Neo-Advaita

[Lucky7Strikes]

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

[ralis]

Neo-Advaita has been here in Santa Fe starting with Gangaji since the early 90's. Every week there is some new enlightened one coming to town.

 

Their view is a misunderstanding of Ramana's work. Their arguments about "nothing to do" and "no one there" etc. are based on nihilism and beg the question. Humans are masters at trying to create philosophies from their own anthropocentric points of view. Does that make those views universal and absolute?

 

Recently I have seen Neo-Advaita arguments used to explain Dzogchen.

 

Seems to me that the only one's with "nothing to do" are the Neo-Advaita teachers who are supported by their followers with plenty of donations. Looks like the same old trip! LOL!!

 

 

ralis

[Lucky7Strikes]

Neo-Advaita has been here in Santa Fe starting with Gangaji since the early 90's. Every week there is some new enlightened one coming to town.

 

Their view is a misunderstanding of Ramana's work. Their arguments about "nothing to do" and "no one there" etc. are based on nihilism and beg the question. Humans are masters at trying to create philosophies from their own anthropocentric points of view. Does that make those views universal and absolute?

 

Recently I have seen Neo-Advaita arguments used to explain Dzogchen.

 

Seems to me that the only one's with "nothing to do" are the Neo-Advaita teachers who are supported by their followers with plenty of donations. Looks like the same old trip! LOL!!

ralis

 

Although I somewhat agree with you, I think one should be hesitant in quickly dismissing the claims of the Neo-Advaita teachings as mere plagiarism or misunderstanding. They do carry the basic idea of traditional ideas of non dualism that everything is as is. So what is the need for cultivation then? Isn't non dualism at bottom a totally nihilist view in itself?

 

You mention an interesting point on anything being universal and absolute. Lol...the hell does anything being absolute mean anyway, right?

 

Instead of criticizing the teachers (which is a very valid thing to do), I believe one should attack the ideas they present foremost. To the Neo-Advaita teachers, their actions are totally justifiable and in accords with their own teachings. Well, if you could call it teachings...

[dwai]

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

 

Why opt for "Neo" anything if the original thing is already perfect?

[Lucky7Strikes]

Why opt for "Neo" anything if the original thing is already perfect?

 

For conversation sakes, the modern Advaita teachers teach a different approach to nondual philosophy than the more traditional sense of "achieving" enlightenment. But that's really besides the point.

 

To anyone reading, please post! This is a serious concern today as more and more "enlightened" Advaita teachers are emerging today.

[goldisheavy]

"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.

 

I think the problem you have is your own narrow understanding.

 

For example, when you hear "there is nothing to be done" what do you imagine? I bet you imagine you should sit and refrain from moving, right? Or maybe you imagine you should continue the same routine as you always have? Right? But is that really the meaning? Or is there a larger meaning?

 

I think there is a larger meaning. There being nothing to do means that the urgency is gone. But what about playful activity? Let's say you enjoy playing. Should you stop? Nope... nothing to do also means nothing to stop doing. In particular, putting an end to something natural is a doing. On the other hand, if some routines are unnatural and lead to suffering, stopping them is not a doing. The opposite is the case: perpetuating something that's hard to do, that leads to suffering, now that's a doing. That's the kind of doing you don't have to do. But you can. If you still want to.

 

And that's another thing. There is nothing to do, does it mean we must do nothing, or does it mean that we don't HAVE to do anything, but if we want to, we still can? I think the latter is the case.

 

So everything depends on your own mind. If you're narrow minded and stubborn, a non-contemplator, then you need many specific step-by-step directions, you need goals, you need brainwashing to function. But if you're a responsible person who contemplates, who thinks critically, and if you have a broad mind and large understanding, there is nothing to do, and that's OK. It's not a limiting teaching. It's a teaching that's mean to take down the limits, not to create limits.

 

But in the small mind, a sky-wide teaching like "there is nothing to do" seems oddly limiting. That's because the mind sees its reflection in everything. A tiny mind sees constricted tininess even in the sky. But a wide mind doesn't need directions, doesn't need to be told what to do. And it can see wide open space in everything. Even imperatives are like suggestions of possibilities rather than orders of how it will be.

 

For conversation sakes, the modern Advaita teachers teach a different approach to nondual philosophy than the more traditional sense of "achieving" enlightenment. But that's really besides the point.

 

That's patently false. Read Avadhuta Gita and see for yourself. It states over and over, in every section, that there is nothing to attain. Avadhuta Gita is an old, fucking old teaching.

Edited May 18, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Lucky7Strikes]

For example, when you hear "there is nothing to be done" what do you imagine? I bet you imagine you should sit and refrain from moving, right? Or maybe you imagine you should continue the same routine as you always have? Right? But is that really the meaning? Or is there a larger meaning?

 

I don't imagine that one should sit and refrain from moving. The core teaching is that there is "no one" to do the action in the first place. You have no choice in the matters of doing or not doing. The action is simply done without the doer.

 

I think there is a larger meaning. There being nothing to do means that the urgency is gone. But what about playful activity? Let's say you enjoy playing. Should you stop? Nope... nothing to do also means nothing to stop doing. In particular, putting an end to something natural is a doing. On the other hand, if some routines are unnatural and lead to suffering, stopping them is not a doing. The opposite is the case: perpetuating something that's hard to do, that leads to suffering, now that's a doing. That's the kind of doing you don't have to do. But you can. If you still want to.

 

And that's another thing. There is nothing to do, does it mean we must do nothing, or does it mean that we don't HAVE to do anything, but if we want to, we still can? I think the latter is the case.

 

I think it has nothing to do with urgency. Hmm...your message on doing and not doing is kind of confusing here (as it should be ) What exactly is the difference between "doing" and "not doing?" The Advaita view proposes that since there is no "doer" no action is done, it only is being. So it's not a question of you can or you can't. Or perhaps it is....?

 

So everything depends on your own mind. If you're narrow minded and stubborn, a non-contemplator, then you need many specific step-by-step directions, you need goals, you need brainwashing to function. But if you're a responsible person who contemplates, who thinks critically, and if you have a broad mind and large understanding, there is nothing to do, and that's OK. It's not a limiting teaching. It's a teaching that's mean to take down the limits, not to create limits.

 

When one needs goals, is not that goal already actualized in that person having a goal? What does it matter for one to have a broader mind to contemplate. What is there to contemplate over the matter when one becomes convinced that there is no one comtemplating? And yes! I agree that the teaching is meant to take down the limits, or to broaden them to an extent. But then what? Many critics of the Neo Advaita movement suggest that the teaching ends/is stuck at this stage of destruction. Is liberation to laugh on top of the rubble?

 

That's patently false. Read Avadhuta Gita and see for yourself. It states over and over, in every section, that there is nothing to attain. Avadhuta Gita is an old, fucking old teaching.

 

The Avadhuta Gita does say that there is nothing to attain, that you are already the Truth. Yet it also declares, "The avadhuta never knows any mantra in Vedic metre nor any tantra. This is the supreme utterance of the avadhuta, purified by meditation and merged in the sameness of infinite Being."

Edited May 19, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

Edited May 19, 2009 by xabir2005

[dwai]

[xabir2005]

It is the same as Wu-wei...Nishkama karma.

Wei wu wei. (i.e. action without action, or nondual action) is more complete

 

There's a good article by David Loy: Wei-wu-wei: Nondual action

 

If consciousness of self is the ultimate source of unnatural action, then natural action must be that in which there is no such self-consciousness -- in which there is no awareness of the agent as being distinct from "his" act.

Edited May 19, 2009 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

Edited May 19, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

The action and doing happen so along with the creation of the "doer." When the "doer" arises with the action, can one certainly say that there is no "doer"? Or that there is?

Action and doing is dependently originated along with causes, conditions, various factors (including past imprints, habits, intentions, and so called 'external' influences).

 

There is no agent or doer, just spontaneous happenings. But at the same time the arising is not without causes and conditions -- it is dependently originated. The entire interdependent universe is giving its very best for this moment of experience to arise.

If there is just spontaneously arising, what action is done? Is there even the transition from one thing to another (hence action)? Yet it is conceived to be so, so how can there be no truth in that?

There is just what is done.

 

There is happenings but no movement, and no separate perceiver to perceive movement and linkage. Just this, and this, and this. There is change, but no changing 'thing'.

When one says that there is no entity behind the action, who does perceive so but the entity himself? Isn't negation of "it is not" an affirmation in itself?

Nobody perceives, there is just perception.

 

This: On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection

 

and

 

This:

 

Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Experience on Spiritual Enlightenment

 

is a good read.

Edited May 19, 2009 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Isn't negation of "it is not" an affirmation in itself?

This is where the distinction between advaita and buddhism lies, because in Buddhism our teaching is free of the 4 extremes (existence, non-existence, both and neither) and is not known by negation of 'neti neti'.

 

That said this is probably beyond the scope of this topic.

Edited May 19, 2009 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

Xabir, what is your view on cultivation and practice?

[goldisheavy]

Nope. There is action and doing, just no 'doer'.

 

This is a matter of taste. I wouldn't stake my life on this assertion.

[ralis]

[xabir2005]

Xabir, what is your view on cultivation and practice?

Our nature is already self perfected from the beginning. You can't make it more than what already is. Awareness always is. Buddha-nature already is. Emptiness already is. No-self already is.

 

Realising 'no self from beginning' has nothing to do with getting rid of ego. Practicing can't make awareness brighter than it already is. It is the 'insight' and 'realisation' of what already and always is that is important, not about reaching any altered or 'higher' states.

 

Yet... to reach this sudden realisation, takes a long time and practice, investigation, mindful awareness, etc. The Buddha taught about various factors for awakening and the 8 fold path leading to enlightenment.

 

In Buddhism we do not see arising without causes and conditions. Non-dual Awareness does not mean a lack of discernment of the causes and conditions of arising.

 

There's an article you can read: Why The Notion that You Cannot Become What You Already Are is Such Bullshit

Edited May 19, 2009 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Why can't you see what you are saying? Why not think through this semantic argument for yourself. Everyone here just repeats what they have been told, as if it were fact! Is self an entity? An object? Your use of the term self, confirms the object of self. Why not talk from your own experience? Why defer to a so called higher authority? Most of what is argued is nothing more than contradictions, hidden assumptions and just begs the question.

In direct experience, there is only appearances. No self-center could be found. No tangible object or entities etc can be found either. And this is the same for everyone.

If and only if, the premise is factual, therefore one must escape existence. Hence, all teachings are arguments that attempt to convince the follower of "no doer", "self as an entity does not exist" etc.

No doer and no self has nothing to do with escaping existence.

 

In fact, as Jeff Foster puts it:

 

there is only ever the present appearance of life, with no individual at its core who could ever escape even if they wanted to.

 

Therefore, if one believes in a non-objectified universe, "no self" etc. then one will extinguish one's existence.

No self has nothing to do with non existence. That is an extreme. No-self means a self center at the core of life, that is the 'doer' of actions, observer of things, etc. cannot be found. There is instead only action, only scenery and sounds and taste and touch and smells and thoughts, without a separate observer/hearer/seer/thinker.

 

Emptiness also has nothing to do with not seeing and hearing things. There is hearing and seeing, but what is seen and heard are merely appearances -- like the mirage off the ocean, nothing tangible, graspable, locatable. Nothing 'out there' even though it appears so, so to speak.

 

Like a vivid red flower that appears to be out there yet is not really out there -- dogs only see black flower, other realms may see something altogether different, we see 99.999% void if given quantum eyesight. The apparent solidity and objectivity of 'redness' and 'flower' is really just an illusion. There is merely appearances without objective reality and solidity. The entire interdependent universe is giving rise the vivid sight of 'red flower' yet nothing solid. It is dependently originated, and thus empty of any inherent existence.

 

So -- emptiness is not life denying, it just means the solidity, inherency, we posit to phenomena and self is simply not there, unlocatable.

 

And dependent origination is not just a concept. As Namdrol states:

 

Dependent origination is what allows us to see into the non-arising nature of dependently originated phenomena, i.e. the self-nature of our aggregates. Thus, right view is the direct seeing, in meditative equipoise, of this this non-arising nature of all phenomena. As such, it is not a "view" in the sense that is something we hold as concept, it is rather a wisdom which "flows" into our post-equipoise and causes us to truly perceive the world in the following way in Nagarjuna's Bodhicittavivarana:

 

"Form is similar to a foam,

Feeling is like water bubbles,

Ideation is equivalent with a mirage,

Formations are similar with a banana tree,

Consciousness is like an illusion."

Edited May 19, 2009 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

Our nature is already self perfected from the beginning. You can't make it more than what already is. Awareness always is. Buddha-nature already is. Emptiness already is. No-self already is.

 

Realising 'no self from beginning' has nothing to do with getting rid of ego. Practicing can't make awareness brighter than it already is. It is the 'insight' and 'realisation' of what already and always is that is important, not about reaching any altered or 'higher' states.

 

 

There's an article you can read: Why The Notion that You Cannot Become What You Already Are is Such Bullshit

 

Thank you Xabir! That article was very relevant. I think I'll have to go through your entire blog before posting any further on your points. Otherwise this could go in circles due to the nature of language, which as you said earlier, should be addressed.