centered someone/self can only agree or disagree with this path or that path. Which is why its difficult for this mind to engaged with life in this moment and so almost impossible to remain detatched from the idea of enlightenment.

The one who is ignorant to its connection, the one requiring the feeling to be connected and the one believing its already connected all come from the same conditioning/illusion/assumtion that there is one there to connect with IT in the first place. It's this solid point of perception thats only holding on to another version (and of course a more evolved or awakened version at that) of itself.

Gardeners in the act of truly gardening are not so concerned with the harvest.

[Jyotir]

Originally Posted by Iamit

From what you say do you regard your intuition as trustworthy enough (free from the distortion of conditioning that you may not be aware of) to know what the experience of another feels like for them? Are you sure that there are not aspects of your conditioning that remain hidden (repressed, too painful to remember) that may distort your intuition?

For example characteristics that were punished (rejection/ condemnation) which you now find unacceptable in yourself, and as a consequence critisise in others. This is known as projection.

Hi Iamit,

It is well established that intuition in its native status is infinitely and inherently more reliable than the de facto dominant concrete and rational mental (even vital) processes - reasoning, doubt, prejudices, aversions, etc., which can, and certainly do often taint, overwhelm, or distort those intuitions in the untransformed being, as they descend into waking consciousness. Who hasn’t experienced this (especially in retrospect)?

But that doesn’t invalidate the more substantial point conveniently sidestepped - that the reliability of intuition when in its purer manifestations, comes from a direct subjective identification which is accessible by, to, from, in, and through oneness, which is an intimate and immediate knowing from identity of self, regardless of how differentiated. (the leaf knowing it is the tree also knows the roots)

The practice and benefit of meditation is that it can clarify cognition by tranquilizing the grosser mental attachments/movements allowing for increasingly consistent experience in the subjective self, and therefore provide normalization of intuitive insight, thus surpassing the conditional limitations of objective cognition.

Projection in a way, is the inverse of intuition. It is an externalized attribution of that (cognition) which is internally untransformed in the projector; an (unconsciously) objectified self-identification which is usually not reliable except in its falseness, e.g., maya/appearance. It’s why animals, in another version of projection endemic to that 'kingdom', attack and devour those other animals that demonstrate the quality of animation/vital energy, with commensurate consequences. The residuals of this aggression/defensive dynamic are still very much present in human beings even if substantially combined with mind as desire-mind and can manifest as aggression and acquisitiveness unless and until transformed into a more benign dynamism and self-giving.

Contrary to popular conception, this ‘conditioning’ often spoken of in contemporary psychological terms is borrowed by spiritual aspirants who seem to rely on these metaphors (physics, social science, etc.) to explain metaphysics and spirituality, since those meta-forms are the most available and familiar. However this conditioning so-called is not really a social phenomenon, although ‘obvious’ and tempting as a naïve conclusion. The real conditional aspect of ‘conditioning’ in the spiritual context is profoundly fundamental to physical existence itself, and precedes and subsumes any social dynamics (i.e., punishment, rejection, etc.) as manifestations superficially perceived.

~ J