Lucky7Strikes Posted May 18, 2009 I would like a general response from the bums on the current teachings of Neo-Advaita. There are many modern teachers who present the Advaita philosophy in the total sense of "there's nothing to be done, there's no one here, there's nothing to realize...etc." Although the teaching seems sound, I can't but get a feeling that it is also a trap or someone declaring an absolutist view and subjecting everything into it. . Here's a list of few of the many teachers out there today and a link to Tony Parson's speaking. Opinions, please!  http://www.advaita.org.uk/reading/read_neo.htm  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5-zMV1x6q0...feature=related Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goldisheavy Posted May 19, 2009 I would like a general response from the bums on the current teachings of Neo-Advaita. There are many modern teachers who present the Advaita philosophy in the total sense of "there's nothing to be done, there's no one here, there's nothing to realize...etc." Although the teaching seems sound, I can't but get a feeling that it is also a trap or someone declaring an absolutist view and subjecting everything into it. . Here's a list of few of the many teachers out there today and a link to Tony Parson's speaking. Opinions, please!  http://www.advaita.org.uk/reading/read_neo.htm  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5-zMV1x6q0...feature=related  Is this a double post? I seem to remember the same theme appearing elsewhere. In any case...  What is or is not a trap depends on a lot of factors.  For example, let's say you are going to the music store. Is music store a trap? Nope. But if you fell into an open manhole on you way to the music store, you'd be trapped. Being trapped signifies being unable to reach your destination. This is important. Because there can be no talk of traps without some sense of destination, or some kind of desired state of things.  So let's say you arrive at the music store. Great! Let's say you are happy and you're ready to leave, but suddenly you find the doors have closed and you cannot get out. Is it a trap? NOW it is a trap. It's a trap now because you have a new destination, and the store keeps you from reaching it.  So at one point, not being able to get to the music store is to be trapped. At other point, not being able to exit from it is also a trap. But neither the manhole nor the music store are inherently traps in and of themselves. If you want to do something inside the manhole, it's not a trap to end up in the manhole.  You need to refine your understanding in contemplation. Don't just jump to conclusions. Examine matters. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky7Strikes Posted May 19, 2009 Is this a double post? I seem to remember the same theme appearing elsewhere. In any case... Â What is or is not a trap depends on a lot of factors. Â For example, let's say you are going to the music store. Is music store a trap? Nope. But if you fell into an open manhole on you way to the music store, you'd be trapped. Being trapped signifies being unable to reach your destination. This is important. Because there can be no talk of traps without some sense of destination, or some kind of desired state of things. Â So let's say you arrive at the music store. Great! Let's say you are happy and you're ready to leave, but suddenly you find the doors have closed and you cannot get out. Is it a trap? NOW it is a trap. It's a trap now because you have a new destination, and the store keeps you from reaching it. Â So at one point, not being able to get to the music store is to be trapped. At other point, not being able to exit from it is also a trap. But neither the manhole nor the music store are inherently traps in and of themselves. If you want to do something inside the manhole, it's not a trap to end up in the manhole. Â You need to refine your understanding in contemplation. Don't just jump to conclusions. Examine matters. Â Yes, it was an accidental post. Â The thread was not intended to discuss what is a trap or not. Although that would have been valid if you related it somehow to Neo-Advaita. The intentions of certain words should be examined wholly. So... Â You need to refine your understanding in contemplation. Don't just jump to conclusions. Examine matters. . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dizzydazzle Posted May 19, 2009 (edited) I would like a general response from the bums on the current teachings of Neo-Advaita. There are many modern teachers who present the Advaita philosophy in the total sense of "there's nothing to be done, there's no one here, there's nothing to realize...etc." Although the teaching seems sound, I can't but get a feeling that it is also a trap or someone declaring an absolutist view and subjecting everything into it. . Here's a list of few of the many teachers out there today and a link to Tony Parson's speaking. Opinions, please!  http://www.advaita.org.uk/reading/read_neo.htm  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5-zMV1x6q0...feature=related   You may want to read Dennis Waite's 5000 years of Advaita. He discusses the various schools of neo-advaita like those of Nisargadutta Maharaj, Adyashanti, Poonaji etc., their approach, shortcomings and advantages.  Nothing really can replace studying an original classic like Advaita Siddhi or Brahmasutra bhashya of acharya shankara. Edited May 19, 2009 by dizzydazzle Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
