The difference between Neo and Traditional Advaita.
 

The statements ascribed to Adams in the thread about him, concerning what to do and how to be, have more to do with Traditional practise than Neo Advaita. Those 'what to do and how to be' things are already Oneness manifest so no increase in connection can possible be achieved by being or doing them. So his advise to be and do those things is not just misleading but huge unnecessary obstacles placed before the seeker.

Traditional Advaita= There are separate persons who can become enlightened by following paths and practises.

Neo Advaita= Separate persons are an illusion so no separate persons who can become enlightened, so no increase in terms of connection by following paths and practise. There can be no increase in connecton to Oneness by changing from one state to another because Oneness is the only reality and already all states, including the state that already appears to be 'you'.

We can discuss this until the cows come home (even if the cows are illusory and they never left home in the first place).

If there is really nothing to be done then why do all these neo-advaitists spend so much time teaching illusory separate persons and producing illusory videos and writing illusory books?

And if there is no separate person to become enlightened then why does the neo-advaitist bother teaching in the first place, given that there is no-one listening who is not already enlightened and therefore does not need to be taught?

Even neo-advaitists who teach that there is nothing to be done are actually teaching a path and a practice - that of doing nothing.

The problem with such philosophy is that it is mentally satisfying but spiritually meaningless. The neo-advaitist who says to everyone "You are already enlightened so do nothing" fails to address the fact that most people do not identify with the One reality and they need some kind of guidance.

The traditional Advaitist who knows the One reality recognises that separate persons are an illusion but also recognises that those caught up in the illusion need guidance to let go of the illusion.

But this discussion will go round and round in circles.

Peace

Yes! For the select few, the naturals, Neo-Advaita probably suffices. For the masses not so much. At least that's my take on it.

Seekers are looking for solutions and there is room for all, even those you disagree with.

Seekers vary in character. What suits one will not suit another, none of which can be regarded as superior or inferior for the particular seeker concerned. Yet some are so judged as though there was a superior approach that applied to all and an assumption made that the inner life experience of another is known. A huge false assumtion to make.

***

Nothing I wrote implied superiority or inferiority my dear :smile:

What is our actuality of being? Right now. I’m sure awareness is common to all paths.

***

Just stating the issue to be addressed. Did not mean to suggest you were part of that issue.

Concerning the actuality of our being, I prefer the nondual view that Oneness is the only reality. It ends the unfairness of personal responsibility (We never have all the data when making decisions), and ends the search for enlightenment for those for whom it resonates. Whats your preferrence?

Ah...the duality of non dual concepts begins again.

How I see it, is that Advaita Vedanta follows a more traditional, orthodox and longer lineage of teachers going back to Adi Shankaracharya, Gaudapada and the whole Smarta tradition which is wholly based on Shruti or scriptures of Vedas, like the Upanishads:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smarta_tradition

Neo Advaita is similar to above, but the word "Neo" meaning "New" is a branch of Advaita Vedanta which was propounded by Ramana Maharishi, Swami Vivekananda and other teachers who had great influence in the West, establishing many Ashrams around such countries.

Hi SD, Good to see you again. Yes the debate continues in nondual circles. My wife calls my friends and I, Vedanta thieves:)