"I spent many years looking into various teachers of Advaita, or Nonduality. (It's also been called "neo Advaita" by some, which is meant to be derogatory from what I can tell.)

It all started when I read a book by Gangaji, who claimed to be in the lineage of the apparently saintly Ramana Maharshi of India.

Conventiently, Ramana Maharshi has been dead since 1950, so he can't be questioned about any "lineage". But I've read in several places that he never designated one. (If only I had known this when I read the book by Gangaji.)

I feel lucky that I didn't go completely insane while attempting very diligently to follow the advice of Gangaji and other Advaita "teachers".

I am writing this post because I had a big AHA! moment the other day, shortly after reading a post by a member of this forum regarding one of the current neo Advaita "teachers": Tony Parsons.

The info on Tony Parsons was posted in the "Byron Katie" thread by a member known as "The Anticult". The post can be found here:

[Tony Parsons Critique]

The Anticult very quickly and easily saw right through Parsons' claims made on his website. I was in shock at how bogus Parsons' claims actually were when they were pointed out. I wondered why I hadn't been able to see it before."

Abuse in the name of Advaita

And finally, in Tony Parson's own words:

"so-called Traditional Advaita, for instance, is just another established religion with a proliferation of teachings and literature, all of which very successfully and consistently miss the mark. It stands alongside Christianity and Buddhism as one of the many systems of personal indoctrination promising the eventual spiritual fulfilment...

The teaching of “Traditional Advaita” has no relevance to liberation because it is born out of a fundamental misconception."


Looks like the this man is pretty clearly putting himself above all the other spiritual teachers like Jesus, Buddha, and the like. No wonder his followers appear to have been referenced as cult-ish.

I have to thank you, Iam(x) - without your exposition of his stance, I wouldn't have looked into this area as much as I have and now I have, I'm quite comfortable categorizing it as somewhat misguided. Based on the personal experiences of people who were indoctrinated into that, I would say it can also be dangerous for certain people (as referenced above - experiences) but most of all, a potential regression for a spiritual seeker with genuine aspirations for spiritual liberation and growth. Obviously, YMMV. :smile:

Thanks,

BT

Not only Jesus and Buddha, but also, Valmiki, Sanatkumara, Yajnavalkya, Shankaracharya et al.

Now that I have read what Tony Parsons has said, I can understand all the backlash and it is well deserved imho.

Buddhism and TA are "indoctrinating" and "missing the mark"? oh my...oh dear...

One just has to read the Katha Upanishad...the discussion between Nachiketas and Lord Yama about the nature of reality.

https://kathupanishad.wordpress.com/...keta-and-yama/

Read the Chhandogya Upanishad...the discussion between father and son - Uddalaka and Shvetaketu:

https://hindukids.org/old/grandpa/fatherandson.html

Read the Mandukya Upanishad and understand the very nature of liberation...according to the sacred vibration of the universe:

https://www.swami-krishnananda.org/m..._Upanishad.pdf

The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad which breaks down the 33 Hindu Gods into one all-encompassing reality called Brahman:

https://callofthevedas.wordpress.com...ods-are-there/

The Isopanishad, which is basically a treatise on Dharma with the aim of realising the Absolute Consciousness...

I could go on...

To discredit all of this, calling it 'misleading' and 'indoctrinating' etc is totally snubbing the whole Vedas and Hinduism itself and that is something that gets under my skin just a bit.

All of these 'stories' and all of these examples given by all the great saints and sages of yore is what I was raised on, brought up with and they have served me very well....and still continue to do so.

From TA came the Mahavakyas (great utterances) "YOU ARE THAT" and "Brahman Alone Exists"...what is 'missing the mark' there?

I'm sorry, but after reading what you posted...what Iamit has posted...unfortunately I must dig my heels in now according to the "T" in TA...tradition....and 'changing' to NA is like eating a slice of bread after having a three-course meal.

"Promising eventual spiritual fullfilment"?...it promised nothing and yet, it delivered.

I found in the past few days, reading this thread and other threads on Pseudo Advaita vs Traditional Advaita, that there may well also be parallels here between Born Again Christianity and more Liberal forms of Christianity if i can say such a thing. Perhaps the debate is about fundamentalism in all things which seems to always stand on the ground of I'm right your wrong, I'm Saved your not, I'm awake and your not.

This kind of very black and white categorical thinking is itself a symptom of egoic and intellectual monopoly in which the small mind becomes deluded and makes all sorts of claims which have a strange logic to them, which is very appealing not to mention convincing. The delusional powers of this type of approach, that is, the logical negation and logical verification of the intellect entrapping itself inside it's own prison are all to plain to see, as people have pointed out so rightly here.

It reminds me of an email i sent to one of sailor bob adamson's students who has recently set themselves up as an Advaita teacher about synchronicities, magic, supernatural interventions, the ground which is often hard to integrate into our personalities, let alone explain. Her reply was somewhat dismissive and blanket like ..she said something ..which didn't answer the question at all...so i'm going to retrieve that email and have a look again at what she said.

Thanks very much to Shivani Devi and Blossomtree for opening this debate up. I think its healthy. Also thanks to Iamit for making it possible.

Sounds to me like an inane barrage against Tony Parsons, and fair enough, if people don't like it, or if doesn't make any sense, then don't accept it - as we all have to discern for ourselves what seems valid or meritorious, but we go astray when we try to convince others to discern the same thing as we ourselves do.

I'm really a bit of a fan of the non dual teachers, including Sailor Bob, and I don't actually see too much contradiction in their 'message'. I think people start to get angsty, not because of what any of these so called teachers say per-se, but because of the influence they might wield - so it's ultimately about a power game.

It's inevitable as soon as a person purports the have knowledge, there is an accompanying power of influence, and within the exertion of power there has to be a resistance, and so we see this dynamic of attack and defense arising out of an underlying tension of exertion and resistance.

In the tradition I studied formally in, the initial teaching is not to believe what is said, so everyone is left to their own discernment, which is highly valued in the schools I am familiar with.

In my professional life I had to understand my position and the influence such positions have, as my qualification is supposed to make me 'the expert' (the one who knows) - and when I did social research and actually produced knowledge, that came with a very unusual responsibility that I had to be really careful with, so this powerful aspect of 'knowing' is something I'm quite familiar with, and one has to be extremely careful with their desires to influence other people (which is often misconstrued as 'help') and is easily seen as a desire to be right.

Just to mention, I like a ND channel on you tube called conscious TV. They interview many different people about their 'realised' perspective.

You may disagree and of course so be it but for some, not you I hasten to add, to call Tony Parsons a criminal or insane for the quotes that offend you, is incorrect.

A discussion can be had about the differences between TA and NA and how each can be helpful to seekers depending on the character, and I look forward to that debate without abuse towards the participants in it.

As you can see dear readers smearing NA by associating it with cults in general, some of which undertake criminal activity, persists with some.

Not at all, Gem.

I am all for other paths and other teachings. I'm quite open and liberal in regards, but promoting one philosophy from the very one it arose from, by attacking and discrediting that whole philosophy just isn't cricket in my 'rule book'.

I'd like it for somebody to present an idea or a system based on it's own merits, not seek to garner support by saying that other teachings are misleading, indoctrinating and irrelevant compared to it.

I feel that if a person or people need to do that to get their message across, it doesn't say much for the actual content of the message, does it?

So, we are taught to be tolerant of other's beliefs...can we thus be tolerant of the intolerant?

People will say we should respect the philosophy of others (and I see how some are trying hard to do that because they know they should be doing it and for no other reason) but can we respect the disrespectful? can we agree with the disagreeable?

It's not so much the content of TA vs NA, but then again, I'd like to see where any of the philosophies of TA can be refuted in logical debate with the philosophies of NA...having said all that, who can even refute the Mahavakyas?

The only thing that both concepts have in common is the term "Advaita" or "non-duality" and am I the ONLY one who thinks (with all due reasoning aside) that the Non-dual can be made and MORE Non-dual by making it "new"? and that Brahman evolves and changes with the times? nope.

This is my whole reasoning in a nutshell.

Yes, including NA speakers.

I wouldn't call anybody names...that makes me just as bad as the 'name caller' and it's not in my nature to do so. I present a logical argument based on my knowledge and my experience, even though I don't like the way he smears other beliefs, other religions, other traditions and those who follow them to make a point that I cannot even see. That is my main contention...I'm a very respectful person (or I try to be).