You are hereForums / Non-Duality / 25 years of Neo-advaita and the western satsang scene-time for an apraisal
25 years of Neo-advaita and the western satsang scene-time for an apraisal
Thought I would initiate a discussion surrounding the increasing number of critiques of what's come to be known as neo-advaita. Here is a link to an essay which I think fairly well encapsulates the parameters of these concerns and I thought it could act as the basis for a proper discussion- http://www.spiritualteachers.org/neo_advaita_article.htm
- 1553 reads
-
I was wondering when the traditional-advaita versus neo-advaita dichotomy was going to surface for discussion. It had to happen, sooner or later, I guess.
It may be poignant to point out that the descriptor neo-advaita was largely created by people who self-identify themselves as traditional advaita-ists. To distinguish themselves from some other advaita-ists.
Articles by self-identified traditional advaita-ists... which criticize so-called neo-adavaita-ists... abound and are plentiful.
On the other hand, you don't have many so-called neo-advaita-ists returning the volley in the other direction.
I think that that is a revealing symptom of this dichotomy, chiefly created by those who self-identify themselves as traditional advaita-ists.
P.S. To anyone who prefers to self-identify himself or herself as a traditional adviata-ist and feels the need to identify others as neo-advaita-ists...
I offer you the following benediction:
bless you for your belief in progressive enlightnement, even if I don't share in that belief.
Bless you and all of your beliefs.
Whether I share them with you or not.
For all beliefs are equally beliefs.
Equally deserving of our honoring.
Dear peter,
thank you for your response.
Just to clarify the issues and to perhaps redress an impression that i am condemning all "theorists" of a neo-advaitan hue- I am not. i think that Gangaji, Eckhart Tolle, for instance, are extremely insightful as is Tony Parsons or Sailor Bob, Jeff Foster, etc etc. (actually its quite a big list and so I'm only randomly mentioning some of the names which come immediately to mind).
Such teachers' messages can be effective for a person at a certain stage of their life/spiritual journey, usually to awaken them to the initial insight of another dimension to their identity which they previously had no idea i.e consciousness, awarennesss being- SAt-Chit Ananda.
But of course, this can only be a prelude to the real drama of human life, the spiritual journey itself which can only be undertaken by each individual alone.
The real issue is not volleys between traditionalists versus non traditionalists but the real question is- what is actually true of the limitations of the human condition and what are the best means available to a person who wishes to overcome her suffering?. And the point that's being made here is that "neo-advaita" is effectively offering no means whatsover other than a few borrowed abstract platitudes e.g. "YOu are That!" there is no doer etc. to overcome human ignorance.
So therfore its not necessary, nor is it being asked, that you give benediction to "traditional" advaitists. What's being asked is that you find the true means to ignite the passsion of genuine self enquiry which will lead you to self knowledge.
Hi Zube,
Zube said: The real issue is not volleys between traditionalists versus non traditionalists but the real question is- what is actually true of the limitations of the human condition and what are the best means available to a person who wishes to overcome her suffering?.
From what I understand, neo advaitist offer no prescription for suffering and it would be ingenuous for them to do so. To offer some relief from suffering the pain of apparent separation is to give credence to it, unfortunately many people adopt this teaching as prescriptive, but that lies in the way it is heard rather than expressed.
I prefer to see it this way: If a child is afraid of monsters under his bed and you tell him that there are no such things as monsters, it does not help his fear but if you bend down and check under his bed and then tell him there are no monsters, you may have temporarily allievated his fear and anxiety but you have re-enforced his belief in monsters. In the same way, "There is no-one etc"...amy not offer temporary relief from apparent suffering but they also do not strengthen the belief of separation.
Hi Lucy,
The true meaning of advaita is that it is a means of knowledege to end suffering and the concomitant sense of separation. So the way that many people hear it, as you assert (and imply that they've got it wrong by so hearing it). is precisely the correct way to hear it, infact if advaita isn't offering a means out of suffering then its useless, its merely abstract metaphysics. If the way that advaita is expressed by certain elements of the neo-advaita scene is to say to people who are suffering in the world- who suffers? there's nobody there to suffer and therefore the problem of human suffering is solved by a simple sleight of verbal gymnastics/sophistry, then I would certainly part company with such a shallow and meaningless philosophy of life.
The key problem with Neo advaita or certain elelmnts of it, is that it believes that deep issues of the human condition can be solved by purely linguistic means, by changing our vocabulary, by being ironic about our language and about the world. Perhaps this is because in the west, the linguistic turn in western thought of the 20th century believed that the deep perrenial puzzlements of our nature were all bewitchments of our understanding by language, and that if we got a handle on how language works we would solve all the problems of philosophy
But at the end of the day, the fact remains that human beings suffer the illusion of separation and they need a means to overcoming this. So THERE IS a monster, and this fact needs to be recognised, addressed and dealt with by a valid means of liberation, not just a mere manipulation of language (E.G. there is no suffering in the world because there is no-one to suffer).
Hi Zube,
Thanks for your reply.
Zube said: But at the end of the day, the fact remains that human beings suffer the illusion of separation and they need a means to overcoming this.
Lucy said: In my experience any effort to overcome the illusion only stengthens it.
I did not offer benediction to traditional advaita-ists. I offered benediction to the beliefs that they embrace (i.e "bless you for your belief"). For that matter, every belief deserves benediction and honor.
I think that if you will reread my benediction more carefully, you will see that this is the case.
Let's not forget that you offered a link, at the very outset of this thread, to an article which includes this excerpt:
"In the process these Neo-Avaitins have bastardized and twisted the original tenets and practice of Advaita until it is no longer recognizable except by the most discerning of adepts. Unfortunately it appears that most adepts are not able to discern the differences between Advaita and Neo-Advaita."
A common and not unfamiliar critique... lodged by many self-described traditional advaita-ists.. of those whom they describe as NEO-advaita-ists.
And certainly a very critical ("bastardized") one, to be sure.
The article, which you linked, is testimony to that.
*****
P.S. Almost every dogmatic religion has its own traditionalist component... which lodges similar criticism against those who don't interpret things as they do. Catholics, Hindus, Muslims, etc. It's not an uncommon phenomenon.
*****
P.P.S. Since you mentioned "life/spiritual journal", may I assume that it is a core belief of yours that life is a spiritual journal?
If it is, it makes perfect sense, then, for someone who believes that to commensurately want and need a sense of progress on that journey.
Journeyers, after all, love mile markers. Their need for a sense of progress, along their journeys, make them very receptive to mile markers. Which is, essentially, the essence of many progressive enlightenment schools.
So it doesn't surprise me to hear that... someone who believes that life is a spiritual journey... is also very receptive to the notion of progressive enlightenment.
They are siamese twin beliefs.
hello zube wishes
thanks for the post.I have gone through the article to the best of my ability and I have identified the following areas which could be dwelled upon/used once a debate on this post ensues:
If we take a look at Buddhist sutras what I found and really loved was the simplicity.Because I was not intellectually sharp or of scholarly type I could read them and relate. In it was The absolute mastery of a master. Isnt it how it is supposed to be ZUbe...? We use a lot of things in our lives which are in fact very complex...but over the years the people who have invented them or bought them forth have made them user friendly. So if I have to use a computer now..I dont need to know say ..machine language etc WHICH WAS REQUIRED in the early days.WHy not understanding/enlightenment? WOuldnt it what BUddha or a Ramana or a JEsus would want us to?
No where do we find Buddha asking us to go through what he has:
Buddha:::The Masters First Sermon
"These two extremes, monks, are not to be practiced
by one who has gone forth from the world.
What are the two?
That joined with the passions and luxury---
low, vulgar, common, ignoble, and useless,
and that joined with self-torture---
painful, ignoble, and useless.
Avoiding these two extremes the one who has thus come
has gained the enlightenment of the middle path,
which produces insight and knowledge,
and leads to peace, wisdom, enlightenment, and nirvana.
I think the Master has summed it so beautifully ...than me or in that article.
2. Dear Zube the first para though really sacred me ..it was like an medieval POPE preaching something.Relegionising.
3. However I did get the concern of the author which was to me true in as much as this::: if we think we know something...we better take a stock of it though. AND THIS I FOUND VERY USEFUL.
I hope the above could be of some use to the debate and they are meant only for "some" use.
regards ZUBE
amati.
PS : dear zube I used to have a lot of discussions with my Parent...and She allways used to point me to with these questions..( no matter with how immense an insight I approached her)
are you happy.? She would ask...Stay happy..stay there...Its not that difficult.... that is all that is....never lose it She used to say...maybe its only a MOther talking.
bye again
Thank you for your considered response to the essay I linked; unlike others who will read the essay but without the moral courage and integrity to really think about the issues it raises and will continue relentlessly like the zombies in the movie Dawn of the Dead with the same old hackneyed phraselology i.e man is not the doer, words/thought is illusory, there is no-one here etc.
You mentioned The buddha's middle way, rightly pointing out that it avoids the extremes of hedonism (unbridled pleasure seeking) and asceticism (yogic mortification of the body) but you wrongly give the impresssion that the middle way is easy and non arduous, a bit like many advaitins who just want a touchy feely good feeling ( a bit of mooji smooji) or borrrow a few advaita concepts and then hypnotically repeat them whenever they need to think or inquire deeply about life.
First, the buddha rejected pleasure as a way out of suffering because he realised that what we seek is the peace of desirelessness from obtaining the object of our desire, not the object itself; but this path inevitably leads to addiction and therefore rejected.
On the other hand the Buddha DID see a rationale to asceticism and infact, according to the record, this is the path he initially pursued with his yogic friends. Why did he do this? I would say because there is a rational reason for this, that if we mortify the body and get used to pain, we can overcome pain, a bit like the Stoic philosophers advocated in Greece; no pain, no gain.
But of course, it didn't work because mortification of the body leads to ill health which clouds our MINDS and therefore our ability to attain enlightenement.
And so he drank some milk, alieneted his yogic friends, and shortly afterwards proceeded to meditate for some 40 days to attain enlightenment (and infact even here he still got quite thin and weak with the arduousness of this particular task).
So the middle way is actually a route of arduous inquiry.
I think that the reason that you mention that the 1st paragraph is scary and that your mother was anxious about your happiness is that you sense that life is a serious affair and that the ability of humans to transcend suffering is seriously deficient. The only solution is to undertake a serious questioning into life and yourself, using a VALID means which doesn't promise easy solutions, just like the buddha underwent. The key to success is to ask honest and searching questions and not to parrot advaitin sounding phrases picked up from a textbook (e.g. man must understand the illusory as illusory).
regards
Zube
"But at the end of the day, the fact remains that human beings suffer the illusion of separation and they need a means to overcoming this. So THERE IS a monster, and this fact needs to be recognised, addressed and dealt with by a valid means of liberation, not just a mere manipulation of language (E.G. there is no suffering in the world because there is no-one to suffer)." - zube
I would like to thank zube for offering this perspective of his/hers in a response below. It can shed some helpful light on why certain folks, who identify themselves as advaita-ists, feel compelled to identify some other folks as neo-advaita-ists.
*****
"Human beings suffer the illusion of separation and they need a means to overcoming this."
There are two core belief components here: 1) that the illusion of separation is the cause of suffering; and, 2) it (the illusion of separation) requires overcoming.
*****
"This fact (the above premise, that is) needs to be recognised, addressed and dealt with by a valid means of liberation, not just a mere manipulation of language."
The core belief, here, being that a right of kind of Rx is needed for liberation from the suffering-producing illusion of separation.
*****
Now, and if you were a doctor who believed that the illusion of separation was the source of your patient's symptoms (i.e. suffering), it would be natural for you to desire the best Rx that you can provide.
And if a liberation from the patient's illusion of separation is your prognosis for his/her best treatment, then it would make perfect sense that you would assess the available treatment plans according to their abilities to liberate the patient from the illusion of separation.
So zube's concerns are very natural and not unexpected, for someone who embraces the core beliefs identified above. I would feel the same way, in all likelihood, if I embraced the same core beliefs.
*****
My experiences, however, have led me to not embrace them, but to embrace some others instead.
I do not believe that participating in the illusion of separation causes suffering. What causes suffering is believing/experiencing that you are just the wave, and not the ocean too.
It's not the illusion... or as I prefer to call it, the appearance... of the wave that causes suffering. It's your disconnect from real-izing that you are the ocean as well.
So no liberation from the illusion of the wave is required. Rather, and if you are interested in alleviating yourself from suffering, a reconnection is in order where a disconnection was once perceived.
And reconnecting remedies are not always the same as liberating ones.
Which is why any consideration of the appropriateness of certain therapeutic interventions... must always include the consideration of the core beliefs that form the underpinning for your prognosis.
P.S. It has also been my experience that any effort to liberate oneself from the the illusion of the wave... only serves to solidify its appearance as a wave absent an ocean. I know that, on the surface, this may sound contradictory to some. But I can only speak to my own experience that this is so.