I discovered Advaita Vedanta recently, a couple of months ago. More recently, I have stumbled upon a "different" philosophy, the followers of which call "True Advaita". Yours is what they call "Neo Advaita", and of course they say it lacks truth, substance, and is a perversion of the "real thing". From what I can tell, "true" advaita requires me to basically quit my job, move to India, learn Sanskrit, and spend an undetermined amount of time sitting at the feet of a guru who also has dedicated his life to advaita. Since I don't really care to abandon my family or my career to become "realized", this caused me to basically abandon the idea of ever escaping the karmic cycle of rebirth in this lifetime. Maybe next time around.
But then I found your site. So here it is: Which advaita is true? Why? You speak of kindness as being the fruit of realization. If nothing is real, why be kind? You see where I'm going. Anything you can offer to help me figure this out is much appreciated.
Morgan: Hey Scott. My book "Blessed Disillusionment" was published recently and in it I have a chapter that quotes extensively from "Crest Jewel of Discrimination", a classical Advaita Vedanta text. I also suggest the Ashtavakra Gita to my readers. In it, I also say: "What in the hell is neo-Advaita? Advaita means not two, non-duality. So there is a new non-duality as opposed to an old one? Once again, thought makes distinctions where there are none."
Dennis Waite seems to be one of the people who coined the term "neo-Advaita" but I've emailed extensively with him and he admits that Sailor Bob and John Wheeler's approach has value for those who are ready and I couldn't agree more. It really comes down to seeing that seeking isn't getting one anywhere and that the wild goose chase could go on forever. Why not see what is here now instead of looking to an imaginary future for satisfaction?
Some say you have to study scripture and follow a guru for years before realization can happen but the respected sage Ramana Maharshi realized the Self at the ripe young age of 16 through self inquiry, without a guru. To me, "realization" means seeing past the arbitrary conceptual frameworks of thought to the common ground of "being/consciousness/bliss". The absolute is always present and appears as the world of form. Thought, one of the aspects of the world of form, describes what appears as being separate objects apart from a subject who sees but, in our own direct experience, we see the unity of consciousness and its objects. If they were isolated from each other, life would not be. It is all one unified movement--non-duality, Brahman, God, whatever we want to call it.
As a hobby, I have read a lot about cults. Often, in groups headed by a charismatic leader, you hear reports of abuses at the hands of this person who is supposed to be an enlightened being. It seems that this cruelty still shows that, deep down within them, they believe they are separate from and better than their followers. If you don't believe in this concept of "higher and lower", i.e.--duality, then you treat others with the same love and respect you would like to be shown. That is why I say kindness is the proof. Some talk about non-duality and high minded concepts but their abusiveness reflects that they still believe in the self idea (ego).
I don't claim to be an authority on these things, I just try to communicate how I see it. In the absence of belief in the divisions of thought, there is effortless oneness. This is our direct experience.
Dennis Waite seems to be one of the people who coined the term "neo-Advaita" but I've emailed extensively with him and he admits that Sailor Bob and John Wheeler's approach has value for those who are ready and I couldn't agree more. It really comes down to seeing that seeking isn't getting one anywhere and that the wild goose chase could go on forever. Why not see what is here now instead of looking to an imaginary future for satisfaction?
Some say you have to study scripture and follow a guru for years before realization can happen but the respected sage Ramana Maharshi realized the Self at the ripe young age of 16 through self inquiry, without a guru. To me, "realization" means seeing past the arbitrary conceptual frameworks of thought to the common ground of "being/consciousness/bliss". The absolute is always present and appears as the world of form. Thought, one of the aspects of the world of form, describes what appears as being separate objects apart from a subject who sees but, in our own direct experience, we see the unity of consciousness and its objects. If they were isolated from each other, life would not be. It is all one unified movement--non-duality, Brahman, God, whatever we want to call it.
As a hobby, I have read a lot about cults. Often, in groups headed by a charismatic leader, you hear reports of abuses at the hands of this person who is supposed to be an enlightened being. It seems that this cruelty still shows that, deep down within them, they believe they are separate from and better than their followers. If you don't believe in this concept of "higher and lower", i.e.--duality, then you treat others with the same love and respect you would like to be shown. That is why I say kindness is the proof. Some talk about non-duality and high minded concepts but their abusiveness reflects that they still believe in the self idea (ego).
I don't claim to be an authority on these things, I just try to communicate how I see it. In the absence of belief in the divisions of thought, there is effortless oneness. This is our direct experience.
Scott: What you say makes a lot of sense and resonates with me. It seems to be common sense. I already know what I am, what everything is, so what am I expecting to accomplish by more seeking?
Thank you so much!
2 comments:
What I see as "neo-advaita" are the ones who are looking for some blissed out experiential thing. Once in a while something mildly profound slips out of their mouths but most of the time they sound like dippy potheads, full of theory but no application.
I've moved on from Stephen Wolinsky, Jeff Foster, Scott Blum, Gangaji, Papaji, Nisgardatta Maharaj, and even Ramana Maharshi. With these last two, I believe they were just "naturals", people who just got it easily and naturally, but not necessarily qualified as teachers, I'm not so sure that either of them were even comfortable in the teacher/guru role.
Today, it seems like everyone who's had an "experience" thinks they're qualified to teach others. But like most things in life, their words come out mostly as one of those "had to be there" moments. Entirely subjective experiences are not "THE WAY".
To me, neo-advaita(ns) lack substance. They essentially deny the apparent reality of Maya which is silly. With no foundation of knowledge, they flirt dangerously close to the edge of nihilism which is a bad place to dwell for any length of time, based upon my own experience.
I have recently latched on to Swami Krishnanda and appreciate the depth of understanding I've received from his interpretations of Bhagavadgita and Panchadasi and other Vedic texts.
I also think any interested neos would do well to go beyond experience and understand that this all has a rational logical basis and that there is (pardon the term) scripture that is worth the time spent studying.
Since the discovery of what I call Orthodox Vedanta (that based upon the previously mentioned Vedic texts and others like Atma Darshan) I have pulled myself out of a nihilistic hole of nothingness and have a much better understanding and appreciation of life.
Atman is Brahman!
Brian
Hey Brian. I'm glad you've found something that works for you. As I said in "Which Advaita?", I find some of the classical texts to have an abundance of unclouded clarity. I haven't read any Swami Krishnanda so I can't comment on that though I would suggest that anyone who is interested look into it. I don't seek for truth in books or the sayings of others anymore. Not that it is bad (or avoidable) to do that but it seems that seeking is done here, at least for the moment.
In my view, no one is closer to truth/God than anyone else so the best place to look for "it" is here and now, the only place and time there is. If looking in a book happens that is fine too, why not? Nothing real is ever lost, nothing false is ever gained.
Regarding your closing comment, I have a chapter in my book entitled: "No Atman Apart From Brahman", so, agreed that there is no duality there. I also completely agree that subjective experiences are not "THE WAY". It seems much more essential to realize what it is that experiences. Douglas Harding had some great and novel suggestions of how to get a glimpse of "it".
I've said it before but I don't claim any special authority. I hope no one will take my word for anything as I may be entirely wrong. My viewpoint is no more "absolute" than anyone else's.
Thanks for commenting! Morgan.
Post a Comment