Traditional versus Neo-Advaita (Waite vs. Parsons)

[Reefs]

This is an interesting essay by Dennis Waite on this topic:

Traditional versus Neo-Advaita

Dennis Waite: The word ‘neo’ means ‘new’ so that ‘Neo-Advaita’ is an impossibility. Advaita means ‘not two’, referring to the non-dual reality that always was, is and will be - unchanging because change would necessarily be from one thing into another, which would be contradictory. There cannot, therefore, be an ‘old’ and a ‘new’ Advaita, only the one truth.

Having said that, Advaita is a concept, a philosophical term in a language which is necessarily dualistic, devised for use in this world-appearance in which ‘we’ seem to exist. This concept is intended to refer to the non-perceivable reality that underlies the appearance. And, to the extent that language is able to point to this reality (rather than ‘describe’ it, which is impossible), the words used by both traditional teachers of Advaita and by modern, ‘neo’, satsang teachers are essentially the same.

The approaches diverge, however, as soon as any attempt is made to rationalise the apparent world and ‘my’ seeming place in it with this non-dual reality. Traditional Advaita refers explicitly to a phenomenal level – vyavahAra – in which there appears to be objects and people, some of whom become seekers, following a path towards self-realisation. Neo-Advaitin teachers attempt to deny all of this, insisting upon the reality and only the reality – there is only ‘perception’ or ‘stories’; there is no one, no seeker, no doer and no path. There is nothing that could be done to lead a non-existent seeker towards something that already exists here and now.

The teaching of traditional Advaita is gradual. It begins from where we believe ourselves to be. It acknowledges an identification with the body-mind organism, desires and fears etc. and aims to educate and undermine this belief gradually, using unarguable logic and a variety of devices aimed at reducing the dominion of the ego. In contrast, Neo-Advaita attempts to force the truth of the matter upon an unprepared mind at the outset (denying indeed the very existence of a mind), offering no process of gradual discrimination or logical development. It says ‘this is it’ and that is that! The bewildered ego is possibly left with an intellectual acceptance that it doesn’t really exist but, in fact, it remains as strong as it ever was.

Every few months or so, an old friend of mine appears in my dreams. We talk, go places together and all seems perfectly normal. The only problem is that this friend has been dead for over thirty years. Of course, my waking ego is well aware of this but the dreaming ego is not. Nothing seems untoward in the dream. If a dream character were to come up to me and say: “Look here! This can’t be your friend because he is no longer alive.’, I would probably reply something to the effect of: ‘Rubbish! Look – I can see him right here. Do you think I can’t recognise him? I talk to him and he answers me in a perfectly intelligible manner. How can he possibly be dead?”

One of the metaphors used in classical Advaita in respect of enlightenment is that of the dream lion. The idea is that we continue along quite happily in the dream state, accepting all of the events as real no matter how silly they might later seem to the waker, and nothing in the dream serves to awaken us to the ‘reality’ of the waking world. But, should we come across a lion in the dream and it sees us, turns and charges, then we are very likely to awaken. It is said that, in a similar way, an event in our waking ‘dream’ can serve as a dream lion to awaken us to the true reality.

Now it seems to me that the teacher of Neo-Advaita is rather like the character in the dream who comes up to me and says that I must be imagining the person to whom I am clearly talking because he is dead. The information does not tally with my experience. It seems that no matter how much such a teacher talks about how things ‘really are’, how there is no person, no seeker, no liberation and so on, it is never going to make a difference because the everyday experience continues regardless and clearly refutes such assertions.

In contrast, the teaching and practices of traditional Advaita function like a dream termite, burrowing away almost imperceptibly at the foundations of our grand illusion until the whole edifice of ignorance is so riddled with knowledge-holes that it all comes tumbling down. It functions within the context of our actual experience gradually negating, for example, all of the things that we imagine ourselves to be. It provides exercises to discover that we do not act or do not originate our thoughts and so on. All of these things are artificial devices that are themselves part of the illusion but they work, slowly but surely, to loosen the grip of our misunderstandings.

The reality about which both teachings speak is the same – there is only one. And Neo-Advaita may even be better at this, since its adherents use the language of modern society and shun Sanskrit terms that may be confusing to western minds. But this seems to be all that Neo-Advaitins do. They deny the level of appearance in which everyone (probably including themselves) is trapped. They assert that there is nothing that can be done to remove the ignorance because ignorance itself is simply ‘part of the story’.

Traditional Advaita, in contrast, claims that the ignorance can be dispelled by knowledge, enabling the illusory snake to be seen for what it always was – a rope. And they claim that the mind can be prepared to accept this knowledge through practices such as the renunciation of the ego via bhakti yoga or the reduction of the ego’s power in the desireless action of karma yoga.

The attraction of Neo-Advaita is undeniable – there is nothing to do because there is no doer, no revelation to be discovered because this is it, here and now. We can stop seeking because there is no seeker and nothing to be sought. There is no need to learn Sanskrit, to spend a lifetime (or many lifetimes) studying with a teacher. Gaining more knowledge will not help, only hinder by virtue of deluding the ego into thinking it is making progress. Indeed, seeking itself serves only to reinforce the ego. Everything is already fine as it is. We just need to accept this.

But this is simply the restatement of the truth. It is the dream guru telling the dream disciple about the waking state. ‘The dream is fine’, he says. ‘It is simply an appearance in mind; both you (the dreaming ego) and the (dream) world are nothing but the mind itself’. True though all of this might be, it does not help awaken the dream disciple into realisation of the truth of the waker. It does not allow the waker to dissolve into the waking dream so that the dream world may simply be enjoyed as an elaborate construction in which Consciousness, the true Self, can never be affected. To that extent, it is ultimately of little value to the seeming seeker who wants precisely that – to enjoy the waking dream knowing that ‘he’ does not really exist, will never die etc. (Of course, in reality, nothing is of any value, as the Neo-Advaitin will be quick to point out, but then all of this discourse is at the level of appearance.)

There are also two significant dangers regarding the Neo-Advaita ‘movement’. Firstly, there is the clear possibility of charlatans who, having read a little or heard the fundamental elements of ‘descriptions’ of reality, can devise a few ‘routines’ of their own and then advertise themselves on the circuit. Providing that they are good speakers/actors, it is certainly possible to make a living from deceiving ‘seekers’ in such a way, without ever giving away their true lack of knowledge or the fact that they are no nearer any ‘realisation’ than their disciples.

Secondly, seekers themselves may be deluded into a belief that some specious realisation has been obtained when, in fact, all that has happened is that they have come to terms with some psychological problem that had been making life difficult. The ending of such suffering could well be seen as a ‘liberation’. Of course, such a thing would not be at all bad – it simply would have nothing to do with enlightenment. Indeed, such people might well go on to become teachers in their own right, not charlatans in the true sense of the word, since they genuinely believe that ‘realisation’ has taken place.

The use of the language of non-duality (e.g. avoiding use of the word ‘I’) cannot be relied upon to mean that the ego of such a speaker is dead. Indeed, an ego can quite happily put up with non-reference to itself when it thinks it is ‘realised’ whilst everyone else is not! (And conversely, of course, there is no need or desire to avoid the use of the word ‘I’ in the absence of an ego.)

This is not to say that these dangers do not also exist in traditional Advaita but it might at least be argued that someone who has spent many years studying scriptures, reading and attending classes etc. must at least not be in it just for the money! Also, several thousand years of traditional teachings have emphasised that preparation, in the form of acquiring knowledge of the truth, is of value. Such characteristics as renunciation, discrimination and self-restraint etc. are also advocated, topics which are most unlikely to be mentioned at the meetings with any Neo-Advaitin teacher. And is it surprising that many of the attendees of Neo-Advaita satsangs are simply not interested in any of this? Why bother to listen to all of the preparatory stuff when you can get the final message straight away? ‘Don’t bother telling me about arithmetic, I want to learn quantum mechanics!’

Finally, of course, the message given by the Neo-teachers is not the ultimate truth anyway, which can never be spoken of. The claim that ‘everything is a story’ is itself a story. I can only quote again, the message from Greg Goode that I used at the end of ‘The Book of One’:

“In Advaita Vedanta, there are various reductive stories and theories that are taught in a certain clever order. Each one reduces attachment to the previously-cherished metaphysical view. The ladder’s rungs get kicked out one by one. The goal is not to hang out on the highest rung (e.g. “It's all Consciousness” is one of the highest rungs in that teaching, and a sticky one) but to be free from the ladder. What actually gets said and believed about the nature of a ‘what’ is nothing but another ‘what’.”


www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/trad_neo/neo_advaita.htm

[Reefs]

Tony Parsons:

Traditional not two-ness is better than Neo not two-ness?

Tony Parsons: It seems that Dennis Waite and his fellow Traditional Advaitists have been challenging the validity of something they have decided to call “Neo Advaita” or, it has to be said, their particular interpretation of it!

I have been asked to comment because The Open Secret communication seems to have been their main target and so, of course, there can only be a response from this apparent “perception”.

So right away I am puzzled at any attempt to make a comparison between two perspectives which simply do not meet. Dennis Waite’s works are an excellent expression of the fundamental principles that generate the majority of traditional and contemporary dualistic teachings. They are, in simple terms, rooted in the belief that there is something called a seeker (one) that can attain something else called enlightenment (two). The Open Secret recognises the relative as the absolute appearing and form as formlessness . . . there is not two! And so, everything is already the unconditional expression of wholeness, including the belief that it isn’t.

Traditional Advaita is a teaching of becoming, The Open Secret is not, but it exposes the one primary misconception that is the mother of many others. It also attempts to describe the nature of “what is” rather than teach what should be.

It seems that Dennis Waite does not recognise the difference and continuously confirms his belief that there is an individual who can attain enlightenment.

So, I will not respond to these criticisms with any counter arguments, but will only try to demonstrate the futility of comparison.

Presuming that Dennis Waite accurately represents something he calls Traditional Advaita, he confirms his belief and experience in the reality of the constant existence of an individual with free will and the ability to choose and bring about consequence.

The Open Secret recognises that the belief and experience of a central “I” or a “me” or a “self” is an assumed inconstant state. Out of this one adopted belief in individuality arises many other beliefs, including self-autonomy, the story, time, purpose, destiny, deity and karma. Individuality is the transient appearance of wholeness seeming to be part of itself that feels separate from wholeness and can only apparently seek to be whole. But a part can never know the whole. It is a metaphor.

Dennis Waite believes and recommends that, in order to resolve the real and constant sense of separation and become enlightened, the individual should choose to follow a progressive spiritual path. This path involves practice, meditation, self-enquiry and the eradication of ego and ignorance through a clear understanding of the scriptures and the guidance of a teacher.

The Open Secret recognises that the above beliefs and recommendations are generated out of an assumed and inconstant sense of being a separate individual who needs to attain something called enlightenment. It is also recognised that an investment in the above recommendations can reinforce and maintain the assumed sense of being an individual who can resolve its sense of being separate.

Dennis Waite confirms that enlightenment is something that can be described in words, and attained and known by the individual mind when it acquires the knowledge that there is only a non-dual reality.

The Open Secret recognises that there is no such thing as enlightenment or liberation, or an individual that can become enlightened or liberated. These are all ideas that come and go within the individual story. When the assumed sense of being separate seems to collapse, already there is only the constant and unknowable wonder of being.

The Open Secret perception is that there is no such thing as a “mind”. Thinking seems to happen and sometimes thoughts formulate into belief systems which are still experienced sporadically by the apparent individual in what seems to be a story in time. Absolute clarity also arises within the story and is transient.

Traditional Advaita appears to make proper use of logic, reason, belief and experience, rational explanation, truth, and traditional wisdom, all directed towards helping the seeker along the path to their enlightenment.

The Open Secret’s apparent communication is illogical, unreasonable, unbelievable, paradoxical, non-prescriptive, non-spiritual and uncompromising and entirely without meaning or purpose. There is no agenda or intention to help or change apparent individuality. Its resonance is shared energetically, not through the exchange of ideas. It is prior to all teachings and yet eternally new. Belief is seen as married to doubt, and experience as a fluctuating personal state. The Open Secret does not recognise anything as being “the truth” nor does it see how something called Traditional Advaita could be anything other than a complex collection of ideas.

Traditional Advaita is a teaching about that which can be known. The Open Secret illuminates the myth of separation and points to that which can’t be known.

Surely an unbiased view of these two “perspectives” would immediately recognise that they do not meet. However, it seems obvious that Dennis does not recognise the difference, and is also unable to comprehend, even intellectually, the principle and implication of individual absence. One of his recommendations is that the aspiring so-called spiritual teacher should ask themselves if they are truly enlightened?! How can he see any possible connection between this idea and The Open Secret communication? He probably still believes that these differing perspectives are “ours” and that Tony Parsons is an individual who tells other individuals that they are enlightened, and so there is nothing to do.

Either there is resonance or not and, because the ineffable cannot be understood and therefore controlled, it can seem threatening to the apparent seeker. Consequently any attempt at expression of the indefinable has to be rejected or misinterpreted. What often emerges is a reconfiguring which can be believed, and is safe, and which offers hope and purpose to the seeker.

Dogmas, doctrines and progressive paths which promise eventual enlightenment, or Nirvana, or the Kingdom of Heaven, through sacrifice, discipline, refinement and purification of the self, appeal tremendously to that within the seeker which feels unworthy. Hence, the power of classic religion and teachings of becoming. Traditional Advaita is just another one of these.

Of course, for any apparent seeker who believes in self-autonomy and the seeming reality of needing to climb a spiritual mountain, Dennis Waite’s work seems a logical, sound and reassuringly complicated instruction manual to follow. However, what does devalue this apparent testimony to “the truth” is its seemingly prejudiced portrayal of so-called “neo Advaitans” which appears to be mainly based on hearsay, wishful thinking and the misinterpretation of quotations taken out of context.

Of course there is a lot of dualistic nonsense broadcast under the non-dual Advaita banner. A relentless regurgitation of the idea that there is “no-one”, or that everything is fine because it is only arising as “all there is”, is nothing more than a replacement of one set of beliefs for another.

Words can only ever point to the inexpressible, and anyone who is concept-bound can nit and pick and tut their way through every word of this response with the sole purpose of seeing nothing more than that which they believe to be “right or wrong”.
It is what happens . . . apparently.

Isn’t it wonderful that all of this is already only the unconditional expression of wholeness appearing as much ado about nothing.


www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/trad_neo/not_twoness_parsons.htm

[Reefs]

Dennis Waite in response:

A response to 'not two-ness'

Dennis Waite: The book ‘Enlightenment: the Path through the Jungle’ aims clearly to define the meaning of the word ‘enlightenment’ and explain how traditional advaita functions to bring it about. It contrasts this teaching with the method-less, and sometime apparently content-less talks and discussions that take place under the banner of ‘satsang’ in the west today. In particular, it formally defines (for the purpose of the book) the term ‘neo-advaita’ as:

“ the style of teaching that purports to express only the final, absolute truth of advaita. It does not admit of any 'levels' of reality and does not recognize the existence of a seeker, teacher, ignorance, spiritual path etc. Whereas satsang teachers in general differ quite widely as regards their particular ways of talking about and teaching advaita, neo-advaitin teachers do not. The statements of one are essentially interchangeable with those of another, with only personal style and coined phrases differing.” (This description is expanded and clarified in the book.)

All of these approaches claim (overtly or not) to speak of the absolute, non-dual nature of reality so that a comparison of their ability to do so in a reasonable and logical way is certainly valid. Amongst the ‘disclaimers’ in the book are the following statements:

“ 12. The book makes no specific claims about relative ‘success rates’ of the different approaches. There are no statistics available upon which any such claims might be made and views might well differ even upon whether a given teacher is ‘enlightened’ or not. What it will do is to present, analyze and criticize the various issues and endeavor to persuade the reader that anything other than the traditional approach is unlikely to succeed.

“16. I would like to emphasize that this book is not criticizing specific teachers nor suggesting that anyone is inept or unenlightened. I am criticizing satsang as a teaching method, when used on its own and attended only infrequently, as is typical in the West. Specific teachers are not usually quoted, since I did not want to imply that anyone was being singled out for disapprobation. Instead, I have endeavored to paraphrase actual quotations to make the points in a more general way. Those quotations which are present are included because they are particularly helpful and relevant to the point being made.”

The fundamental practical difference, as far as neo-advaita is concerned, is the existence or otherwise of the seeker and the ability or otherwise to obtain enlightenment. All approaches agree that, in reality, there is neither seeker nor enlightenment... but we do not perceive reality. From the vantage point of the seeker, suffering in an apparent world of separation, such absolutist statements cannot help. Traditional advaita recognizes this condition of self-ignorance and provides proven techniques for disabusing the seeker of all false notions. It is not a ‘teaching of becoming’, as Tony states, because there is nothing to become.

‘Enlightenment’ is defined in the book as:

“ Enlightenment takes place in the mind of a person when self-ignorance has been eradicated. It is true (in absolute reality) that we are already 'free' - there is only ever the non-dual reality so how could it be otherwise? It is not true that we are already enlightened (in empirical reality), as the seeker well knows. Enlightenment is the event in time when the mind realizes that we are already free.”

Enlightenment is not an ‘idea that comes and goes within the individual story’. It is an irrevocable change (vRRitti) in the mind, beyond mere idea or belief. In reality, there are no ‘things’ at all; there is only non-duality but, at the transactional level , ‘mind’ is a perfectly meaningful term to everyone (including Tony) and it serves no useful purpose to deny its existence. It is the notional ‘place’ where thoughts are deemed to arise.

The apparent paradox results from a confusion of absolute and relative reality (paramArtha versus vyavahAra). From the relative point of view there IS a person and this person CAN become enlightened. It is only from the absolute perspective that it could be said (except that there is no one there to say it!) that there is nothing to be gained. As soon as we say anything at all, we are necessarily firmly in the relative viewpoint; only silence is commensurate with reality. It is pointless to deny this, since speech and thought are themselves dualistic.

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.

He says that: “ Individuality is the transient appearance of wholeness seeming to be part of itself that feels separate from wholeness and can only apparently seek to be whole. But a part can never know the whole.” There is no argument here but the point is that the mind can come to realize that there never was a part but only the whole. Traditional advaita aims to bring about this understanding. Simply stating it to be so (as neo-advaita does) will not normally achieve this.

Tony Parsons claims that the perspectives of traditional and neo-advaita ‘do not meet’ and cites the example that the latter does not recognize the existence of an ‘individual’. Yet, in the same essay, ‘Tony’ is repeatedly referring to ‘Dennis Waite’. Every time he takes a satsang, he speaks to others ‘individuals’. It is pointless to deny the transactional level of reality in which he charges £10 per person for a 3-hour talk (to no-one). Traditional advaita also uses duality to point to non-duality (and openly admits this). It just does so in an infinitely more logical, reasonable and effective manner.

Regarding the topic of ‘practice’, anyone who has tried to solve a problem when their mind is diverted by strong emotions will know the impossibility of concentrating and thinking logically. It must therefore be eminently reasonable that some mental preparation is need before being able to tackle the most intransigent problem of all – the nature of our own existence. Such practices as meditation and directed self-inquiry must therefore be extremely helpful for clearing the mind of irrelevancies.

Tony says that I recommend “ that the aspiring so-called spiritual teacher should ask themselves if they are truly enlightened”. This point is actually under the heading of “What should you do if you are a satsang teacher? ”:

“537. Answer yourself honestly – Are you really enlightened, according to the traditional concepts of the term?”

The question clearly does not apply to neo-advaita teachers since I state that:

“528. Since neo-advaitin teachers deny the existence of the person, ignorance and enlightenment, they are patently unenlightened according to their own definition.”

The Open Secret states that its “apparent communication is illogical, unreasonable, unbelievable, paradoxical, non-prescriptive, non-spiritual, uncompromising. There is no agenda or intention to help or change apparent individuality.” This is indeed paradoxical since seekers (real or imaginary) usually attend satsangs for the purpose of learning something useful , as opposed to merely being entertained in some pointless manner. The idea that there is no truth is also incomprehensible. To be true means to be in accordance with reality; what is actually the case. The truth is that reality is non-dual. The world is a manifestation, whose name and form we erroneously endow with a separate existence – its essence is the same non-dual reality. Who-I-really-am is that same reality. The purpose of advaita, and other traditional approaches, is to bring us to the realization of this truth.

The ‘bottom line’ is that nothing matters. There is only the non-dual reality, the Self. The rest is only a wonderful, ever-changing manifestation – merely name and form of that same, unchanging, unmanifest reality; ever whole, ever complete, never two. This is the case regardless of whether or not the apparent person ‘realizes’ this truth. But it is also part of this marvelous, apparent creation that, occasionally, one of these ‘persons’ wonders about the nature of this reality and looks for understanding and self-knowledge. Traditional advaita provides a structured, reasonable and assured approach to gain this understanding, entirely within the context of this seeming manifestation.

One might argue that, whether or not this apparent person gains self-knowledge makes not the slightest difference to the reality – and one would have to concede that this is necessarily the case. Nevertheless, at the level of the seeming world of duality, it seems to make the most enormous difference to the ‘person’. It is the difference between the dreamer trapped in a nightmare that he erroneously believes to be true and the lucid dreamer who recognizes the dream for what it is and enjoys every minute.

Although words and concepts can never describe the ineffable, they can point and use metaphor and other strategies to enable the mind to recognize, intuit and ultimately realize the non-dual truth. It is the duty of any teaching worthy of the name to utilize such techniques and not simply make gratuitous and unfounded claims which do nothing to help the apparent person finally to acknowledge his or her limitless essence.

www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/trad_neo/not_twoness_waite.htm

[andrew]

Jun 1, 2023 11:35:14 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Dennis Waite in response:

A response to 'not two-ness'

Dennis Waite: The book ‘Enlightenment: the Path through the Jungle’ aims clearly to define the meaning of the word ‘enlightenment’ and explain how traditional advaita functions to bring it about. It contrasts this teaching with the method-less, and sometime apparently content-less talks and discussions that take place under the banner of ‘satsang’ in the west today. In particular, it formally defines (for the purpose of the book) the term ‘neo-advaita’ as:

“ the style of teaching that purports to express only the final, absolute truth of advaita. It does not admit of any 'levels' of reality and does not recognize the existence of a seeker, teacher, ignorance, spiritual path etc. Whereas satsang teachers in general differ quite widely as regards their particular ways of talking about and teaching advaita, neo-advaitin teachers do not. The statements of one are essentially interchangeable with those of another, with only personal style and coined phrases differing.” (This description is expanded and clarified in the book.)

All of these approaches claim (overtly or not) to speak of the absolute, non-dual nature of reality so that a comparison of their ability to do so in a reasonable and logical way is certainly valid. Amongst the ‘disclaimers’ in the book are the following statements:

“ 12. The book makes no specific claims about relative ‘success rates’ of the different approaches. There are no statistics available upon which any such claims might be made and views might well differ even upon whether a given teacher is ‘enlightened’ or not. What it will do is to present, analyze and criticize the various issues and endeavor to persuade the reader that anything other than the traditional approach is unlikely to succeed.

“16. I would like to emphasize that this book is not criticizing specific teachers nor suggesting that anyone is inept or unenlightened. I am criticizing satsang as a teaching method, when used on its own and attended only infrequently, as is typical in the West. Specific teachers are not usually quoted, since I did not want to imply that anyone was being singled out for disapprobation. Instead, I have endeavored to paraphrase actual quotations to make the points in a more general way. Those quotations which are present are included because they are particularly helpful and relevant to the point being made.”

The fundamental practical difference, as far as neo-advaita is concerned, is the existence or otherwise of the seeker and the ability or otherwise to obtain enlightenment. All approaches agree that, in reality, there is neither seeker nor enlightenment... but we do not perceive reality. From the vantage point of the seeker, suffering in an apparent world of separation, such absolutist statements cannot help. Traditional advaita recognizes this condition of self-ignorance and provides proven techniques for disabusing the seeker of all false notions. It is not a ‘teaching of becoming’, as Tony states, because there is nothing to become.

‘Enlightenment’ is defined in the book as:

“ Enlightenment takes place in the mind of a person when self-ignorance has been eradicated. It is true (in absolute reality) that we are already 'free' - there is only ever the non-dual reality so how could it be otherwise? It is not true that we are already enlightened (in empirical reality), as the seeker well knows. Enlightenment is the event in time when the mind realizes that we are already free.”

Enlightenment is not an ‘idea that comes and goes within the individual story’. It is an irrevocable change (vRRitti) in the mind, beyond mere idea or belief. In reality, there are no ‘things’ at all; there is only non-duality but, at the transactional level , ‘mind’ is a perfectly meaningful term to everyone (including Tony) and it serves no useful purpose to deny its existence. It is the notional ‘place’ where thoughts are deemed to arise.

The apparent paradox results from a confusion of absolute and relative reality (paramArtha versus vyavahAra). From the relative point of view there IS a person and this person CAN become enlightened. It is only from the absolute perspective that it could be said (except that there is no one there to say it!) that there is nothing to be gained. As soon as we say anything at all, we are necessarily firmly in the relative viewpoint; only silence is commensurate with reality. It is pointless to deny this, since speech and thought are themselves dualistic.

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.

He says that: “ Individuality is the transient appearance of wholeness seeming to be part of itself that feels separate from wholeness and can only apparently seek to be whole. But a part can never know the whole.” There is no argument here but the point is that the mind can come to realize that there never was a part but only the whole. Traditional advaita aims to bring about this understanding. Simply stating it to be so (as neo-advaita does) will not normally achieve this.

Tony Parsons claims that the perspectives of traditional and neo-advaita ‘do not meet’ and cites the example that the latter does not recognize the existence of an ‘individual’. Yet, in the same essay, ‘Tony’ is repeatedly referring to ‘Dennis Waite’. Every time he takes a satsang, he speaks to others ‘individuals’. It is pointless to deny the transactional level of reality in which he charges £10 per person for a 3-hour talk (to no-one). Traditional advaita also uses duality to point to non-duality (and openly admits this). It just does so in an infinitely more logical, reasonable and effective manner.

Regarding the topic of ‘practice’, anyone who has tried to solve a problem when their mind is diverted by strong emotions will know the impossibility of concentrating and thinking logically. It must therefore be eminently reasonable that some mental preparation is need before being able to tackle the most intransigent problem of all – the nature of our own existence. Such practices as meditation and directed self-inquiry must therefore be extremely helpful for clearing the mind of irrelevancies.

Tony says that I recommend “ that the aspiring so-called spiritual teacher should ask themselves if they are truly enlightened”. This point is actually under the heading of “What should you do if you are a satsang teacher? ”:

“537. Answer yourself honestly – Are you really enlightened, according to the traditional concepts of the term?”

The question clearly does not apply to neo-advaita teachers since I state that:

“528. Since neo-advaitin teachers deny the existence of the person, ignorance and enlightenment, they are patently unenlightened according to their own definition.”

The Open Secret states that its “apparent communication is illogical, unreasonable, unbelievable, paradoxical, non-prescriptive, non-spiritual, uncompromising. There is no agenda or intention to help or change apparent individuality.” This is indeed paradoxical since seekers (real or imaginary) usually attend satsangs for the purpose of learning something useful , as opposed to merely being entertained in some pointless manner. The idea that there is no truth is also incomprehensible. To be true means to be in accordance with reality; what is actually the case. The truth is that reality is non-dual. The world is a manifestation, whose name and form we erroneously endow with a separate existence – its essence is the same non-dual reality. Who-I-really-am is that same reality. The purpose of advaita, and other traditional approaches, is to bring us to the realization of this truth.

The ‘bottom line’ is that nothing matters. There is only the non-dual reality, the Self. The rest is only a wonderful, ever-changing manifestation – merely name and form of that same, unchanging, unmanifest reality; ever whole, ever complete, never two. This is the case regardless of whether or not the apparent person ‘realizes’ this truth. But it is also part of this marvelous, apparent creation that, occasionally, one of these ‘persons’ wonders about the nature of this reality and looks for understanding and self-knowledge. Traditional advaita provides a structured, reasonable and assured approach to gain this understanding, entirely within the context of this seeming manifestation.

One might argue that, whether or not this apparent person gains self-knowledge makes not the slightest difference to the reality – and one would have to concede that this is necessarily the case. Nevertheless, at the level of the seeming world of duality, it seems to make the most enormous difference to the ‘person’. It is the difference between the dreamer trapped in a nightmare that he erroneously believes to be true and the lucid dreamer who recognizes the dream for what it is and enjoys every minute.

Although words and concepts can never describe the ineffable, they can point and use metaphor and other strategies to enable the mind to recognize, intuit and ultimately realize the non-dual truth. It is the duty of any teaching worthy of the name to utilize such techniques and not simply make gratuitous and unfounded claims which do nothing to help the apparent person finally to acknowledge his or her limitless essence.

www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/trad_neo/not_twoness_waite.htm

I found this response very well expressed. Bit harsh on Tony perhaps but I guess not much different from what goes down here at times!

[inavalan]

Jun 1, 2023 14:09:32 GMT -5 andrew said:

Jun 1, 2023 11:35:14 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Dennis Waite in response:

"... All of these approaches claim (overtly or not) to speak of the absolute, non-dual nature of reality so that a comparison of their ability to do so in a reasonable and logical way is certainly valid. ..."

I found this response very well expressed. Bit harsh on Tony perhaps but I guess not much different from what goes down here at times!

I find this idea, of determining the validity of a view on the nature of reality in a "reasonable and logical way", at least intriguing, but more like ridiculous.

[andrew]

Jun 1, 2023 21:27:13 GMT -5 inavalan said:

Jun 1, 2023 14:09:32 GMT -5 andrew said:

I found this response very well expressed. Bit harsh on Tony perhaps but I guess not much different from what goes down here at times!

I find this idea, of determining the validity of a view on the nature of reality in a "reasonable and logical way", at least intriguing, but more like ridiculous.

Talking about non-duality will often require talking about contexts (though ultimately non-duality teachings seek to point folks away from logic). There's a logical nature to context, and in this case, I thought Dennis addressed the different ones well.

[inavalan]

Jun 2, 2023 2:34:21 GMT -5 andrew said:

Jun 1, 2023 21:27:13 GMT -5 inavalan said:

I find this idea, of determining the validity of a view on the nature of reality in a "reasonable and logical way", at least intriguing, but more like ridiculous.

Talking about non-duality will often require talking about contexts (though ultimately non-duality teachings seek to point folks away from logic). There's a logical nature to context, and in this case, I thought Dennis addressed the different ones well.

Isn't it a contradiction to talk about context when talking about "not-two"? It can't be that "all is one", but that there are several contexts. Can it?

It is true that I haven't read in full the whole long quote, but browsing it, that statement seemed to say that you can use reason and logic when comparing claims about the absolute. I disagree.

Dennis Waite in response:

"... All of these approaches claim (overtly or not) to speak of the absolute, non-dual nature of reality so that a comparison of their ability to do so in a reasonable and logical way is certainly valid. ..."

[Reefs]

Jun 1, 2023 14:09:32 GMT -5 andrew said:

Jun 1, 2023 11:35:14 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Dennis Waite in response:

I found this response very well expressed. Bit harsh on Tony perhaps but I guess not much different from what goes down here at times!

It's an interesting exchange. However, I don't think Dennis fully gets the person thingy. I'll post some more free stuff from his website and you'll see what I mean.

[Reefs]

More from Dennis Waite...

Enlightenment

100. The neo-advaitin claims that ‘we are already enlightened’. This is a fundamental error, which results from a failure to define terms clearly, and causes much confusion. It is true that we are already brahman, the non-dual reality, because there is only That. The point is that we do not realize this. Enlightenment takes place when we do. This is why the term Self-realization is also used – it is the direct knowing of the Self that we already are.

101. The error may well arise from the use of the Sanskrit term mokSha for enlightenment. Strictly speaking the word means ‘liberation’, which is misleading because we are already ‘free’ in reality. What it refers to is liberation from the mistaken belief that we are not free.


The 'person'

105. The word ‘person’ is used in this book in its misunderstood sense. It derives from the Latin word ‘persona’, which was the megaphone-mask worn by actors in the theatre to make themselves heard by the audience. It refers to all of those roles and attitudes with which the mind identifies (see 110 ) – we think we are a mother or father, brother, teacher etc; we believe we are lazy, clever and funny etc. All of these characteristics make up ‘who we think we are’ but in fact we are none of those things. These are all attributes of body or mind, whereas we are the essential ‘I’ that is mistakenly identified with these. Nevertheless, it is a commonly accepted term in everyday life so will continue to be used as such in this book.

106. In reality 'we' are already brahman, simply because brahman is all there is but 'we' think that we are separate 'persons'.

107. Subsequent to enlightenment, that 'person' is known not to exist as a separate entity at all; it is known that 'I am That (i.e. brahman)'.

108. Consequently, statements such as 'there is no person to become enlightened' are willfully ignoring the context in which these terms are used. At the level of empirical reality, which is all that the seeker initially knows, there is most definitively a person to become enlightened.

109. That which is most essentially ‘me’, who I refer to as ‘I’ without any qualification, is not a person; it is the Atman, which is also brahman. This is the fact revealed by enlightenment. Until such realization, the belief in a separate entity/person remains and need not cause any problem (linguistically, that is!) (Post-realization, there is obviously no problem in using the word since there is no longer any confusion.)


Ego

113. Similarly, the mind does not have to be literally destroyed in order to become enlightened – if it were so, how would the j~nAnI [one who knows the truth, i.e. someone who is ‘realized’] subsequently function in the world? What is required is that it be metaphorically destroyed by self-knowledge. This is achieved by realizing that the mind is mithyA and does not have a separate existence.


What Enlightenment is Not

213. Enlightenment has nothing to do with 'merging with the Self' or ‘becoming one with God’. In reality, we are already the Self so that these expressions could have no meaning. Nor is it a 'feeling of unity'.

When a pot is broken, the ‘pot space’ does not merge with the ‘total space’; the ‘total space’ is entirely unaffected by the presence of the container and remains the same before, during and after the temporary appearance of the pot.

216. Enlightenment is not about 'experiencing the Self' - otherwise everyone would be enlightened. It is not about experience at all, it is about self-knowledge - the direct knowledge that you are already that which you seek .

217. Nor is enlightenment itself an experience - experiences come and go. Enlightenment is not temporary - once it happens, that is it. Consequently, if you had an experience and wonder whether you are now enlightened, you can be sure that you are not. Also, there is no need for a seeker to try to recapture a ‘good’ experience, thinking that it was somehow closer to enlightenment than the usual ‘bad’ experiences. (See 102 to 104 )

219. Enlightenment is not a 'state' – these also come and go.

221. It is pedantically true that there is no such thing as 'gradual enlightenment'. As noted in 94 , however, there is another potential misunderstanding of terms here. It is true that you cannot be ‘partly’ enlightened – you either are or you are not – but the removal of self-ignorance can certainly be gradual.

222. There is much confusion about 'who' it is that gains enlightenment. Clearly the non-dual Self, brahman, cannot become enlightened and yet the ultimate truth is that there is no separate entity, no satyam ‘ego’ or 'person'.

Jean Klein (who was essentially a direct-path teacher) said: "Liberation does not concern the person, for liberation is freedom from the person." (Ref. 48) Tony Parsons (who is a neo-advaitin teacher) says: "There is no such thing as an 'enlightened person'. No person has ever been 'enlightened'." (Ref. 47) Jean Klein is correct to the extent that he uses the word ‘liberation’; Tony Parsons is wrong since he uses the word ‘enlightened’. N.B. Remember the definition of person given in 105 to 109. It is the jIva who gains enlightenment, and it takes place in the mind...


www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/enlightenment/person.htm
www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/enlightenment/enlightenment_not.htm