Q. Tom, do you believe that the neo advaita teachings do point to the same realisation as Sri Ramana’s teachings? Because from what I have read of the neo advaita teachings, they do not even point to the Absolute Self in a clear way and are not even talking about the same realisation. They don’t speak of the Absolute Self but “the absolute appearing as the relative” in their words, so I think that following those teachings do not lead to the same realisation.
Tom: I agree, the neo-advaita teachings do not lead to the same genuine realisation in my view. They do not lead to genuine absolute love, non-duality and cessation of suffering. Please see the introductory articles on the tomdas.com homepage and my recommended reading list for more on this.
Tom Das 
And they tend not to be as world-dissolving radical as actual Advaita, either, despite their pretensions to the contrary.
Tibetan Mahāmudrā traditionally has four main levels, or four yogas, of progressively deepening realization (with three subdivisions per each stage)—and some of the best of the Neos approach the equivalent of stage 2 (“simplicity”), at least as peak experiences, and, on rare occasion, you’ll find a few stabilized at stage 3 (“one taste”). The Mahāmudrā-esque approach is seen with folks like Rupert Spira or Angelo DiLullo, who get people to experiment with the boundarilessness of sensory perceptions, the movement of attention, inquiring into the locations of thoughts, etc. (These sensory and cognitive yogas are also equivalent to the somatic and intellectual methods of Trika Shaivism’s four means, or four upāyas.) These methods can all “work” for different individuals, unless one is a nontraditionalist Neo who assumes a position of authority when they’re still quite half-baked and, lacking proper guidance, doesn’t progress further.
But Śrī Ramana always plunges everyone straight to the Heart of level 4, “nonmeditation,” which is sometimes called Essence Mahāmudrā and is equivalent to Dzogchen/Atiyoga. And there, it is not really “the absolute appearing as the relative” or vice versa; it is more like space merging with space.
LikeLiked by 1 person