|
Beginning remarks: The author titles his essay “The
Divine Misconception: Traditional Advaita (Oneness)
versus Neo-Advaita”. If there is misconception,
this implies the possibility of proper conception.
The colon indicates that to view a Traditional
Advaita over and against a Neo-Advaita is the
misconception to be addressed by the essay. Also, “Oneness” is
a mistranslation of the Sanskrit word Advaita,
which translates into English as “not-two”.
However, as the term is frequently used throughout
the essay it must be allowed in order to respond
to the author’s points.
Tony writes: “It has recently been argued
that Traditional Oneness is somehow better than
Neo-Oneness, or even Pseudo-Oneness. The strangeness
of this idea exposes the foolishness of trying
to give title to that which is limitless.”
1) Language is itself a limitation—whether
the language is clear and developed or not. Therefore
to use any term, including terms such as “Oneness” or “that
which is limitless”, is still conceptual
and limited.
Tony writes: “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.”
2) “Objectifies verbal expression” means
considering the expression rather than not considering
it. Using this sentence itself as an example,
the author might have either a) weighed his words
carefully as he wrote them or b) repeated them
out of habit. If he did the former, he was discriminating.
If he did the latter, he was not discriminating.
The implication in this sentence is that the
latter is preferable to the former because it
prevents dogma. Only when one analyzes the former
one sees that a habitual response is nothing
other than forgotten discrimination. At some
point the author discriminated, deciding that
it is preferable to not actively discriminate
about “that which is limitless”.
3) Additionally, in the act of contributing
this essay for this website the author is encouraging
others to adopt his view that it is preferable
to not discriminate. It should be pointed out
as well that stating (however unwittingly) that
one should not discriminate about what one expresses
verbally is actually a principle basis for dogma,
while “objectifying verbal expression” is
not.
Tony writes: “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 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.””
4) By the phrase “just another established
religion with a proliferation of teachings and
literature” the author expresses his view
that he finds such a thing to be problematic.
So problematic, in fact, that its adherents are
fated to “miss the mark”. This last
phrase additionally implies that it is possible
for one to not “miss the mark”—and
the remainder of this third paragraph explains
that one’s best chance not to miss it is
by avoiding “established religion”.
The mistake here is that the author recommends
to others that they should avoid established
religion. Since not every one will follow his
recommendation, the end result of this could
only be a group (of whatever size) that establishes
itself to some degree on the basis that it should
not be established! This is performative contradiction.
Tony writes: “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.”
5) In this paragraph the author misleads the
reader to believe that Traditional Advaita is
merely presenting “progressive recommendations” which
he asserts are “based on the fundamental
misconception that there is such a thing as a
separate individual with free will and the choice
to become.” What Traditional Advaita really
teaches is that every person experiences two
levels of reality. One is empirical (vyavaharika)
and the other is absolute (paramarthika)—hence
Advaita which, as mentioned above, translates
as “not-two”. The author’s
assertions here are applicable only to the absolute
level and have relevance only after self-ignorance
has been removed by self-knowledge. The progressive
recommendations of Traditional Advaita are presented
with the intention of aiding an aspirant in turning
from the unreal to the Real, the separate “self” to
the Self.
Tony writes: “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).”
6) The phrase “personal discipline and
sacrifice (seeking)” is equating personal
discipline and sacrifice with seeking; by the
content of the essay, the author, of course,
means spiritual seeking (of which he disapproves)—only
it is not made clear in this paragraph how personal
discipline and sacrifice are seeking.
At any rate, and more importantly, the author
is failing, once again, to account for the existence
of the empirical, which has already been addressed
(in number 5).
Tony writes: “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, endeavor,
hierarchy and exclusivity.”
7) In this paragraph the author misunderstands
the Traditional Advaita teaching about the mind.
As Swami Dayananda explains, “The antahkarana,
the mind, is the place where knowledge takes
place. If knowledge does not take place when
both the object of knowledge and an appropriate
means of knowledge are available to the one who
wants the knowledge, then there must be present
some obstacle which is responsible for knowledge
not occurring. The only such obstacle is lack
of preparation of the mind.” (Ref. 1)
Tony writes: “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.”
8) In these paragraphs the futility of understanding
Oneness and the impossibility of teaching Oneness
are mentioned in an extolling manner. It should
be added as well that Traditional Advaita does
not teach Oneness, but rather provides
pointers to the Self; to quote from Swami Dayananda
again, “[Advaita] is a pramANa in
the form of words and sentences which, when wielded
by a competent teacher, are meant to throw light
on the Self.” (Ref. 2)
Tony writes: “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.”
9) Due to the fact of criticizing it throughout
this essay, the author clearly admits to the
existence of a Traditional Advaita. In this paragraph
we find that he also admits to the existence
of a Neo-Advaita, as he takes aim at it as well,
describing it as “dualistic”; although
he expresses doubt about its existence, as indicated
by the phrase “something called Neo-Advaita”.
It is illogical to criticize something that does
not exist. So it must be concluded here that,
despite his doubt, the author also admits to
the existence of a Neo-Advaita. As a result of
these admissions, he contradicts the premise
of his essay.
Tony writes: “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”.”
10) Here “confusion” as opposed
to “the clarity that exposes it” is
referred to as a “silly circus” and as
a “wonderful cosmic joke”. The former
is critical toward the “confusion” while
the latter is accommodating. As a result the
reader might question what exactly the author
is saying.
Tony writes: “When it is suddenly and
directly rediscovered by no-one that liberation
brings with it the realisation that there is
nothing to seek and no-one to become liberated,
then there is much laughter . . .
11) The author concludes his essay with a sentence
that has lightness and a ring of poetic mystery
to it; however, the phrase “rediscovered
by no-one” can have no possible meaning
for the reader, as “no-one” cancels
out the possibility of “rediscovery”.
Final remarks: It is clear after reading and
analyzing his essay that the author relies upon
emotion more often than logic to make his points.
If logic, which the essay heavily criticizes
(mostly by criticizing its results such as discrimination,
organization, etc.), is contrary to Oneness,
then the reader is left wondering how emotion
is not.
References
Ref.1 Swami
Dayananda, The Value of Values, 4.
Ref.2 Swami
Dayananda, The
Value of Values, 3.
Visit Nathan's blog: Ganapati-Advaita
Ashram.
Return to list of essays on Traditional vs Neo-Advaita.
See the list sorted by Topic.
See the list sorted by Author.
|
