Neo – Advaita & Traditional Advaita

Martin. In this seeming world of so-called saṃsāra (or vyavahāra) language and understanding, is there an entity or entities that understand, judge, etc.?

Neo-Advaitin. This is simply ‘life’. ‘Being’ appears to talk to ‘Being’ about things that ‘Being’ already knows (and need no reminding). It is just ‘playing’.

Since there is never an actual central ‘self,’ there could be no separate entity that asks a question or makes a reply. There is no separate entity that asks or answers. It is simply Life answering Itself.

But it seems that you don’t get this, or are not able to discuss it without going back into concepts and the need to find the correct label to assign, whether that is ‘nihilism’, ‘Advaita Vedanta’, ‘spontaneously self-realized’, ‘abhāsa’, etc. I suggest you drop all that, all those presumed ‘things you know.’ Freedom lies in the unknowing, the moment-by-moment un-nameable, not in the knowledge, information, and labels that the ‘mind’ thinks it has gathered. Who is the ‘you’ called ‘Martin’ writing this question?

M. I (an unavoidable pronoun) would have to know more about the ‘emptiness teachings’, which, I assume, is your stance. My main influence being Advaita Vedanta, I am more ‘comfortable’ with the notions of ‘reflected Consciousness’ (abhāsa), ‘name and form’, or ‘appearance’ rather than an existing entity – which surely there is or there must be.

NA. No. You have missed it again, Martin. I have no stance, and don’t believe in any teachings, ‘emptiness’ teachings, or otherwise.

All that stuff about Abhāsa and reflected consciousness, even advice of a guarantor as an ‘influence,’ is conceptual – your comments sound conceptual. I can’t feel the real realization in them. And I am still not sure what you want to convey to me in your comments? What’s your core communication to me?

M. My core communication to you is asking – if you don’t mind – who or what are ‘you’? Maybe you have not had any intellectual influence (which would be most unusual) and what ‘defines’ you is nihilism. Or you may maintain that there is neither birth nor death, like some Eastern sage (with which I concur – though not being a sage), or ‘you’ are spontaneously self-realized, having gone beyond the ego, which I will not doubt or deny. But If I ask you a question, who or what makes a reply? That would help me to understand…

NA. Very confusing, Martin. What are you asking for? What are you getting at? Is there an actual question here? If your question is whether or not there are any actual ‘separate entities’ sharing this language, then having ‘understanding’ or having judgments, you already know the answer: It is just Life. Just ‘Being’ appearing to talk to ‘Being’ about things ‘Being’ already knows, and needs no reminding of. Just ‘playing’.

But you already knew that. So where are you going with this?

M. Does ‘Being’ talk? Who is that ‘you’ you refer to in your last sentence?

NA. Who is the ‘you’ called Martin writing this question?

M. Who am I? Someone who wants to play, to borrow your expression.

NA. I told you that I don’t believe in any teaching. Only ‘Being’ is, and that is what I am.

M. Some say, Being is not. Who is right?

NA. I am champion of the world.

M. Champion of what?

NA. Champion of ‘I’.

M. Champion of you?

NA. No, champion of ‘I am’.

M. Have you discovered it?

NA. Yes, I have discovered it to the nth point: I am that I am.

M. But those are the words of God – God’s proverbial utterance.

NA. Is there any difference between God and me?

M. Not in the lower realm. I forgot; you said that before — How about the higher realm?

NA. That I am too.

M. Can you explain it?

NA. No need to explain. I know it… I just know it … by heart.

M. How about non-being?

NA. No, I am not that… told you that before, or think I did.

M. To be or not to be?

NA. That is the question, but you want to confound me.

M. Me is ‘me’?

NA. Told you also…. I am everything… and of course, everybody. I just know it.