Why "Traditional Advaita" has not relevance to liberation.

[Guest guest]

>From other group posted article

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.

 

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 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 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 "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 no-one to become liberated, then there is much

laughter . . .