Jerry 2 fwd The now movement

[Guest guest]

Dennis Waite responds to Tony Parsons

 

The book `Enlightenment: the Path through the Jungle' aims

clearly to

define the meaning of the word `enlightenment' and explain how

traditional

advaita functions to bring it about. It contrasts this teaching with the

method-less, and sometime apparently content-less talks and discussions

that take place under the banner of `satsang' in the west today.

In

particular, it formally defines (for the purpose of the book) the term

`neo-advaita' as:

 

" the style of teaching that purports to express only the final,

absolute

truth of advaita. It does not admit of any 'levels' of reality and does

not

recognize the existence of a seeker, teacher, ignorance, spiritual path

etc. Whereas satsang teachers in general differ quite widely as regards

their particular ways of talking about and teaching advaita,

neo-advaitin

teachers do not. The statements of one are essentially interchangeable

with

those of another, with only personal style and coined phrases

differing. "

(This description is expanded and clarified in the book.)

 

All of these approaches claim (overtly or not) to speak of the absolute,

non-dual nature of reality so that a comparison of their ability to do

so

in a reasonable and logical way is certainly valid. Amongst the

`disclaimers' in the book are the following statements:

 

" 12. The book makes no specific claims about relative `success

rates' of

the different approaches. There are no statistics available upon which

any

such claims might be made and views might well differ even upon whether

a

given teacher is `enlightened' or not. What it will do is to

present,

analyze and criticize the various issues and endeavor to persuade the

reader that anything other than the traditional approach is unlikely to

succeed.

 

" 16. I would like to emphasize that this book is not criticizing

specific

teachers nor suggesting that anyone is inept or unenlightened. I am

criticizing satsang as a teaching method, when used on its own and

attended

only infrequently, as is typical in the West. Specific teachers are not

usually quoted, since I did not want to imply that anyone was being

singled

out for disapprobation. Instead, I have endeavored to paraphrase actual

quotations to make the points in a more general way. Those quotations

which

are present are included because they are particularly helpful and

relevant

to the point being made. "

 

The fundamental practical difference, as far as neo-advaita is

concerned,

is the existence or otherwise of the seeker and the ability or otherwise

to

obtain enlightenment. All approaches agree that, in reality, there is

neither seeker nor enlightenment but we do not perceive reality. From

the

vantage point of the seeker, suffering in an apparent world of

separation,

such absolutist statements cannot help. Traditional advaita recognizes

this

condition of self-ignorance and provides proven techniques for

disabusing

the seeker of her false notions. It is not a teaching of

`becoming'

because there is nothing to become. `Enlightenment' is defined

in the book as:

 

" Enlightenment takes place in the mind of a person when

self-ignorance has

been eradicated. It is true (in absolute reality) that we are already

'free' - there is only ever the non-dual reality so how could it be

otherwise? It is not true that we are already enlightened (in empirical

reality), as the seeker well knows. Enlightenment is the event in time

when

the mind realizes that we are already free. "

 

The apparent paradox results from a confusion of absolute and relative

reality (paramArtha versus vyavahAra). From the relative point of view

there IS a person and this person CAN become enlightened. It is only

from

the absolute perspective that it could be said (except that there is no

one

there to say it!) that there is nothing to be gained. As soon as we say

anything at all, we are necessarily firmly in the relative viewpoint;

only

silence is commensurate with reality. It is pointless to deny this,

since

speech and thought are themselves dualistic.

 

Seeking is valid at the level of the person – it is not a myth. The

Open

Secret may " recognise everything as already the unconditional

expression of

wholeness, including the apparent belief and experience of

separation " but,

unfortunately, the seeker doesn't. We have to begin from where we

believe

ourselves to be. Even those would-be seekers who go to Tony Parson's

talks

believe themselves to be separate, suffering individuals and are looking

for guidance. The fact that neo-advaita offers no guidance does not

alter

this fact. Traditional advaita maintains that the Self is already

non-dual

and free. The seeker believes himself to be a separate entity as a

result

of error and the only way that this misconception can be corrected is by

recognition of this error. This usually results from guidance by a

suitably

qualified teacher.

 

Tony Parsons claims that the perspectives of traditional and neo-advaita

`do not meet' and cites the example that the latter does not

recognize the

existence of an `individual'. Yet, in the same essay,

`Tony' is speaking

about `Dennis'. Every time he takes a satsang, he speaks to

others

`individuals'. It is pointless to deny the transactional level

of reality

in which he charges £10 per person for a 3-hour talk (to no-one).

Traditional advaita also uses duality to point to non-duality (and

openly

admits this). It just does so in an infinitely more logical, reasonable

and

effective manner.

 

Regarding the topic of `practice', anyone who has tried to solve

a problem

when their mind is diverted by strong emotions will know the

impossibility

of concentrating and thinking logically. It must therefore be eminently

reasonable that some mental preparation is need before being able to

tackle

the most intransigent problem of all – the nature of our own

existence.

Such practices as meditation and directed self-inquiry must therefore be

extremely helpful for clearing the mind of irrelevancies.

 

The Open Secret states that its " apparent communication is

illogical,

unreasonable, unbelievable, paradoxical, non-prescriptive,

non-spiritual,

uncompromising and entirely without meaning or purpose. There is no

agenda

or intention to help or change the individual. " This is indeed

paradoxical

since seekers (real or imaginary) usually attend satsangs for the

purpose

of learning something useful , as opposed to merely being entertained in

some pointless manner. The idea that there is no truth is also

incomprehensible. To be true means to be in accordance with reality;

what

is actually the case. The truth is that reality is non-dual. The world

is a

manifestation, whose name and form we erroneously endow with a separate

existence – its essence is the same non-dual reality.

Who-I-really-am is

that same reality. The purpose of advaita, and other traditional

approaches, is to bring us to the realization of this truth.

 

The `bottom line' is that nothing matters. There is only the

non-dual

reality, the Self. The rest is only a wonderful, ever-changing

manifestation – merely name and form of that same, unchanging,

unmanifest

reality; ever whole, ever complete, never two. This is the case

regardless

of whether or not the apparent person `realizes' this truth. But

it is also

part of this marvelous, apparent creation that, occasionally, one of

these

`persons' wonders about the nature of this reality and looks for

understanding and self-knowledge. Traditional advaita provides a

structured, reasonable and assured approach to gain this understanding,

entirely within the context of this seeming manifestation.

 

One might argue that, whether or not this apparent person gains

self-knowledge makes not the slightest difference to the reality –

and one

would have to concede that this is necessarily the case. Nevertheless,

at

the level of the seeming world of duality, it seems to make the most

enormous difference to the `person'. It is the difference

between the

dreamer trapped in a nightmare that he erroneously believes to be true

and

the lucid dreamer who recognizes the dream for what it is and enjoys

every

minute.

 

Although words and concepts can never describe the ineffable, they can

point and use metaphor and other strategies to enable the mind to

recognize, intuit and ultimately realize the non-dual truth. It is the

duty

of any teaching worthy of the name to utilize such techniques and not

simply make gratuitous and unfounded claims which do nothing to help the

apparent person finally to acknowledge his or her limitless essence.

 

Dennis Waite

29 May 2008