Traditional Advaita vs NeoAdvaita!!!

[VeganAwake]

The Divine Misconception

 

On the subject of Traditional Advaita (Oneness) versus NeoAdvaita:

 

"It has recently been argued that Traditional Oneness is somehow better than ‘NeoOneness’, or even ‘PseudoOneness’. The strangeness of this idea exposes the foolishness of trying to give title to that which is limitless.

The cunning and manipulative guru mind inevitably objectifies verbal expression, and out of that objectifying arises a plethora of dogmatic movements all claiming supreme understanding of that which cannot be understood.

As a consequence, so called Traditional Advaita, for instance, is just another established religion with a proliferation of teachings and literature, all of which very successfully and consistently miss the mark. It stands alongside Christianity and Buddhism as one of the many systems of personal indoctrination promising the eventual spiritual fulfilment. To quote from The Open Secret:

“To translate the inexpressible into the doctrinal is to attempt to transform a song of freedom into a dogma of limitation. When the bird has flown, the essence of its song is often mislaid and all we are left with is an empty cage.”

The teaching of “Traditional Advaita” has no relevance to liberation because it is born out of a fundamental misconception. Its logical and sensibly progressive recommendations include meditation, self-enquiry, self restraint, and to quote “the renunciation of the ego and all desire”. Of course, there is nothing right or wrong with the idea of desiring to renounce desire. However, these idealistic recommendations and teachings are based on the fundamental misconception that there is such a thing as a separate individual with free will and the choice to become.

The belief that there is a separate seeker (subject) who can choose to attain or become worthy of something called enlightenment (object) is a direct denial of abiding oneness (Advaita).

Within the hypnotic dream of separation, the prevailing perception is that of the seeker and the sought. The ignorance of this perception continues in the search for enlightenment, and inevitably the dreamseeker is attracted to a dream teaching which upholds and encourages the same premise of personal discipline and sacrifice (seeking) leading to the eventual goal of enlightenment (the sought).

The recommendation to cultivate understanding and refine something called “the mind” (?) is hugely attractive to the dreamseeker because it prolongs the very worthy search and thrives on logic, detachment, complication, endeavour, hierarchy and exclusivity.

Trying to understand oneness is as futile as trying to fall in love with an inch.

There is no possibility of teaching oneness. However, the sharing can bring a rediscovery of that which is already known.

If we are to believe recent descriptions of something called “Neo Advaita” as being “the forcing of the truth (?) on unprepared minds” or “advising people to stop seeking” or suggesting to people that they are “nothing but the mind itself”, these teachings, if they exist, are equally as dualistic as the “traditional Advaita” they were born out of.

This confusion is of course as much an expression of oneness as the clarity which exposes it.

All of this silly circus is simply the eternal play of oneness apparently seeking itself. It is the wonderful cosmic joke oneness plays on itself by pretending to be an individual seeking something called “not being an individual”.

When it is suddenly and directly rediscovered by no-one that liberation brings with it the realisation that there is nothing to seek and noone to become liberated, then there is much laughter". ❤

[Dodo]

You should check out the Bhagavad Gita (The song of the Lord) for the correct Advaita Vedanta teachings.

You also may want to watch the commentary of Ira Schepetin on youtube on it too. Do not throw away the baby with the bathwater by saying traditional approach is wrong and direct approach is wrong. Both are right and wrong and neither lel, you are committing the same fallacy by posting this, as if this text is now the absolute wisdom we should follow.

Hehe let me ask you who knows this no-one that realises there is nothing to seek? 

[Nahm]

@VeganAwake

Nothing wrong with expressing. Also nothing wrong giving credit to an author by adding the name to the quote. (Not implying Tony Parsons is a “guru”, nor that you are sharing the message of a guru, just the message of course.)

♥️

[Dodo]

30 minutes ago, Nahm said:

@VeganAwake

Nothing wrong with expressing. Also nothing wrong giving credit to an author by adding the name to the quote. 

@VeganAwakeOh yeah lol, references please ! Before enlightenment : No references, after enlightenment : references 

Btw I see the fix of this problem here. If one doesn't see tradition as dogma and limitations, but rather as a song/poetry, we will not be having this discussion at all. 

So sure, time doesnt exist and etc but there is still a lot of beauty in songs and poetry, and those happen in time really and are enjoyed for what they are, even if they are not ultimately real. Illusion of phenomena is beautiful and should not be suppressed, should be embraced <3 

Edited October 17, 2020 by Dodo

[Dodo]

It's a nice place to post this @VeganAwake its worth a watch trust me its great 

 

Edited October 17, 2020 by Dodo

[No Self]

Reminds me of a quote by Ramana Maharshi:

"The ultimate Truth is so simple. It is nothing more than being in the pristine state. This is all that need be said. Still, it is a wonder that to teach this simple Truth there should come into being so many religions, creeds, methods and disputes among them and so on! Oh the pity! Oh the pity!"

[VeganAwake]

3 hours ago, Nahm said:

@VeganAwake

Nothing wrong with expressing. Also nothing wrong giving credit to an author by adding the name to the quote. (Not implying Tony Parsons is a “guru”, nor that you are sharing the message of a guru, just the message of course.)

♥️

I had decided to just use the quotation option in this thread due to what I believe are misunderstood or unfounded biases against Tony Parsons and his communication/work.(when you shoot the messenger you don't have to take seriously the implications of the message)

Yes this was shared from his Open Secret website essays but did not necessarily conclude that he was the sole author (it may well be).

I had been told previously that quotations were adequate...

Is this no longer the case or did I get incorrect information?

 

 

 

 

[VeganAwake]

@Dodo  this was just a shared communication because the new Adviata topic has been brought up several times recently and in the past. ❤

I hear what you're saying  ?

A posted thread topic does not always constitute a held belief in which was shared.

Thanks for the video share, I will check it out shortly ❤