Q. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NEO-ADVAITA AND ADVAITA?

Tom: Neo Advaita says all is already one, there is already no ego-self, and no need for any practice. In fact, any practice just perpetuates and strengthens the illusory notion of an ego-self. Suffering and worldly happenings are just things that occur to ‘nobody’.

Advaita says all is already one, there is already no ego-self, but due to ignorance there appears to be a world consisting of many people and things, of which you are one. Through self-enquiry, in which one places ones attention onto ones own self, the Subject, and ignores/turns away from objective phenomena, one can destroy this ignorance and realise that the apparent mutiplicity is an unreal illusion and there is only the formless self which is devoid of suffering. It is then seen that ignorance never actually occurred and there were never any actual people or things at all.

My own experience is that neo-advaita, whilst sounding intellectually coherent, does not lead to liberation at all and suffering, duality and egotism all actually continue, whereas Advaita, whilst appearing to be dualistic in some ways, is totally liberating and ends suffering and duality completely. They are actually quite distinct teachings that both claim to be ‘non-duality’.

Note that in my experience many prominent Advaita and Advaita Vedanta teachers actually teach distorted teachings, and that the genuine teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi are the best teachings I have come across to point the way to liberation.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.