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, socalled
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 fulfillment. 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, selfenquiry,
selfrestraint,
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 dreamteaching
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 “NeoAdvaita”
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 noone
that
liberation brings with it the realisation that there is nothing to seek
and noone
to become liberated, then there is much laughter.
|
