|
Post by frankshank on Feb 20, 2011 10:34:45 GMT -5
I'm glad you've addressed this Bob. Being a lightweight I haven't looked into the differences between neo and traditional advaita before (I get your point regarding the unfair labelling). I had a look online last night as besides what Michael stated in his post, Peter mentioned personal improvement yesterday & there have been numerous posters who have had a dig about this site having a leaning towards neo advaita. I found a pretty scathing article online: www.enlightened-spirituality.org/neo-advaita.htmlWhat do you think? I'm pretty retarded when it comes to this stuff. Even more retarded than usual lol. I don't get how, if there is no personal self (as seems to be confirmed in traditional advaita teachings), people can work to improve themselves and will be judged when returned to source based on choices made.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 20, 2011 13:40:53 GMT -5
Yes although a mystery, from my perspective there are patterns worth considering. For example a 20-something year old, may naturally take less time than a 40-something year old, to assimilate all that is necessary for completion, as there will be less layers of worldly interference to get inside of. A mind that is more pliable and open to investigating what nowness is really talking about, is crucial. It also appears rationally minded, to allow the comprehensible idea, that future generations will not associate with the world as we have done. Sharon: I fully agree, and have often made the same point. At the age of sixteen, when Ramana had his breakthrough experience, there was probably a whole lot less intellectual "stuff" to get rid of than what a forty-year old thinker carries around as baggage. Krishnamurti, as a boy, used to sit for hours watching the happenings surrounding an old pond. This informal habit of attending the actual probably had a lot to do with his subsequent awakening. He was thought to be somewhat slow and a bit odd by his young contemporaries, but he simply had other interests than they did. The universe manifests in a wide variety of ways. Hui Neng was a young illiterate woodcutter who chopped wood all day. It is very likely that he pursued this activity with very little intellectual reflection. Thus, he may have been ripe to instantly grasp the truth when he heard that one line of the Diamond Sutra spoken by a priest. As non-duality achieves a wider and wider audience, it is entirely possible that future generations may relate to the world in a totally different way. In the past I conducted some experimental science classes for fourth graders to show the students that there is a difference between the actual and the imaginary. The students grasped the teaching within five minutes, but the parents who were observing the class had no comprehension of what was going on and appeared totally mystified by what they saw. It was a graphic illustration of how young minds, only slightly fettered by traditional conditioning, could grasp the truth almost instantly compared with their "educated" parents.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Feb 20, 2011 14:06:35 GMT -5
Nice one ~ yeah, to put it simply, if a child never falls asleep then the waking up process, becomes, something completely different entirely ... ?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 20, 2011 14:34:48 GMT -5
I'm glad you've addressed this Bob. Being a lightweight I haven't looked into the differences between neo and traditional advaita before (I get your point regarding the unfair labelling). I had a look online last night as besides what Michael stated in his post, Peter mentioned personal improvement yesterday & there have been numerous posters who have had a dig about this site having a leaning towards neo advaita. I found a pretty scathing article online: www.enlightened-spirituality.org/neo-advaita.htmlWhat do you think? I'm pretty retarded when it comes to this stuff. Even more retarded than usual lol. I don't get how, if there is no personal self (as seems to be confirmed in traditional advaita teachings), people can work to improve themselves and will be judged when returned to source based on choices made. Frank: That's one of the better articles I've read about this issue, and some of the complaints are legitimate to some degree. I'll try to explicate some of the related issues in the future, but until I have the time to do so, the best advice I can give is to use common sense, think for yourself, be skeptical of all claims, and search until you find the living truth for yourself. I have a lot of direct experience with several non-dual traditions, and I have met a lot of teachers along the way, so I have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly, and I could write a book on this one issue if I were so inclined (which I'm not). I tend to give most non-dual teachers the benefit of the doubt unless they do something or say something that causes me to question their attainment. Maybe I'm not discriminative enough. LOL. AAR, I'll try to write more about this in the future, and maybe E. and some other folks can add to the discussion as it proceeds. I've already alluded to the fact that one's cultural conditioning often plays a significant role in one's teaching style, and perhaps more needs to be said about this issue. The reincarnation issue, as it is commonly presented, seems utterly inane to me, based upon my existential experiences, but I didn't grow up in a culture where that idea holds sway. I grew up in a culture that believes in a heaven where streets are paved with gold, and people who have certain prescribed beliefs are going to get a big reward, and that strikes me as even more inane (if that's possible). More about this later........
|
|
|
Post by frankshank on Feb 20, 2011 15:58:36 GMT -5
No worries Bob, I appreciate it's a massive subject. Your response has helped. As for the good, the bad, and the ugly, it's a great title for a book!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 20, 2011 16:35:19 GMT -5
I'm glad you've addressed this Bob. Being a lightweight I haven't looked into the differences between neo and traditional advaita before (I get your point regarding the unfair labelling). I had a look online last night as besides what Michael stated in his post, Peter mentioned personal improvement yesterday & there have been numerous posters who have had a dig about this site having a leaning towards neo advaita. I found a pretty scathing article online: www.enlightened-spirituality.org/neo-advaita.htmlWhat do you think? I'm pretty retarded when it comes to this stuff. Even more retarded than usual lol. I don't get how, if there is no personal self (as seems to be confirmed in traditional advaita teachings), people can work to improve themselves and will be judged when returned to source based on choices made. I'm pretty retarded too, and I got distracted by my toes half way through the article. Hehe. Anyhoo, there can't really be a problem with any of it. In the largest sense, wherever the focus of Consciousness lands, it creates, and so it creates teachings in many different forms to play out that interest. How can we say that this focus of attention is wrong and should be happening some other way? If attention lands on a boundary, that boundary has to be explored and not bypassed. It's not even necessary to say we should engage critical thinking for our discernment, since if there is an interest in critical thinking it will also happen. Likewise, the interest in teaching about how we should discern the differences in the teachings is also a focus of interest that 'needs' to happen or it wouldn't be happening. So here I'm probly sounding like some sort of non-traditional neo-advaitist saying it's all good and everything is happening the way it's happening because that's what's happening and how could it be happening some other way than how it's happening? I can't help it. It's so dang obvious to me that this is what is happening that I can't maintain an interest in an article that analyses the differences between teachings in an effort to derive some sort of conclusion about who should be chased out of the temple. On the other hand, I'm also fully aware that all of these various interests can and will be accommodated. If somebody says something that is clearly coming from a place of unconsciousness, they don't need pointers to Absolute Truth, they need pointers to their own unconsciousness. If somebody is confused by Truth pointers, they need conceptual clarification rather than a beating with a Zen stick. The irony, perhaps, is that the 'Neo' approach is telling the anti-neo-advaitists that it's all perfect and it's very simple, which draws the attention of those who don't think it's all perfect and must be very complicated, which of course is perfect.
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Feb 20, 2011 17:46:36 GMT -5
The minds absolutely creatively relentless, at distracting the 'awareness' from simply being the observer of the mind and thoughts, into becoming the mind generated thought, itself. In this case, critical thinking. If my self consciousness, returns to the thinking mind, it's because A) it got caught through conditioning or B) I'm using controlled folly to play a role. Either way, that which is real, remains as it is and that which is an expression of 'the mind', is seen as such, a relative reality to the truth of what I am. Not much of a bother, either way... ...unless the role chases me back sooner than later.
|
|
|
Post by frankshank on Feb 20, 2011 18:23:18 GMT -5
E: Thanks for that. There were a few things that struck me as missing the point when I read the article. One in particular being the claim that compassion is lacking in the neo advaita movement. I know Bob doesn't want to be categorized, which is fair enough, but I'd say you two help people a great deal, choice or no choice, and do it in a very balanced fair way. Sometimes it's very direct but I like that. It's a no BS style, which suits me. I don't want to go round hugging people, chanting etc.. I want the bare bones truth with no BS. The idea that what I do in this life will be judged at the end of my life makes no sense to me. Based on my changeability if nothing else I know there's no me to be judged. Perhaps believing in the old karma thing does result in people doing more good deeds, I don't know. It has a strong whiff of fantasy to me though.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 20, 2011 18:48:39 GMT -5
Yeah, I agree with the judgment/karma deally. Seems that the 'eastern tradition' is steeped in a traditional religious framework as well, and so the approach is culturally oriented just as the 'neo' teaching is more suited to the Western 'fast food/non-nonsense' culture. It's fine.
As I say, I didn't finish the article, but often there is the subtle implication that 'traditional Advaita' has been cranking out enlightened dudes right and left, and of course that never happened. The teaching has a miserable 'track record' no matter what form it takes cause Awakening just doesn't work that way.
|
|
|
Post by frankshank on Feb 20, 2011 19:09:28 GMT -5
It was stated in the article that the neo advaita crowd tend to get stuck in stage 2 of the enlightenment process; I don't know whether you read that. Stage 2 being: "the utter dropping or relaxing of all sense of self or world". Stage 3 (final): "The third stage in this Zen model refers to the “intrinsic/natural oneness” of sahaja samâdhi wherein the sage lovingly honors and responsibly interacts with a world of beings, promoting their wellbeing and awakening from the selfish dream of “me.” Such action spontaneously flows, however, from a nondual intuition of nonseparation from the world and no distorting presumption of an alienated, addictive, or aversive “me”-self."
They then followed up with "In its presentation of spiritual teaching, neo-advaita stumbles badly here, falling into the “dark cavern” of second-stage “no mountains, no rivers.” Indeed, it is actually an even stranger state of nihilism that neo-advaita falls into--i.e., denying the relative reality and meaningfulness of “persons”; denying any Divine purpose or plan to life; denying the validity of any and all phenomena, including moral distinctions between help and harm, virtuous morality and selfish sinfulness, ego-free behavior and egocentric behavior. In this way, neo-advaita nihilistically stays stuck in a strange “no man’s zone” which at best can only be considered an intermediate, deconstructive level of spiritual development."
I can get that the neos aren't going to save the world in stage 3 but they tend to pass the "no mountains, no rivers" part of the process don't they?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 20, 2011 19:27:37 GMT -5
Well, i think they do, or they wouldn't be talking to nonexistent people at all, and I really shouldn't be talking about this issue at all since I don't even know who these teachers are that are referred to. I'm pretty sure one can find a 'teacher' who doesn't teach beyond 'stage two' because that's where they are.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Feb 20, 2011 19:33:00 GMT -5
I don't know that it is 'passed' ~ it's not the completed aspect. The 'no mountains, no rivers' analogy is seen here as the states of samadhi ~ oneness ~ no self. There is no other and therefore no mountain or river. It really is all one.
Though the mountain must return, to being a mountain again, and the river be a river, with the knowledge fully processed that the mountain nor the river have ever been or can ever be separate again ... yeah?
|
|
|
Post by frankshank on Feb 20, 2011 20:24:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 20, 2011 22:09:16 GMT -5
Okay, this time I didn't get too distracted counting my toes. I understand the disagreement but I say they are different approaches for different levels of understanding, and the 'Neo' approach is being misunderstood by Dennis.
Dennis: "Seeking is valid at the level of the person – it is not a myth. The Open Secret may recognise “the relative as the absolute appearing and form as formlessness” and know that “ everything is already the unconditional expression of wholeness, including the belief that it isn’t ” but, unfortunately, the seeker doesn’t. We have to begin from where we believe ourselves to be. Even those would-be seekers who go to Tony Parson’s talks believe themselves to be separate, suffering individuals and are looking for guidance. The fact that neo-advaita offers no guidance does not alter this fact. Traditional advaita also maintains that the Self is already non-dual and free. The difference is that it acknowledges that the seeker nevertheless believes himself to be a separate entity as a result of error and the only way that this misconception can be corrected is by recognition of this error. This usually results from guidance by a suitably qualified teacher."
To say seeking is valid at the level of the person is to validate the personal level, and Tony is trying to say this personal level is not valid. The experience is valid, but it is not happening to a person and so the seeking that results from the belief that it IS valid, is not valid.
When he says "Unfortunately, the seeker doesn't know that everything is the absolute appearing as form", this is actually the point of telling the supposed seeker that.
"Beginning from where we believe ourselves to be" is fine (and inevitable) but how is one to change that belief if the notion of a seeker who is to attain enlightenment is reinforced by the teacher? At what point does the teaching change from the religious notion of 'seek and ye shall find' to 'an error has been made and there is no seeker and you cannot find anything'? Perhaps this is a major difficulty with traditional Advaita in that the teacher, once he begins pandering to the imaginary seeker, cannot suddenly shift gears and point clearly and directly at what is actually true.
The teaching does not claim to offer guidance to a seeker because this validates the illusion that the teaching is trying to break through. The students who attend know this or they would not be so foolish as to attend. They are trying to see through that very illusion that seems to establish them as seekers. Guidance IS in fact being offered as pointers to what IS, but not to the person in a prescriptive way.
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Feb 20, 2011 23:45:46 GMT -5
I don't know that it is 'passed' ~ it's not the completed aspect. The 'no mountains, no rivers' analogy is seen here as the states of samadhi ~ oneness ~ no self. There is no other and therefore no mountain or river. It really is all one. Though the mountain must return, to being a mountain again, and the river be a river, with the knowledge fully processed that the mountain nor the river have ever been or can ever be separate again ... yeah? If you believe in oneness, I must be the mountain, that I am aware of. The alternative is, that if I am aware of a mountain, there must 'be' a mountain, separate from me. If oneness prevails, the mountain must also posses the capability of being aware of me. If the alternative prevails, the mountain is nothing more than a conglomerate of organic and mineral compounds. Which scenario seems the most plausible to you?
|
|