Neo-Advaita?-An interesting article

[amith vikram]

I came across this interesting article. A very nice read.

http://richardarunachala.wordpress.c...-james-swartz/

[amith vikram]

check this out if it interests you, an interview with the same author.
http://batgap.com/james-swartz/

So much talk about neo-advaita! but pls notice this person in the last 15 mins. Clearly bluffing.

[devotee]

Namaste Amith,

What James says in his article, unfortunately, is what is being taught by some of the "commercial" Neo-Advaita teachers in the west and these teachers are making money at the cost of many gullible seekers.

However, James certainly commits grave error by clubbing Vivekananda, Krishnamurthy etc. with such teachers. He also sees no diiference between OSHO and Swamy Vivekananda etc. Similarly, Vedanta doesn't exclude meditation as he claims. I seriously doubt if he has seriously read at least the major 101 Upanishads. Svetaasvatar Upanishad and Bhagwad Gita (& more) which are part of Vedanta literature explain in detail how the meditation should be done. Mundaka Upanishad lays emphasis on meditating on OM and being one with OM.

"As everything is Brahman, you are Brahman ... there is no one deluded and there is no one to be enlightened" ----> is proposed by those who have not understood the purport of Vedanta. They just hold on their self-serving erroneous hair-splitting logical conclusions without referring back to the Scriptures and there they commit mistake of accepting a stone for a diamond. If no one is to be enlightened then whole of Vedanta becomes useless.

I have discussed with a few self-proclaimed-enlightened-beings on the internet. They think and proclaim that they are enlightened (there was one recently on this board too trying to teach us that there was no-self and we have only to look for that & it was that easy !) and they are ignorantly happy within the realm created by their deluded conceptions. True seekers should better gaurd themselves against such concepts and "Gurus" offering enlightenments for nothing (read money) ! So, in one way, James does good to such seekers, however, he certainly has no idea what great teachers like Vivekananda etc. taught.

Some people think that "classic" Advaita doesn't advocate practising meditation and therefore teaching meditation to seekers by Vivekananda & others is against the teachings of vedanta" is wrong, as I have stated above. Swamy Vivekananda belonged to "Puri order" (one of the ten orders of Shankaracharya) of "classical" Advaita Ashram. I hope no one has doubts over Shankaracharya's orders being true classical Advaita followers. Totapuri (take notice of "puri" at the end of name) who initiated Ramkrishna, Guru of Swamy Vivekananda taught Ramkrishna how to meditate beyond the form (of Goddess Kaali) which was hinderance to his attaining Samaadhi, was from same classical Advaita Ashram from Puri order.

OM

[amith vikram]

namaste devoteeji,
Yes, i agree. I was just browsing through some random site when i saw an article proclaiming vivekananda to be a neo-vedantin. It's funny how these ppl declare that. Out of curiosity, i typed the keyword neo-advaita on google to clarify for myself what this neo advaita and classic or traditional advaita is. Then i stumbled upon this article. In fact i enjoyed reading the article, but it's amazing how this person inspite of being particular about practice and all, is himself such a loser. In this article, he says question your master or critically analyze him or something like that- this person is by no means a renunciate,perhaps a new renunciate..he he, who has made it a lucrative profession out of vedanta in his old age.

[Sahasranama]

I doubt the author has a good understanding of what traditional vedanta is. He makes the claim that the vedas only teach karma and jnana, not bhakti and yoga, this is nonsense. I agree though that Jiddu Krishnamurti is a neo-vedantin, this is a basic observation anyone with at least half a brain should be able to make. Vivekananda though shows signs of both traditional and neo vedanta.

[sm78]

He makes the claim that the vedas only teach karma and jnana, not bhakti and yoga, this is nonsense.

Yes vedas teach none of these karma, bhakti, jnana business. Much later systems inspired by the vedic cannon teaches these things, but the classification is varied.

Classification of Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Raja Yoga and Jnana Yoga as separate independent paths to realization could indeed be Vivekananda's own creation - although necessity of karma, bhakti, jnana and practice of yoga have been stressed in various ways in various systems.

I don't think he criticized Vivekananda as neo adviatin (he said "New Vedanta" a different word), nor clubbed him with the later personalities, but only accused him of giving some personal twist back in 1893.

Also his point is precisely is that neo advaita which stresses on some sort "non-means" as against traditional teachings where ignorance and means of removing them (includes meditation, he merely said it is not classified as separate but as within jnana yoga, when discussing Vivekananda. He never denied it as outside vedanta, as I understood) are primary.

Traditionally Yoga is considered to be a subset of the science of Self Knowledge, not a separate path to enlightenment.

This guy may not have read the 108 upanishads but some people here do not even read a page of article properly before jumping on to post a refutation (not talking about you sahas).

But I agree that the author does not demonstrate any traditional learning himself, and his criticism themselves can be termed has his own creations.

I agree though that Jiddu Krishnamurti is a neo-vedantin. Vivekananda though shows signs of both traditional and neo vedanta.

Whatever be the faults of the author, his critique of neo-advaita is fair to some extent and not just jiddu krishnamurti, but Papaji, ramesh baleskar, osho - who just radically deny ignorance and promise instant enlightenment, by thinking that one is enlightened are neo advaitin pioneers.

For me neo-advaita (or whatever else you call it by) is the fatalism that springs from such notions (purely mental and ideological at this point) as 'nothing is wrong', 'all is good with everything', 'I am the greatest(self/shiva)' - superimposed on experiential world. Since the real experence does not alter with such mental notions, it just remains an untrue fetalism and these persons can only become neurotic or ego-maniacs. The author has correctly pointed this out.

Any traditional spiritual system must start with the problems of the present human condition, reasons there-of and the proceed to means of destroying these afflictions and improving human condition, culminating in some sort of liberation. One cannot begin at the other end of this logical chain to start with.

One can ofcourse take a direct approach of challanging any duality in experience (as taught by Ramana, who was not a traditional teacher) ... but that was meant to be carried out silently, every moment, in one's own mind - and not as a means to argue with others on real world issues or to create systems and satsangs.

For me, the main problem with the author is, he has a similar CV and attitude to what he is criticizing.

[Sahasranama]

Yes vedas teach none of these karma, bhakti, jnana business. Much later systems inspired by the vedic cannon teaches these things, but the classification is varied.

I would say that the vedas teach all of this, but not as classified and seperate systems, but as flavours throughout the hymns. I also think the author is confusing karma kanda of the vedas with karma yoga while opposing it to jnana yoga.

To be honest, I have not read the rest of the article, but will do soon, this is an interesting topic. I do agree with what you said about neo-vedanta.

Another interesting article about the subject I was reading yesterday from David Frawley: http://www.vedanet.com/index.php?opt...arshi&Itemid=2

[sm78]

I would say that the vedas teach all of this, but not as classified and seperate systems, but as flavours throughout the hymns. I also think the author is confusing karma kanda of the vedas with karma yoga while opposing it to jnana yoga.

As I said, I think there have been various traditional classifications, but not probably as independent means as Vivekananda did. It also comes from common sense, no person can work 24*7 for his life time, nor meditate all the time, nor sing bhajans 24 hours a day. Any valid and practical means will tend to combine all.

[Sahasranama]

Indeed that's impossible. The classification of Vivekananda might have led others like Aurobindo/ Satchitananda to reintegrate everything with so called "Integral Yoga."

[amith vikram]

I don't think he criticized Vivekananda as neo adviatin (he said "New Vedanta" a different word), nor clubbed him with the later personalities, but only accused him of giving some personal twist back in 1893.

so Now we have new-vedanata,neo-vedanta and the original-vedanta. Anyway, the gist is, vivekananda didn't teach original vedanta. Interesting thing is that, he never went to people to give gyan, but ppl came to him unlike this author. The author of course is making self-contradictary statements like meditation being included in shastras and also vivekananda stressing on meditation.

At first i took this neo-advaita seriously but now realized it's the term given by a new sect called neo-advaitins. Almost all the ppl who classify as classical and neo advaita are western 'scholars'(Please note that i have no hate for western scholars!!there are many more in sd itself). For them, the other concepts in the SD is not important, nor do they care if it is in tandem with sruti. Their outlook is the generalised philosophy which applies to a person's day to day aspects and how logical it is. All this is fine, but they miss the core concept which is very difficult to practice. In tune with the author, they are contented that they have a philosophical viewpoint and a fan base with well furnished house and easy life.

Any traditional spiritual system must start with the problems of the present human condition, reasons there-of and the proceed to means of destroying these afflictions and improving human condition, culminating in some sort of liberation. One cannot begin at the other end of this logical chain to start with.

Again, with the same author's view that worldly things or accomplishments can't bring complete satisfaction and with the examples of great rishis, it is evident that cutting the bonds with the material world including phsycological ties gives the ultimate satisfaction or put in other words, immortality. And we know that vivekananda was a true sanyasi and that means his teachings are practical. One may not agree that 'i am brahman', but everyone agrees that, a mind which is not affected by the course of events is the happiest, that means renunciation. And i am yet to see a person who can renounce the world without this firm thought-'i am brahman'. c'mon why would anyone do that?