Have U A Moment? Then please read this...

[Bindi]

Neo advaita is woven into her perspective, and looking into her history neo advaita, radical non-dualism and Western satsang are where she developed her understanding.

 

Who gets to define spirituality is important, and I will fight against neo advaita being the Western standard.

 

Advaita Vedanta is the longer more authentic road.

[Marblehead]

Are we allowed to forge our own path?

[Bindi]

Are we allowed to forge our own path?

 

That is your inalienable right.

[Jeff]

Neo advaita is woven into her perspective, and looking into her history neo advaita, radical non-dualism and Western satsang are where she developed her understanding.

 

Who gets to define spirituality is important, and I will fight against neo advaita being the Western standard.

 

Advaita Vedanta is the longer more authentic road.

More authentic then what? Longer road... what do you mean by that?

[Bindi]

More authentic then what? Longer road... what do you mean by that?

 

Advaita Vedanta is more authentic than neo advaita. Neo advaita says call off the search, you are already 'it'. Advaita Vedanta says keep going until you discover the true Self.

 

It is a shorter road to say I am already 'it' than to painstakingly remove all the 'I am not it' bits.

[doc benway]

I enjoyed Joan's description of her personal experience and perspective.

In my opinion, she makes some very valid and useful points.

I also acknowledge and respect Bindi's criticism of neo-Advaita.

 

What is missing for me in Joan's discussion, and what may bridge the gap between Advaita and neo-Advaita, is the warmth, the love, the bliss. It can often be lacking in Buddhist discussion as well as neo-Advaita (at least for my taste), leading to an emphasis on emptiness that borders on nihilism. In neo-Advaita it gives the impression that before and after are identical. Life goes on, nothing changes, nothing was ever any different. From the absolute perspective that may arguably be the case but from a relative perspective it is not. That's clearly not present in Buddhism but the difference is often not emphasized. Joan touches eloquently on the inseparability of the relative and absolute and relative truths but I also feel something is lacking in her article, there is little warmth.

 

I once read  a book called Dirty Enlightenment by Peter Brown and recall at the end thinking, well that was a good, albeit repetitive, description of the non-dual experience but where is the love?! I get the same feeling when reading things by folks like Steven Harrison. Many people have direct non-dual experience. It may seem like - this is it! Nowhere else to go.

Life goes on and is anything changed in one's life and relationships? If not, is there any value in all this spiritual stuff at all?

 

I recently saw an article that discussed how people find themselves losing connection to many friends, family, and loved ones after their spiritual "awakening." If awakening is costing us friends and relationships, are we really as awake as we think we are?

 

The Bönpo teachings and the Mahayana teachings are pointing at something very profound and valuable that goes beyond the relatively simple and somewhat common experience and understanding of non-duality. The Advaita Vedanta masters point to it as well although their language is more "religious" using words and concepts like God and divinity and so forth. If we don't allow ourselves to be too put off theoretically by the God or Oneness concepts (I prefer the madhyamika theory personally but feel it can be paused for a moment for this discussion); for me they are pointing at a similar blossoming of unconditional love and warmth, the Great Bliss. When we truly feel that non-dual nature, we feel a connection to all living things that is powerful. Even the words Great Bliss can be off-putting as sometimes is a subtle warmth and needs to be cared for and cultivated patiently. This is something that may be glimpsed along with non-duality but generally is not always there ever after like turning on a light switch. It is something that can be cultivated and can make an enormous difference in the quality of our lives "before" and "after." When I truly feel that non-dual nature, I feel your pain, I feel your joy. There is no mine and yours, there is simply pain and joy. And I still feel.

 

The other point that Bindi makes is also valid. Authenticity carries with it some degree of authority. I don't mean that in the sense of giving up my autonomy and not thinking for myself but more in the sense of having some degree of trust and confidence in the path. The path may have lots of twists and turns. It may often feel uncomfortable. Having a connection to a wisdom tradition that has been clarified, refined, and has withstood the test of time can inspire confidence, trust, and devotion, qualities that provide the necessary fuel for making major life changes.

 

Thank you CT - the article is excellent and full of good points for those of us who can find ourselves grasping at enlightenment and teachers as real and substantial and out of reach. On the other hand, I agree with Bindi that this is not a comprehensive guide to the nature of enlightenment (and I don't think you do either, CT, nor did you bill it as such).

 

This is a nice discussion of a valuable subject and I hope it continues.  

 

_/\_

Edited January 17, 2017 by steve

[C T]

As I see it, there isn’t so much to do. Just be ordinary — put on your robes, eat your food, and pass the time doing nothing.

 

Perhaps on some level there is a shared commonality between neo-advaita and Chan Buddhism according to Linji Yixuan, founder of the Linji School (quoted above), yet Linji Yixuan has a fierce reputation for vigorous hitting and shouting at students as a means to cut through and remove the defects of conceptual grasping. 

[liminal_luke]

There`s a necessary tension between the view of life where we want things to be different than they are (relative perspective), and the view of life where we recognize inherent as-is perfection (absolute perspective).  And neither view is "wrong."  From a relative perspective, we do all sorts of practices in order to become enlightened, and from an absolute perspective there`s nothing to do because we`re already there (although perhaps we don`t know it).  So which is it?

 

I believe the answer is both, always both.  For me, that`s the takeaway from the article.  After enlightenment the mountain is both the same and different than it was before enlightenment.  Of course this doesn`t make sense and isn`t really possible, but I`m ok with that -- nothing really true makes sense or is possible, so this doesn`t surprise me.

 

This is a very practical kind of wisdom.  For instance: my partner has a mental illness that leads him to act in ways I don`t like.  He`ll often stay in bed all day and that bugs me.  Am I right that staying in bed all day is "bad" and that he needs to change?  Like our proverbial mountain it`s both and neither.  When I`m stuck in the relativistic view, I feel unsatisfied with his behavior and try to fix him, which doesn`t work.  If I flee into the absolute, and say everything is already good, well, that doesn`t work either: he continues to suffer.

 

Change becomes a possibility only when I can give up trying to fix.  That`s the paradox.  Acceptance of things as they are (an absolute view) is what allows relative change.  When I see my partner as already whole, already good enough just as he is, then there`s space and freedom for change.  It`s a way of bringing the absolute to bear on the relative, in a way that honors both.

 

Whew...hopefully this makes sense to somebody.  Not sure if Joan would agree with me or not, of course, but this is what I got from her writing.  Thanks for reading.

[C T]

Well said, Liminal Luke. 

 

You said: Wisdom has to be both practical and all-inclusive. For it to be thus, both relative and absolute positions have to be condensed into one to avoid being stuck in either one. As its stated in the Hsin-hsin Ming, "If the mind makes no discrimination, the ten thousand things are as they are, of single essence."