The Elephant In The Room

[Dodo]

I would guess we all would consider ourselves "non-dualists" or aspiring non-dualists. So the biggest problem we encounter on the path to achieving non duality is this evil demon called the "Ego".

So it appears that the only thing that escapes nonduality is this Ego entity. Only in the presence of Ego can one be un-enlightened is what's said (in other words ofcourse). 

So what is this Ego entity? If it's real then non-duality is not true. If it's not real, then non-duality is already true before we started the search. So what is this 'shedding away of ego layers' people keep talking about. After all in true nonduality, there should not be a difference between Ego and no Ego.

That's like pointing at the naked king who thinks he has clothes on... 

This is so big that it means the following statement is absolutely true: If you are not enlightened now, nonduality is not a correct teaching because there exist an entity beyond non-duality.  If you are enlightened, then there is no need for non duality teachings. 

What's up with that? 

 

Based on this, turns out that Neo-Advaita is the most plausible advaita of them all. It has been ridiculed on this forum. 

Edited January 25, 2018 by Dodo

[Leo Gura]

That's why it's called the Gateless Gate.

Neo-Advaita has some good stuff in it, but it's also very flawed. People following Neo-Advaita are not likely to go all the way to the full depths of consciousness. Because consciousness is more nuanced and complex than Neo-Advaita leads us to believe. It over-simplifies things too much and can lead to Zen devilry.

But there are dangers with every teaching, so... whatever.

If Neo-Advaita were strictly right, why would any other teachings exist? Why would there be so many books written on this subject? Why so much complexity discussed?

 

[Blissout]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That's why it's called the Gateless Gate.

Neo-Advaita has some good stuff in it, but it's also very flawed. People following Neo-Advaita are not likely to go all the way to the full depths of consciousness. Because consciousness is more nuanced and complex than Neo-Advaita leads us to believe. It over-simplifies things too much and can lead to Zen devilry.

But there are dangers with every teaching, so... whatever.

If Neo-Advaita were strictly right, why would any other teachings exist? Why would there be so many books written on this subject? Why so much complexity discussed?

 

Ego entertainment