(Read Part 1)
Another misleading claim is that “there’s no one bound and therefore no liberation from bondage.” This sounds very clever and obvious and is very likely to be accepted without question by the listener, adding still more to the ammunition against the traditional Advaitin position. But everything should be questioned! Advaita is a supremely logical and scientific philosophy if followed correctly and glib statements such as the above must be looked at carefully. (And it is acknowledged that ‘glib’ here is a ‘loaded epithet’!) Traditional Advaita does not, in fact, claim that there can be liberation from bondage. In fact, it is stated openly that there is not actually anyone bound. What is said is that there can be the realisation that there is no one who is bound – and that is liberation.
Some of the truths of traditional Advaita are in fact acknowledged by the neo-Advaitin teachers but, when this happens, it is usually couched in their convoluted terminology. In this example, Nathan does effectively agree with what I have just said but his words are: “But a story about bondage may spontaneously appear in Being, and that story could include a theme of liberation through self-enquiry.”
In elaboration of this explanation, he states: “The story of liberation through self-enquiry unfolds in such a way that there is the impression of an entity becoming less bound as the story weakens, seemingly as a ‘result’ of self-enquiry. But the entity that apparently dissolves isn’t really there in the first place; it’s merely suggested by the story.” One has to ask whether this explains anything. The traditional explanation is simply that self-enquiry gradually removes the ignorance that prevents the realisation that there is no separate entity.
He concludes his description of the usefulness of self-enquiry by stating that: “When it is transparently obvious that there are no entities that are bound, then efforts towards liberation through enquiry or any other means become a joke.” This is another example of the question-begging type. ‘When it is obvious there are no entities’ means ‘when there is liberation’. So the sentence reduces to: ‘when there is liberation… efforts to achieve liberation become a joke’. This is true but it says nothing useful about the efficacy of self-enquiry! He even goes on to ask what serious consideration we should give to what Ramana Maharshi tells us “if the story is transparent and it’s obvious that no one is bound – and therefore no one needing liberation.” Again, this is erroneously assuming that the desired outcome is already the case when it clearly isn’t (from the vantage point of the seeker).
Humour and ridicule are frequent devices used to undermine the position of an opponent when no sound rational position is available. This is often applied to the traditional stance that scriptures are a valid source of knowledge (indeed the only source of the knowledge that Ātman is Brahman). Nathan utilises this when he says: “Actually, as there’s only the experiencing of Brahman it’s probably fine to read the scriptures if you’ve run out of novels. (laughter)” Here, the authority of the teacher (whether he likes it or not!) is misguiding the seeker and inculcating in him the false belief that it would not be worthwhile for him to consult the scriptures.
The situation is actually much worse than this. The previous paragraph quotes a questioner as ‘relaying a quote attributed to Śaṅkara’: “Study of the scriptures is fruitless as long as Brahman has not been experienced. And when Brahman has been experienced, it is useless to read the scriptures.” This quotation is from the Vivekacūḍāmaṇi (verse 59), which may have been written by Śaṅkara (though this is disputed by many). However, it highlights the danger of taking a quotation out of context. Verse 61 clarifies this statement: “Except for the medicine of the knowledge of God, what use are Vedas, scriptures, mantras and such medicines when you have been bitten by the snake of ignorance?” And, later still in the same work (verse 281) the author says: “Recognising yourself as the self of everything by the authority of scripture, by reasoning and by personal experience, see to the removal of all ideas of additions to your true self whenever they manifest themselves.”
The way that this should be interpreted is that the scriptures alone are unlikely to be of any help when you are totally identified with ideas of separation and suffering (and especially if your teachers are telling you that reading them is a waste of time anyway!). What is needed is basic preparation of the mind (as specified by Śaṅkara) followed by study, reflection and meditation (śravaṇa, manana and nididhyāsana) on the scriptures and unfolding of their meaning by a realised teacher who is well-versed in the scriptures (a śrotriya).
In criticising the traditional viewpoint, other fallacies are also often employed. One of these is the straw-man fallacy, stating the position of the opponent incorrectly in such a way that it can more easily be refuted. As an example, Nathan states that: “There’s also the fundamental assumption within the story that the appearance of being a separate entity is intrinsically wrong… but everything is happening of its own accord.” The word ‘wrong’ implies some sort of (relative or absolute) moral judgement, something that is never implied. This word should be replaced by ‘mistaken’ in order for the traditional view to be represented honestly. Similarly, ‘entirely of its own accord’ does not make any sense so that, if a seeker thought that this was claimed by the traditionalist, he would be unlikely to accept it. In fact, as mentioned above, the actual position is that, in the phenomenal realm, events occur according to the same cause and effect law with which everyone is familiar.
Another example of this is the claim that “Being isn’t something that can be attained.” The word ‘attain’ is not one that the traditional Advaitin would use and it gives quite the wrong impression so that someone unfamiliar with the teaching might well be emotionally swayed to reject it. The truth is, indeed, not something to be attained. It is, however, something that is (for the seeker) not presently realised. Subsequent to removal of ignorance, it is realised already to be the case.
The neo-Advaitin disagrees with this, of course. Nathan says that: “Nothing is obscured by anything. The ‘truth’ is not some great hidden secret that needs to be revealed through a gradual approach of acquiring knowledge.” Again, there is the emotive phrase ‘great hidden secret’ used in an attempt to ridicule the traditional position. This is a fallacy of relevance – the ‘loaded epithet’. The truth is hidden not in the way that buried treasure might be hidden but in the way that the rope is hidden in the perceived snake.
He concludes: “Truth is not revealed by knowledge – it simply is.” This is another straw man fallacy. Of course the rope is always a rope – no one ever claimed that at one time it actually was a snake. But this is not the claim that should have been addressed. It is not that truth is revealed by knowledge but that the ignorance is removed by knowledge – a subtle but crucial difference. As part of the same paragraph, Nathan says that: “Sounds, thoughts, sensations, visual images – whatever presently appears, along with this in which it appears – is the truth.” No, it isn’t – it is the appearance (whose essence is truth). The truth seems to be sounds, thoughts etc. as a result of ignorance. When that ignorance is dispelled, it is known to be the non-dual reality. It is That which is the truth.
Elsewhere, he says that: “If there’s total confusion, then precisely that is reality.” But it isn’t. Confusions and emotions are aspects of the mind, which is part of the appearance. They are not the non-dual reality. The mere fact that the subject is ‘they’ gives this away.
Yet another, different type of fallacy (the classification of which I haven’t yet found) is commonly used by neo-Advaitins. It is the use of the passive tense to give the impression that no one is ‘doing’ anything. In fact, phrases such as ‘it is seen by no one’ are often encountered, in a vain attempt to recognise the problem and somehow reconcile it. Nathan makes such a statement in respect of liberation: “What’s referred to as liberation… is the clear seeing that there’s no one.” The fact of the matter is that, for seeing (or any other sensing or thinking), a mind is required and minds are associated with apparent persons in the phenomenal realm. Yes, in reality, there are no minds and no persons but, in reality, there is no seeing either.
Nathan’s ‘bottom line’ message to would-be seekers is that “Being… is this present expression just as it appears – whether that expression should be identification or liberation. This is all there is.” Fortunately for the frustrated seeker, this is another fallacy. Neo-Advaita does not appreciate the difference between satyam and mithyā. Brahman, the non-dual reality is truth, satyam; the world is neither real nor unreal – it is mithyā; it has ‘dependent’ reality; its essence is Brahman. It is like the gold bracelet. The bracelet is gold, gold is not the bracelet. Gold is the essence of the bracelet, which is simply a transient name and form of the gold. The world is simply a transient name and form of reality.
In conclusion, neo-Advaita offers little in the way of reasoned argument to support its position. It does not explain, step by step, to the confused seeker so that her misunderstandings may be cleared up. Rather, it seems to aim to confuse instead of clarify and to be more interested in disparaging the traditional approach through a succession of fallacious arguments, diverting the critical mind through emotional artifice.
The claims of the neo-Advaitin are subjective – their propositions are based upon the supposed knowledge that the teacher has of ‘reality’, without any reference to the prior deconstruction of the phenomenal, which the traditional approach supplies. Yet their statements are made in an objective manner: “it’s all being”; “nothing can be done”; “identification isn’t caused” etc. They are not preceded by “I believe that…” or “it is my experience that…” Traditional Advaita on the other hand does not do this. It begins with statements that can be validated in one’s own experience and does not take these back, to replace them with a more subtle fiction, until the first have been understood.
Furthermore, when someone is expressing a belief (true or otherwise) to a listener who finds the claim difficult to accept, it is necessary to provide justification. Neo-Advaita has no methodological structure to enable it to do this. My suggested question for a seeker to make to the neo-Advaitin teacher would be this: “Why should I believe you rather than the evidence of my own senses and reason?”
(The specific differing ‘beliefs’ of traditional and neo-Advaita are dealt with at length, together with numerous examples) in the final chapter of ‘Back to the Truth: 5000 years of Advaita’ ISBN 1-905047-61-4. https://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/backto_truth/backto_truth.htm.)