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
  #11  
Old 16-11-2017, 03:42 AM
Iamit Iamit is offline
Master
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: West Wales. u.k
Posts: 1,002
 
For balance, here is a contribution to the debate by someone labeled as being in the Neo Advaita camp.

"Traditional not two-ness is better than Neo not two-ness???

It seems that Dennis Waite and his fellow Traditional Advaitists have been challenging the validity of something they have decided to call “Neo Advaita” or, it has to be said, their particular interpretation of it!

I have been asked to comment because The Open Secret communication seems to have been their main target and so, of course, there can only be a response from this apparent “perception”.

So right away I am puzzled at any attempt to make a comparison between two perspectives which simply do not meet. Dennis Waite’s works are an excellent expression of the fundamental principles that generate the majority of traditional and contemporary dualistic teachings. They are, in simple terms, rooted in the belief that there is something called a seeker (one) that can attain something else called enlightenment (two). The Open Secret recognises the relative as the absolute appearing and form as formlessness . . . there is not two! And so, everything is already the unconditional expression of wholeness, including the belief that it isn’t.

Traditional Advaita is a teaching of becoming, The Open Secret is not, but it exposes the one primary misconception that is the mother of many others. It also attempts to describe the nature of “what is” rather than teach what should be.

It seems that Dennis Waite does not recognise the difference and continuously confirms his belief that there is an individual who can attain enlightenment.

So, I will not respond to these criticisms with any counter arguments, but will only try to demonstrate the futility of comparison.

Presuming that Dennis Waite accurately represents something he calls Traditional Advaita, he confirms his belief and experience in the reality of the constant existence of an individual with free will and the ability to choose and bring about consequence.

The Open Secret recognises that the belief and experience of a central “I” or a “me” or a “self” is an assumed inconstant state. Out of this one adopted belief in individuality arises many other beliefs, including self-autonomy, the story, time, purpose, destiny, deity and karma. Individuality is the transient appearance of wholeness seeming to be part of itself that feels separate from wholeness and can only apparently seek to be whole. But a part can never know the whole. It is a metaphor.

Dennis Waite believes and recommends that, in order to resolve the real and constant sense of separation and become enlightened, the individual should choose to follow a progressive spiritual path. This path involves practice, meditation, self-enquiry and the eradication of ego and ignorance through a clear understanding of the scriptures and the guidance of a teacher.

The Open Secret recognises that the above beliefs and recommendations are generated out of an assumed and inconstant sense of being a separate individual who needs to attain something called enlightenment. It is also recognised that an investment in the above recommendations can reinforce and maintain the assumed sense of being an individual who can resolve its sense of being separate.

Dennis Waite confirms that enlightenment is something that can be described in words, and attained and known by the individual mind when it acquires the knowledge that there is only a non-dual reality.

The Open Secret recognises that there is no such thing as enlightenment or liberation, or an individual that can become enlightened or liberated. These are all ideas that come and go within the individual story. When the assumed sense of being separate seems to collapse, already there is only the constant and unknowable wonder of being.

The Open Secret perception is that there is no such thing as a “mind”. Thinking seems to happen and sometimes thoughts formulate into belief systems which are still experienced sporadically by the apparent individual in what seems to be a story in time. Absolute clarity also arises within the story and is transient.

Traditional Advaita appears to make proper use of logic, reason, belief and experience, rational explanation, truth, and traditional wisdom, all directed towards helping the seeker along the path to their enlightenment.

The Open Secret’s apparent communication is illogical, unreasonable, unbelievable, paradoxical, non-prescriptive, non-spiritual and uncompromising. There is no agenda or intention to help or change apparent individuality. Its resonance is shared energetically, not through the exchange of ideas. It is prior to all teachings and yet eternally new. Belief is seen as married to doubt, and experience as a fluctuating personal state. The Open Secret does not recognise anything as being “the truth” nor does it see how something called Traditional Advaita could be anything other than a complex collection of ideas.

Traditional Advaita is a teaching about that which can be known. The Open Secret illuminates the myth of separation and points to that which can’t be known.

Surely an unbiased view of these two “perspectives” would immediately recognise that they do not meet. However, it seems obvious that Dennis does not recognise the difference, and is also unable to comprehend, even intellectually, the principle and implication of individual absence. One of his recommendations is that the aspiring so-called spiritual teacher should ask themselves if they are truly enlightened?! How can he see any possible connection between this idea and The Open Secret communication? He probably still believes that these differing perspectives are “ours” and that Tony Parsons is an individual who tells other individuals that they are enlightened, and so there is nothing to do.

Either there is resonance or not and, because the ineffable cannot be understood and therefore controlled, it can seem threatening to the apparent seeker. Consequently any attempt at expression of the indefinable has to be rejected or misinterpreted. What often emerges is a reconfiguring which can be believed, and is safe, and which offers hope and purpose to the seeker.

Dogmas, doctrines and progressive paths which promise eventual enlightenment, or Nirvana, or the Kingdom of Heaven, through sacrifice, discipline, refinement and purification of the self, appeal tremendously to that within the seeker which feels unworthy. Hence, the power of classic religion and teachings of becoming. Traditional Advaita is just another one of these.

Of course, for any apparent seeker who believes in self-autonomy and the seeming reality of needing to climb a spiritual mountain, Dennis Waite’s work seems a logical, sound and reassuringly complicated instruction manual to follow. However, what does devalue this apparent testimony to “the truth” is its seemingly prejudiced portrayal of so-called “neo Advaitans” which appears to be mainly based on hearsay, wishful thinking and the misinterpretation of quotations taken out of context.

Of course there is a lot of dualistic nonsense broadcast under the non-dual Advaita banner. A relentless regurgitation of the idea that there is “no-one”, or that everything is fine because it is only arising as “all there is”, is nothing more than a replacement of one set of beliefs for another.

Words can only ever point to the inexpressible, and anyone who is concept-bound can nit and pick and tut their way through every word of this response with the sole purpose of seeing nothing more than that which they believe to be “right or wrong”.

It is what happens . . . apparently.

Isn’t it wonderful that all of this is already only the unconditional expression of wholeness appearing as much ado about nothing.

Final Response

Most of the recent "traditionalist" responses to my TA versus NA essay clearly confirm again that there is no recognition of the one fundamental difference between these two perspectives, and this renders any further debate futile.

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

Tony Parsons
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 16-11-2017, 04:52 AM
Iamit Iamit is offline
Master
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: West Wales. u.k
Posts: 1,002
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moondance
Great post, Iamit. I completely agree with these sentiments. There are innumerable factors which condition our perceived choices.

------

As a side note. I have to say that I'm a little uneasy with the designation, Neo Advaita.

The term was originally applied to the post Ramana teachers such as H. W. L. Poonja and subsequently Andrew Cohen and other students. And there is perhaps some validity in its use there as these were modified Advaita Vedanta teachings. But now the term is used indiscriminately to cover basically any teaching which does not agree with or apply traditional Vedanta methodology.

This is an error (or at best, lazy) since many current speakers/teachers (who might be labeled Neo Advaita) are grounded in (among other things) Buddhism/Zen and Taoism (also Sufism, Christian mysticism etc.) They present an inclusive, non-sectarian form of nonduality which often draws on the essential core of the different traditions. They don't set themselves up as Advaita teachers as such so there is no basis on which to call them Neo Advaita.

Also, the term itself is (knowingly) pejorative - no modern nondualists refer to themselves as Neo Advaita.

You may already be familiar with the essay by Tony Parsons I have posted in this thread which relates to what you are saying.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 16-11-2017, 11:26 AM
Shivani Devi Shivani Devi is offline
Master
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 10,861
  Shivani Devi's Avatar
As a 'traditional advaitin' myself, I have my own thoughts and views, which may not represent those of the general population.

I believe it is human nature to come up with the rather absurd theory of 'I thought of it first' whether or not anybody else did previously doesn't matter *blames Kali Yuga*.

This isn't just the case of 'neo advaita' vs 'traditional advaita'...but the whole 'new age' vs 'old age' philosophy....when whatever is 'old' is no longer 'relevant' in regards to that which exists beyond time itself....i.e. Brahman absolute.

Is it just this generation who came up with the idea of 'chakras' and 'auras' and 'past lives' and 'spirituality?'....nah.

It seems like the 'wheel' is constantly being reinvented to do something else other than what it was designed to do...spin around...and there also seems to be a lot of 'spin' placed upon the 'spinning around'.

I was spoiled from a very early age though...as being one who has read and studied all of the Upanishads, the Vedas, Patanjali, Adi Shankaracharya, Swami Svatmarama...then I go and read stuff like Ekhardt Tolle, Sadguru, Deepak Chopra, Thich Nhat Thanh, Alan Watts...and I am like 'puh-leez...gimme a break here'!'

However, those who have not been in my position of learning Sanskrit, studying the Vedas, the Upanishads wouldn't know any better...but what they are getting is an entirely 'watered down' and 'far from accurate' translation of the sacred Hindu texts. Is it a case of learning something incorrectly is better than learning nothing at all? my 'personal jury' is still out deliberating that one.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 16-11-2017, 11:46 AM
Iamit Iamit is offline
Master
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: West Wales. u.k
Posts: 1,002
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shivani Devi
As a 'traditional advaitin' myself, I have my own thoughts and views, which may not represent those of the general population.

I believe it is human nature to come up with the rather absurd theory of 'I thought of it first' whether or not anybody else did previously doesn't matter *blames Kali Yuga*.

This isn't just the case of 'neo advaita' vs 'traditional advaita'...but the whole 'new age' vs 'old age' philosophy....when whatever is 'old' is no longer 'relevant' in regards to that which exists beyond time itself....i.e. Brahman absolute.

Is it just this generation who came up with the idea of 'chakras' and 'auras' and 'past lives' and 'spirituality?'....nah.

It seems like the 'wheel' is constantly being reinvented to do something else other than what it was designed to do...spin around...and there also seems to be a lot of 'spin' placed upon the 'spinning around'.

I was spoiled from a very early age though...as being one who has read and studied all of the Upanishads, the Vedas, Patanjali, Adi Shankaracharya, Swami Svatmarama...then I go and read stuff like Ekhardt Tolle, Sadguru, Deepak Chopra, Thich Nhat Thanh, Alan Watts...and I am like 'puh-leez...gimme a break here'!'

However, those who have not been in my position of learning Sanskrit, studying the Vedas, the Upanishads wouldn't know any better...but what they are getting is an entirely 'watered down' and 'far from accurate' translation of the sacred Hindu texts. Is it a case of learning something incorrectly is better than learning nothing at all? my 'personal jury' is still out deliberating that one.

Surely there is room for both, without either condemning the other. The discussion about, and friendly acceptance of, difference is far more interesting than one side trying to extinquish the other to protect their delicate beliefs. Seekers will select what suits them and long may that choice be freely made despite the conflicts.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 16-11-2017, 11:53 AM
Shivani Devi Shivani Devi is offline
Master
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 10,861
  Shivani Devi's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamit
Surely there is room for both, without either condemning the other. The discussion about, and friendly acceptance of, difference is far more interesting than one side trying to extinquish the other to protect their delicate beliefs. Seekers will select what suits them and long may that choice be freely made despite the conflicts.
I agree, but then all one can say/do is go "I know what I know, you know what you know...have a nice life, cya"
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 16-11-2017, 12:02 PM
Iamit Iamit is offline
Master
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: West Wales. u.k
Posts: 1,002
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FallingLeaves
in my book it is better not to think about it at all than to get mired in the web of agreement even of something as seemingly innocuous as this.

We may reflect on what we see and attempt to share and explore that with others in communication. Back and forth it may go and maybe some mutual undstanding, not necessarily agreement, is the result.

The problem is not the doing of that as a general rule. It can be a very agreeable experience. But if that process is not conducted with a friendly regard for different points of view, it does indeed become something one can get mired in if one does not withdraw quickly enough.

I hope all discussion is not withdrawn from. Not all participants will engaga in personal attack when their beliefs are challenged. The ones that do are best avoided, and on some forums are moderated.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 16-11-2017, 12:17 PM
Shivani Devi Shivani Devi is offline
Master
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 10,861
  Shivani Devi's Avatar
If we want to get down to the 'nitty gritty' of it, anything and everything that is not Brahman is only Maya....it is ALL an illusion!

We can look at the teachings of traditional Advaita in the philosophical sense and go 'neti neti'....we can do the same for Neo-Advaita...we can say 'neti neti' to whatever Shankacharya says...to whatever Adyashanti or Abhinavagupta says...just 'neti neti' because this is what shruti tells us to do...we even say 'neti neti' to 'neti neti' ya know? lol

We can look at all the offerings in the 'spiritual supermarket' and go 'window shopping' or we decide to buy and wonder if we can afford the price-tag.

Yes, there are so many conflicting/contradictory items on offer in the 'spiritual supermarket' and we wonder what makes one brand of metaphysical toilet paper any 'softer' than another who claims it so...but only our backside will know it.

Then, some see all of these contradictions and conflicts and wonder what is the truth? Maybe that's why there are so many self-styled and self-professed 'gurus' who are eventually exposed for doing one 'bad thing' or another...spirituality...gurus...youtube self-help meditation sessions...send me $50 and I'll raise your kundalini through online shaktipat...neti neti.

That's what a true advaitin is trained to do! say 'not this...not that' until it can no longer be said.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 16-11-2017, 09:30 PM
iamthat iamthat is offline
Master
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Golden Bay, New Zealand
Posts: 3,580
 
Thanks to Iamit for the comments on the perceived differences between Traditional Advaita and what is commonly known as Neo Advaita, or the Open Secret as Iamit refers to it. I don't really want to disect it all sentence by sentence, but a few things stand out.

Iamit states:

Presuming that Dennis Waite accurately represents something he calls Traditional Advaita, he confirms his belief and experience in the reality of the constant existence of an individual with free will and the ability to choose and bring about consequence.

A very quick search finds the following comment by Dennis Waite:

The knowledge conveyed by Advaita is that there is only Consciousness – ever. Consciousness is non-dual, so there is nothing else; never has been, never will be. ‘I’ (who I really am) is Consciousness. There is no ‘world’. What we see as world is also really Consciousness. In our ignorance, we see forms as separate and give them names, and thus the whole appearance of duality is conjured into existence. Time does not really exist either; it is part of this imposed duality. Accordingly, no ‘experience’ could ever bring about or be relevant to enlightenment.

Iamit states:

Dennis Waite believes and recommends that, in order to resolve the real and constant sense of separation and become enlightened, the individual should choose to follow a progressive spiritual path. This path involves practice, meditation, self-enquiry and the eradication of ego and ignorance through a clear understanding of the scriptures and the guidance of a teacher.

Dennis Waite says:

Enlightenment is a term which is misunderstood and misused by very many teachers and most seekers. It has nothing to do with practice or experience, for example. The purpose of practice is to prepare the mind so that it is sufficiently still and disciplined to be able to receive and assimilate the teaching. Thus it is that Advaita happily uses techniques from Yoga philosophy to this end. But practice of any kind can never bring about enlightenment because practice is not opposed to ignorance.

Iamit goes on to say:

Dennis Waite confirms that enlightenment is something that can be described in words, and attained and known by the individual mind when it acquires the knowledge that there is only a non-dual reality.

Dennis Waite says:

One final point in this very brief article relates to the ‘subject matter’ of Advaita – the Self, Consciousness, reality. Because it is non-dual, it is pedantically impossible to say anything at all about this. Anything you do think or say is necessarily dualistic and therefore cannot be ‘true’.

Anyone who realises Oneness knows that it is not attained by the mind. It is not a mental knowledge, nor can it be conveyed in words. But words are all that we have to try to describe something (indeed, this forum is full of words).

In fact, the Neo-Advaitists (or what Iamit refers to as The Open Secret) also use words to try to describe the state of Non-Duality. Just go to Watkins in London and look at all the books by Tony Parsons and others. Not to mention the countless hours on Youtube of these same Neo-Advaitists sharing their perspectives on Non-Duality.

Finally, Iamit states:

The Open Secret recognises that there is no such thing as enlightenment or liberation, or an individual that can become enlightened or liberated. These are all ideas that come and go within the individual story. When the assumed sense of being separate seems to collapse, already there is only the constant and unknowable wonder of being.

Surely this collapse of "the assumed sense of being separate" is the enlightenment or liberation of Traditional Advaitists. All idea of being a separate individual vanishes, there is only Being. It doesn't really matter whether we label this Traditional Advaitism or Neo-Advaitism or whatever. This is beyond all labels. Ramana Maharshi had his moment of realisation. Tony Parsons had his moment of realisation. All that is important is that we realise it for ourselves, not as an intellectual understanding but as our own collapse of the assumed sense of being separate. Until we have this realisation for ourselves, all we have are beliefs and ideas.

Peace.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 16-11-2017, 10:09 PM
blossomingtree blossomingtree is offline
Suspended
Ascender
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 937
 
Iamit and Iamthat speaking the same tune - very nice, but how many identities does one person need?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 16-11-2017, 10:12 PM
blossomingtree blossomingtree is offline
Suspended
Ascender
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 937
 
Many firm devotees of Sri Ramana Maharshi now rightly term this Western phenomenon as ‘Neo-Advaita’. The term is carefully selected because ‘neo’ means ‘a new or revived form’.

And this new form is not the Classical Advaita which we understand to have been taught by both of the Great Self Realised Sages, Adi Shankara and Ramana Maharshi. I

t can even be termed ‘pseudo’ because, by presenting the teaching in a highly attenuated form, it might be described as purporting to be Advaita, but not in effect actually being so, in the fullest sense of the word. In this watering down of the essential truths in a palatable style made acceptable and attractive to the contemporary western mind, their teaching is misleading.

Stated briefly, what has happened is that an advanced teaching pointer, normally give to the Sadhak by a fully Self Realised Guru, Jivan Mukta or Jnani, has been taken over as the preliminary step and is now given ‘piecemeal’ to any new adept. The suggestion that no further effort is necessary is only stated when the Sadhak has reached the point where effort is no longer possible .The mark of the true Guru is that peace, Love and Silence are palpably felt in his presence.

What Neo-Advaita gives in fact boils down to the seductive formula that ”there is nothing you can do or need to do, all you have to know is that there is no one there.”

The suggestion by the Neo-Advaitins that effort builds up the Ego giving it a sense of pride in its ability to meditate is only true in a small number of eccentric cases. In fact, the effort of developing one pointedness leading to Self Enquiry in order to discover the source of the ‘phantom me’, the root of all thoughts and feelings, actually undermines this recalcitrant ‘egotistical ghost’. Effort can give some modicum of necessary mind control, and one pointed attention.

By sidelining Self Enquiry and treating it as an idea rather than a practice along with Devotion and the support practices for Self Enquiry, the student is left in a comfortable conceptual mental zone where it is stated cosily that ‘there is nothing to do and nowhere to go
’.

Sri Ramana's Teaching and Western Neo-Advaita
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 03:04 PM.


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