Jerry fwd The now movement

[Guest guest]

This is a summary of Enlightenment: The Path Through the Jungle, by

Dennis Waite. It is subject to my biases, errors, oversights, and

limits of understanding. Though I've tried to give a decent

representation of the book, the entire work must be read to get the

full picture. These are only fragments with much significant material

left out. For example, I did not include much, if anything, on what

enlightenment is and isn't.

 

 

 

I have mostly quoted from the book, which is evidenced by the

quotation marks around passages. However, a few times I have

paraphrased Dennis's writing, so keep a close eye on the quotation

marks!

 

 

 

I thank Dennis Waite and Tony Parsons for entrusting their positions

to the Nonduality Highlights. Thanks also to Julian Noyce for

communications which assisted in bringing this discussion together.

Follow-up dialogue could also by hosted by the Highlights, if writers

allow their responses to appear.

 

 

 

Theme:

 

 

 

Dennis Waite says in the Introduction that he began this book with the

intent of comparing and contrasting the ways advaita is presented in

the West. As his research unfolded, the negative aspects of

nontraditional teachings – i.e., neo-advaita and satsang-based

teachings – became so glaring that he changed the intent of the

book.

 

 

 

He writes, "The aim is now to set down clearly, reasonably and

unarguably the facts of the matter: what enlightenment is (and isn't)

and why traditional techniques will take you there while Western-style

satsang and neo-advaita are unlikely to do so."

 

 

 

Hence the theme: You can become enlightened through traditional

advaita, while it is unlikely you will become enlightened through

neo-advaita and satsang.

 

 

 

Purpose:

 

 

 

"The purpose is specifically to address the concerns of seekers who

are dissatisfied with the satsang or neo-advaitin approaches to the

teaching of advaita and to answer related questions."

 

 

 

"It is not primarily a book about non-duality but about the teaching

of non-duality. It discusses the guru and the seeker and the ways in

which the former relate to the latter's attempts to become enlightened."

 

 

 

"I am not primarily criticizing neo-advaita in respect of the truth or

falsehood of its actual statements but as regards its utility as a

teaching methodology, " the author claims.

 

 

 

About neo-advaita:

 

 

 

"'Neo-advaita' is a very recent phenomenon and its principal

protagonists were unknown before the mid nineteen-nineties. It is the

term used for the style of teaching that purports to express only the

final, absolute truth of advaita."

 

 

 

"Neo-advaita is a belief-system without a system – i.e. no

structure,

no method, no practice; the `bottom line' without any preceding text."

 

 

 

The teachers of neo-advaita, though they do not use the term

neo-advaita, include Tony Parsons, Jeff Foster, Richard Sylvester,

Nathan Gill, and others.

 

 

 

Some comparisons between traditional advaita and nontraditional

satsang/neo-advaita:

 

 

 

On knowledge:

 

 

 

"Many satsang teachers imply that enlightenment has nothing to do with

gaining any sort of knowledge but is simply being in the present and

accepting that you already are that for which you are searching."

 

 

 

"According to traditional teachings however, we cannot see that we are

already free because of avidyA [ignorance]. The explanations provided

by traditional teaching enable direct recognition of the Self that we

already are."

 

 

 

On enlightenment:

 

 

 

The neo-advaitin contention that "we are already enlightened" is

considered an error. While it is true that we are That, or Brahman, we

do not know it. We believe we are suffering or not free. The false

self – the one that is suffering -- is not "already enlightened."

That

false self becomes enlightened and thereby "finished." What remains is

Self, not an enlightened false self.

 

 

 

On satsang:

 

 

 

Satsang in traditional Advaita is the brief Q & A session that follows

a teaching session in which a verse in scripture is explained and

enhanced with metaphors, examples from students' lives, and portions

of other scriptures. The verse taught is part of an entire text which

is being covered.

 

 

 

In modern nontraditional satsang the teacher gives a brief

introductory talk and attendees ask questions that may or may not

relate to the talk. The satsang teacher has the view that one may

become enlightened simply by attending and "getting" the essence of

what is being said.

 

 

 

On reality:

 

 

 

In traditional advaita "it is by understanding and rejecting the

unreal that we come to know what is real."

 

 

 

"Since neo-advaitins only acknowledge the real, their teaching is

doomed to failure."

 

 

 

"Traditional teachers do not attempt to describe reality (instead,

they provide `pointers' to it.)

 

 

 

On free will:

 

 

 

"Traditionally, we do have limited choice and we do act. And, `as we

act, so do we reap.' – the motivation for action or attachment to

the

results of action entrenches us deeper in the mire of saMsAra. In

contrast, the neo-advaitin claims that we do not act and have no

choice; this clearly implies that what we do makes no difference. This

is a rash, uninformed and potentially damaging doctrine."

 

 

 

On the seeker becoming enlightened:

 

 

 

"The traditional view is that there is an individual seeker (a jIva),

who is motivated to seek the truth."

 

 

 

"The extreme neo-advaitin position is that this is untrue. Most other

satsang teachers appear to hold intermediate positions. The

differences (are) considered under four, separate, section headings:

 

 

 

.... The idea that there is no `doer' to begin with and therefore `no

seeker.'

 

.... The idea that there is nothing that needs to be done – we are

already `That'; already enlightened, etc. There is therefore `nothing

to be sought.'

 

.... The idea that irrespective of the above, nothing could be done to

bring about enlightenment anyway; all doing is for the ego and only

results in something for `me'. There cannot, therefore, be any

`spiritual path' to enlightenment.

 

.... The idea that, consequently, no `practices' can ever help us

either to prepare for a path or to follow one."

 

 

 

On (the claim that there is) no doer:

 

 

 

"The claim that there is no doer and no one who can choose to do

anything is frequently used by neo-advaitins to conclude that no

spiritual path can be chosen or could be effective in bringing about

enlightenment." ... "But this is to confuse levels of reality... . The

jIva, who is the one who needs the path, is at the relative level of

the world. It is only brahman who, in reality, is not a doer that does

not need any path."

 

 

 

On (the claim that there is) nothing to do:

 

 

 

"Given the basic premise of a non-dual reality, we must already be

That (brahman). Logically, therefore, it would seem at first sight

that it cannot make any sense that something needs to be done to bring

this about. Tony Parsons asks, `But who is it that is going to choose

to make the effort? There is no separate individual volition. How can

an illusion dispel itself?' But this is the usual confusion of reality

and appearance. In the empirical world, there are people who act.

Effort to gain direct self-knowledge may eventually bring about

realization. No effort will at best maintain the status quo. The

confusion arises because of the failure to differentiate between being

and knowing. We cannot do anything to be That which we already are but

we can do something to remove our ignorance of the fact – namely

seek

self-knowledge."

 

 

 

On (the claim that) practice is of no value:

 

 

 

"Neo-advaitins argue that the methods of traditional advaita support

rather than undermine the ego whereas neo-advaita sees through the

person as an illusion. In this context, the metaphor of setting a

thief to catch a thief is sometimes used – the ego can never conquer

the ego."

 

 

 

"But the person, in the sense of a body-mind organism is not an

illusion – it is mithyA. It also seems likely that much of their

criticism is based upon a lack of clear understanding of the

traditional methods."

 

 

 

"Finally, those teachers who deprecate any form of practice fail to

explain why regular attendance of their satsangs is not itself a form

of practice."

 

 

 

mithyA is defined in Dennis's book as "dependent reality; ...

`depending upon something else for its existence.' It is ascribed to

objects, etc., meaning that these are not altogether unreal but not

strictly real either i.e. they are our impositions of name and form

upon the undifferentiated Self."

 

 

 

On the need for a guru:

 

 

"Since neo-advaitin teachers believe that any sort of practice is

futile, it follows that they also claim that there is no need for, or

value in, a guru."

 

 

 

"Nevertheless, they themselves continue to hold meetings and

residential courses around the country, and many of those attending

are habitual followers."

 

 

 

"(In their satsangs the) process of question and answer is usually

called `teaching' but neo-advaitins deny that they are doing this."

 

 

 

"We need a guru to help us dispel the self-ignorance. Ramana Maharshi

explains: `The guru does not bring about Self-Realization. He simply

removes the obstacles to it. The Self is always realized.' (Note that

he actually means that the self is always free.)"

 

 

 

Further comparisons:

 

 

 

"Traditional teachers never ask for money – seekers usually go to

the

teacher at their own cost. If they do travel to teach, their hosts

usually pay their expenses. Satsang teachers almost invariably do ask

for money and pay their own costs out of the proceeds, presumably

leaving a healthy income."

 

 

 

"Most seekers will typically attend satsangs by a number of different

teachers, usually whichever one happens to be in their area.

Consequently, a seeker is likely to hear varied, and possibly even

conflicting, answers to what may be apparently the same question.

Attempts to reconcile these will probably lead to greater confusion."

.... "This is why traditionally one is advised to find and stay with a

single teacher."

 

 

 

"Many satsang teachers and all neo-advaitin teachers imply that the

non-dual truth is somehow self-evident, that there is nothing new to

be discovered to make this fact apparent." ... "In fact, the only

self-evident truth is that `I am'. The facts that I am unlimited

(ananta), that `there is only That and that `I am That' are not

initially self-evident. There is thus a need for the scriptures (to

provide the methodology) and a guru who knows how to use them."

 

 

 

"In the worst cases, the claimed futility of further seeking can lead

to a total sense of hopelessness on the part of the seeker.

Unfortunately, many teachers in such a situation rarely seem to have

any sympathy or empathy and can offer no help other than to reiterate

that there is no one in need of any help."

 

 

 

"It has to also be said that the minimalist message of neo-advaita

with its formulaic mantras can easily be learnt by the unscrupulous,

or unintentionally absorbed by an uncritical mind. Any voluble and

quick-witted individual could then offer themselves as a teacher,

whether truly enlightened, honestly deluded or merely cynical."

 

 

 

"Why do seekers pay money to attend talks by someone who uses no

proven method or documented system and who effectively admits that he

or she is not enlightened? Why would they think that such teachers are

qualified to hold satsangs? There are three possible answers:

 

a) it is assumed that the teacher IS enlightened (even if this only

amounts to the final understanding that there is no such thing as

enlightenment);

 

b) it is the appeal of a `path' that entails zero effort on the part

of the seeker – they can have enlightenment NOW without having to do

anything at all;

 

c) they are simply following the crowd, assuming that their peers

cannot all be wrong and not wanting to be left out. Whichever is the

case, such a seeker is suffering self-delusion."

 

 

 

Advice for seekers and teachers:

 

 

 

"If you must attend satsangs, do so with extreme caution."

 

 

 

To satsang teachers, Waite offers, "Answer yourself honestly – Are

you

really enlightened, according to the traditional concepts of the

term?" If not, he suggests the traditional teaching be accessed.

Dennis notes that even if a satsang teacher is enlightened, study of

traditional advaita will aid the teaching process.

 

 

 

Waite also suggests that satsang teachers stop traveling, stay local,

and offer long courses instead of short satsangs. The courses should

unfold the scriptures, or at least provide clear topics.

 

 

 

------\

--------

 

 

 

Traditional not two-ness versus Neo not two-ness

 

It seems that Dennis Waite and his fellow Traditional Advaitists have

been challenging the validity of something they have decided to call

"Neo Advaita" or, it has to be said, their particular interpretation

of it!

 

I have been asked to comment because The Open Secret communication

seems to have been their main target and so, of course, I can only

respond from this apparent "perception".

 

So right away I am puzzled at any attempt to make a comparison between

two perspectives which simply do not meet. Dennis Waite's works are an

excellent expression of the fundamental principles that generate the

majority of traditional and contemporary dualistic teachings. They

are, in simple terms, rooted in the belief that there is something

called a seeker (one) that can attain something else called

enlightenment (two). The Open Secret recognises everything as already

the unconditional expression of wholeness, including the apparent

belief and experience of separation.

 

Traditional Advaita is a teaching of becoming, The Open Secret is not,

but involves the dissolution of the myth of seeking.

 

It seems that Dennis Waite does not recognise the difference.

 

So, I will not respond to these criticisms with any counter arguments,

but will only try to demonstrate the futility of comparison.

 

Presuming that Dennis Waite accurately represents something he calls

Traditional Advaita, he confirms his belief and experience in the

reality of the constant existence of an individual with free will and

the ability to choose and bring about consequence.

 

The Open Secret recognises that the belief and experience of a central

"I" or a "me" or a "self" is an assumed inconstant state. Out of that

belief arises a transient belief in the reality of time, the story,

meaning, purpose, deity and destiny. Identification is the transient

appearance of wholeness seeming to be part of itself that feels

separate from wholeness and can only apparently seek to be whole. It

is a metaphor.

 

Dennis Waite believes and recommends that, in order to resolve the

real and constant sense of separation and become enlightened, the

individual should choose to follow a progressive spiritual path. This

path involves practice, meditation, self-enquiry and the eradication

of ego and ignorance through a clear understanding of the scriptures

and the guidance of a teacher.

 

The Open Secret recognises that the above beliefs and recommendations

are generated out of an assumed and inconstant sense of being a

separate individual who needs to attain something called

enlightenment. It is also recognised that an investment in the above

recommendations can reinforce and maintain the assumed sense of being

an individual who can resolve its sense of being separate.

 

Dennis Waite confirms that enlightenment is something that can be

described in words, and attained and known by the individual mind when

it acquires the knowledge that there is only a non-dual reality.

 

The Open Secret recognises that there is no such thing as

enlightenment or liberation, or an individual that can become

enlightened or liberated. When the assumed sense of being separate

seems to collapse, already there is only the constant and unknowable

wonder of being.

 

The Open Secret perception is that there is no such thing as a "mind".

Thinking seems to happen and sometimes thoughts formulate into belief

systems which are still experienced sporadically by the apparent

individual in what seems to be a story in time. Understanding also

arises in the story.

 

Traditional Advaita appears to make proper use of logic, reason,

belief and experience, rational explanation, truth, and traditional

wisdom, all directed towards helping the seeker along the path to

their enlightenment.

 

The Open Secret's apparent communication is illogical, unreasonable,

unbelievable, paradoxical, non-prescriptive, non-spiritual and

uncompromising. There is no agenda or intention to help or change the

individual. Its resonance is shared energetically, not through the

exchange of ideas. It is prior to all teachings and yet eternally new.

 

Belief is seen as married to doubt, and experience as a fluctuating

personal state. The Open Secret does not recognise anything as being

"the truth" nor does it see how something called Traditional Advaita

could be anything other than a complex collection of ideas.

 

Traditional Advaita is a teaching about that which can be known and

The Open Secret points to unknowing.

 

Surely an unbiased view of these two "perspectives" would immediately

recognise that they do not meet. However, it seems to me that Dennis

does not agree, because he seems unable to comprehend, even

intellectually, the principle and implication of individual absence. I

think he still believes that Tony Parsons is an individual who tells

other individuals that they are enlightened and so there is nothing

that they need to do.

 

Because the ineffable cannot be understood, and therefore controlled,

it can seem threatening to the apparent seeker. Consequently any

attempt at expression of the indefinable has to be rejected or

misinterpreted. What often emerges is a reconfiguring which can be

believed, and is safe, and which offers hope and purpose to the seeker.

 

Dogmas, doctrines and progressive paths which promise eventual

enlightenment, or Nirvana, or the Kingdom of Heaven, through

sacrifice, discipline, refinement and purification of the self, appeal

tremendously to that within the seeker which feels unworthy. Hence,

the power of classic religion and teachings of becoming. Traditional

Advaita is just one of these.

 

Of course, for any apparent seeker who believes in self-autonomy and

the seeming reality of needing to climb a spiritual mountain, Dennis

Waite's work seems a logical, sound and reassuringly complicated

instruction manual to follow. However, what does devalue this apparent

testimony to "the truth" is seemingly its distorted portrayal of

so-called "neo Advaitans" which appears to be mainly based on hearsay,

wishful thinking and the misinterpretation of quotations taken out of

context.

 

Of course there is a lot of dualistic nonsense broadcast under the

non-dual Advaita banner. A relentless regurgitation of the idea that

there is "no-one", or that everything is fine because it is only

arising as "all there is", is nothing more than a replacement of one

set of beliefs for another.

 

Words can only ever point to the inexpressible, and anyone can nit and

pick and tut their way through every word of this response with the

sole purpose of seeing nothing more than that which is right or wrong.

It is what happens . . . apparently.

 

Isn't it wonderful that all of this is already only the unconditional

expression of wholeness appearing as much ado about nothing.

 

Tony Parsons

 

May 2008

 

>Era: I am wondering about the 'now" movement since I read Jerry about

> NondualitySalon/message/104707

> Enlightenment: The Path Through The Jungle.I am a fan of E. Tolle

> and the ones who speak about staying in the now.>> Is there a 'brake-through' needed in neo advaita ? <awakening>> > how does anyone get free of clinging to a me "I" and still have a> healthy actualized ID> > One just wakes up one morning like that ?> > Is there anything to learn from Tolle and the 'now' teachers according> to any one of you ?> > AWARENESS per se is vastly different in all of us. I wonder if it is> just an IQ thingy..since I see most pll are tripping and are dishonest> with themselves, or just blind to their motives..but not the aware the> smart ones.> > If training oneself for being able to be more aware, CLEAR <vipassana>> or a Tolle course is futile or not.. and I find the label "seeking'> applied to all practice disturbing..since> > I BELIEVE TO WORK ON LIFTING THE VEILS COVERING CLEAR VISION: AWARENESS.> > Jerry will answer:> > Hi Era, > > Neo-advaita and modern Western satsang culture are barely twenty or> thirty years old. Traditional advaita is about 1200 years old. > > There have been and will be more breakthroughs and evolutions in> neo-advaita and Western satsang. It has barely begun.> > Hopefully by tonight or tomorrow morning the latest, I'm going to post> a lengthy issue of the Highlights. It'll include a summary of Dennis's> new book which seeks to point out the problems with neo-advaita and> how to correct them. That will be followed by "neo-advaitin" Tony> Parsons' response to the book. And Tony's letter will be followed by> Dennis's response to Tony. > > I imagine further dialogue may be generated, which we'll bring to the> highlights or this list.> > Jerry>