Advaita Vedanta and Neo-Advaita--what's the difference?

[shivsomashekhar]

Orbit, meditation has many definitions. The more common ones are about stilling the mind, not thinking. So the idea that deep thinking is meditation is rare, if not the nuance of only one person.

The Brhadaranyaka Upanishad talks about the three things involved - shravana (hearing),manana (reflection) and nidhidhyasana (meditation).

In BU 2.4.5, Yajnavalkya tells his wife Maitreyi that the Atman should be heard about, reflected and meditated upon to know it.

 

[Vinayaka]

Orbit, did any of this clarify your thinking, or did it just muddle the line further?

Some examples of traditional advaita vedanta organisations that you could look into for further clarification would be Chinmaya Mission, Arsha Vidya Gurukkulam, Sringeri Mutt, or Kanchi Mutt. These are all headed by renunciate swamis under vows, and follow the traditional ways.

 

[Shantanu]

They are both exploring the concept of non-duality as if God does not exist to not only have an interest in humanity but to enforce physical changes all the time without our knowing it and peridially with the use of avatars.

 

[Maya3]

That was a quick flip.

But back to the topic. Another thing I have observed is that many neo-advaitins take great intellectual pains to speak against neo-advaita, or convince everyone that they are the REAL thing, which, of course is neo-advaita. So words and actions rarely match.

Advaita is the end state ... it happens from years and years (actually lifetimes) of sadhana, pure living, pure lifestyle, celibacy, renunciation, and more. True jivanmuktas LIVE the teachings, and are really different than us 'ordinary' folk. They would never argue incessantly, or enter pointless debate, or come on forums. They're often recluses, or teachers who work in small groups with their very closest sishyas.

So using that as a reference for true advaita, the neo-advaitins are incredibly easy to spot. One of the first things they'll do, besides claiming they're enlightened, is to modify what I just said to suit their own ego, in an attempt convince themselves or others that they're the real thing. It's all mainly a dance of the ego.

This would have led to a good discussion, but I don´t feel that I can answer it, I feel rather discouraged.

Maya

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram vinyaka ji and maya ji

normaly I stay well clear of Advaitin /Neo-Advaitin topics for reasons prehaps Vinayaka ji has just highligted , ...

That was a quick flip.

But back to the topic. Another thing I have observed is that many neo-advaitins take great intellectual pains to speak against neo-advaita, or convince everyone that they are the REAL thing, which, of course is neo-advaita. So words and actions rarely match.

the first real problem I have with even entering into such conversations is this ...going in to great interlectual diatribes in an attempt to prove to others what one should be proving to one self first before even thinking to speak on the subject , ...

Advaita is the end state ... it happens from years and years (actually lifetimes) of sadhana, pure living, pure lifestyle, celibacy, renunciation, and more. True jivanmuktas LIVE the teachings, and are really different than us 'ordinary' folk. They would never argue incessantly, or enter pointless debate, or come on forums. They're often recluses, or teachers who work in small groups with their very closest sishyas.

yes , if Advaita is ultimate reality , then yes it is the ''end state'' ..it is the ultimate realisation , ...what I dont understand is the constant arguing over the nature of end state by those who have not yet atained it , ... as if attatching to an interlectual veiw point by passes the years of practice that it has allways taken to accheive such a conclusion , ....


is this Idea of Neo Advaita some sort of proposed new method which is deemed more suitable for this age ?
if so this has been tried in Buddhist circles and it dosent work it simply corrupts the original teachings .

is there some form of ego driven selectivism going on that says actualy we know better , ...if so this is very dangerous , ...very foolish , ....

or is it what happens in the west or in the overly interlectual mind , ....in that the attatchment to the self is so strong that it begins to form oppinions that support its own attatchment , ...no longer need it search for God or the Ultimate truth , ... because 'I Am' the ultimate truth ! , ....

if so the I have to agree with Vinayaka ji , ...what happened to the years of practice , devotion and surrender that it used to take to attain this state of realisation ? ...and yes it is a personal sadhana it is not something easily discussed , ...

This would have led to a good discussion, but I don´t feel that I can answer it, I feel rather discouraged.

Maya

Maya ji please do not feel discouraged , ...what is there to answer ?

.....this is exactly what perplexes me why does everything have to become so complicated , ...what is the need for a Neo anything surely there is Advaita and there is Advaita ? ....what is this Neo Advaita ? ...somebody is thinking that they can better describe Ultimate reality ?

it is when Questions like this come up that I just think it is time to listen to Bhajans , .....

dear Maya ji never feel discouraged , .....just ...''baja govindam baja govindam'' ....it is the only way

and please before anyone thinks I am pushing Visnu onto an Advaitin , ...forget it , ...worship who you wish ...what I mean is just Worship and think of the Lord ....its the only way

 

[Makaranda]

Orbit,

I highly recommend the scholarly critique of both Neo and Traditional Advaita in the works of Dennis Waite. He has two books which go into elaborate detail to distinguish the differences between the two (and the pitfalls of Neo Advaita). The books are Enlightenment: Path Through The Jungle and Back To The Truth: 5000 Years of Advaita. There is a fair amount of misinformation even in this thread about what is traditional and what is Neo Advaita, so my advice is to check out those books or critical essays which you will also be able to find online.

I have adequate experience of both traditional and modern Advaita, and my personal opinion is that both have merits and both have shortcomings, therefore a balance between the two approaches is probably the sweet spot. Essentially, Traditional Advaita is Vedanta, that is, the methodology(ies) of teaching found in the Upanishads and supported by the Bhagavad Gita and Brahma Sutras (supplemented by countless other texts). The teaching is unfolded gradually between competent guru and qualified shishya over a length of time and involves shravana (listening to the teaching and understanding the revelations of the Shruti texts), manana (resolving doubts and confusions through reasoning supported by the Shruti) and nididhyasana (assimilating the doubt free knowledge into ones own experience so that all habitual negative tendencies are wiped away and the Self (Brahman) is known immediately as my own nature). All three are required for jivan-mukti, or, the enjoyment of ones limitless being even in this very life. The means for getting knowledge about oneself comes from the Shruti pramana (the Upanishads) and is supplemented by other means which serve to purify the mind (this includes yoga, punya karmas, meditation, surrender to Ishwara, etc).

On the other hand, Neo Advaita bypasses the traditional pramana and the qualifications required for investigating it. There is usually very little reference to the Upanishads, very little utilisation of the prakriyas (teaching methodologies therein), except for perhaps the negation approach (neti-neti) or repetition of mahavakyas (tat tvam asi, you are that!). Many teachers have some spiritual experience or moderate insight and then feel qualified enough to teach, even though they are not equipped with any tools for thorough and progressive removal of ignorance in those who come to them. Nor is there any emphasis on the qualification of the spiritual seeker. People just walk in to satsangs off the street, with no prior knowledge or experience. Traditional Advaita stresses the importance that the student or seeker must be mature, having particular virtues such as discrimination, dispassion, calmness of mind, emotional stability, control of the senses, etc, whereas the modern lot say that none of this matters because one is already the Self and to do any kind of practice or purification just reinforces the idea that one is the doer, or ego, which has got something to do in order to become free. This ignores the experience of the seeker, who does not feel free and who does feel like a limited individual, therefore for most seekers who do not have a pure mind (which IS the result of virtues, spiritual practice etc), the Neo Advaita message is not assimilated or understood, and so they become frustrated, go guru shopping, or cling ineffectively to a teacher for many years without any result.

The Neo Advaita has largely come about through the influence of Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj and Papaji. I am currently in Rishikesh and have been frequently dropping in to the satsangs given by Mooji (a student of Papaji) and some others (there are many frauds!). I have also just come back from a traditional Vedanta camp taught by Pujya Swami Dayananda Saraswatiji, so I am fortunate enough to see and experience both approaches simultaneously. I appreciate the directness of the Neo Advaita, but to grasp the message with no teaching methodology, no qualifications, and no context is a gargantuan task for most people, despite the allure of a quick-fix enlightenment. I think it needs the support of the traditional methodology, and the strong foundation laid down in the words of the sages from times past.

I really like Mooji, though.

 

[Maya3]

To be quite honest, I think this discussion as well as other threads in this DIR has an underlying feeling of "Some of you are not Hindu enough."
It did not used to be like this here, I used to come here and feel encouraged in my spiritual practice, have interesting discussions and learn a lot.

A lot of people find Hinduism because they learn about Advaita before they have begun to study it deeper and take their meditation seriously. As some of you said, it takes many lifetimes. If they are at their first couple of lifetimes within this tradition let them take their time without discouragement.

Maya

 

[Kirran]

To be quite honest, I think this discussion as well as other threads in this DIR has an underlying feeling of "Some of you are not Hindu enough."
It did not used to be like this here, I used to come here and feel encouraged in my spiritual practice, have interesting discussions and learn a lot.

A lot of people find Hinduism because they learn about Advaita before they have begun to study it deeper and take their meditation seriously. As some of you said, it takes many lifetimes. If they are at their first couple of lifetimes within this tradition let them take their time without discouragement.

Maya

Although this is not to say Advaita need be just 'beginners' Hinduism'.

 

[Maya3]

Although this is not to say Advaita need be just 'beginners' Hinduism'.

I never said it was.

Maya

 

[Aupmanyav]

I really like Mooji, though.

Makaranda, is this Mooji a Kashmiri (because we use such words to address an elder)? Further, I like your post but my personal view on Swami Dayananda Saraswati is very different.

 

[Makaranda]

Mooji is originally from Jamaica but spent most of his time in Brixton, London. He is probably the main attraction here in Rishikesh at the moment.

I would be interested to hear your view on Pujya Swamiji. If you feel it would be off topic then feel free to pm me.

 

[Vinayaka]

There is plenty of room for everyone on this planet. A question was asked ... various people replied. Having a strong view on something because of your own experiences does not translate as anti-something else. Just because I'm a Canadian doesn't mean I'm anti-American. Neo-advaita seems to work quite well for a few million people, they can't all be wrong.

 

[George-ananda]

I wonder if neo-Advaita is being sold a little short here. It's not just understand it at 'it's there'. People like Eckhart Tolle call for a mental re-programming that goes with the understanding. This might in many ways be likened to Jnana Yoga in traditional Advaita.

 

[Kirran]

Have there been any Neo-Advaitins on RF?

 

[Vinayaka]

Have there been any Neo-Advaitins on RF?

Yes, but from what what myself and a few others have been saying, they may not like to admit it ... especially here in the Hindu DIR. Outside the Hindu DIR, I see it quite commonly, not openly identifying as such, but writing posts that could very easily be identified with neo-advaita. Then again, the line is a bit blurry. The prefix neo generally has a negative connotation, I think.

 

[Kirran]

Yes, but from what what myself and a few others have been saying, they may not like to admit it ... especially here in the Hindu DIR. Outside the Hindu DIR, I see it quite commonly, not openly identifying as such, but writing posts that could very easily be identified with neo-advaita. Then again, the line is a bit blurry. The prefix neo generally has a negative connotation, I think.

Would you feel it wouldn't be fair to name them? If not, I'd be curious.

Am I one? :O

 

[Vinayaka]

It's all just opinion anyway, Kirran. I don't think stating my opinion on this would be helpful to anyone. I might PM you. I'm curious really as to whether or not this thread has been helpful in any way to Orbit. The real question for me, is whether or not answering questions like this helps the individual who asked to clarify their thoughts in any way. Otherwise, really what's the point?

Since I'm not an advaitin of either variety, my words aren't very valid anyway.

 

[Maya3]

The fact that this is something that people feel nervous about even saying or calling out illustrates my point perfectly.

Maya

 

[George-ananda]

Is neo-Advaita Hindu? I think it tries to be a pan-religious philosophy.

 

[Vinayaka]

Is neo-Advaita Hindu? I think it tries to be a pan-religious philosophy.

I think that might be a bit of an over-generalisation, but from my limited experience, yes. There is purposeful avoidance of the H word. If not pan-religious, non-religious. But as with almost all philosophies, there are many variations. In that way, something like new-age.