*** Read Part 3 *** *** Go to Part 1 ***
The term ‘neo-Vedanta’ is used these days to describe the teaching of Ramakrishna and Vivekananda followers. It is characterized by ideas such as the need to ‘experience’ Brahman through samādhi, since Self-knowledge is only an ‘intellectual’ understanding. Up until the late 20th C, it was also sometimes called neo-Advaita. It diverges from the Advaita as systematized by Śaṅkara because Vivekananda was adversely influenced by Yoga philosophy, incorporating some of their teaching and denigrating the scriptural authority of the Vedas. I am not addressing this further in this article. Read the excellent book by Anantanand Rambachan – ‘The Limits of Scripture: Vivekananda’s Reinterpretation of the Vedas’ – if interested. (Amazon UK; Amazon US)
My own book ‘Confusions in Advaita Vedanta – Knowledge, Experience and Enlightenment’ also has an account of the differences, and sources of confusion. (Exotic India; Amazon US). (N.B. there only seems to be a hardback available at Amazon UK at present, at a ridiculous price. Exotic India is much cheaper. It is in US but has free postage to UK. Alternatively, probably cheapest of all from the publisher, Indica Books, in India.)
I was once ‘accused’ by Greg Goode of coining the phrase ‘neo-Advaita’ to describe most modern, Western, satsang teaching. It was intended as a derogatory term! Actually, I don’t think I did coin it; it was simply that Greg and I popularized it in our discussions on the Advaitin list back in 2002. The earliest reference to the term that I could find seems to be from Gummuluru Murthy, who referred to ‘neo-advaita or pseudo-advaita’. He said that seekers following this were at least making a step in the right direction: “They were serious enough to join what they perceive to be a satsang.”. And he criticized those he perceived as being rigid traditionalists: “those who consider themselves to be purists of advaita, the strict temple-worshippers, the dogmatic and obstinate people at the other end of the spectrum, who interpret the Vedas literally and fail to change the thinking of what advaita is from rebirth to rebirth.” (Advaitin group, 4th March 2002)
I guess ‘pseudo’ is most likely to be understood in a derogatory sense (only ‘pretending’ to be Advaita), whereas ‘neo’ is a (possibly reluctant) positive adjective, meaning ‘new’ for our time, and not the dated, traditional stuff. Anyway, by 2004, I was discussing Advaita versus Neo Advaita on the ‘Satsang Diary’ group with Tanya Davis, a staunch Neo-advaitin. And arguing with Tony Parsons, the archetypal Neo-Advaitin – see his original article at https://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/trad_neo/not_twoness_parsons.htm and my response at https://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/trad_neo/not_twoness_waite.htm.
My most considered and argued stance against the neos was made, point by point, in my book ‘Enlightenment: the Path through the Jungle’ (Amazon US, Amazon UK). All of those points are, I believe, still valid. Nevertheless, I read some recent material from Tony and found myself being much more sympathetic than I was then. Here is something from his website, dated 2018:
“Life is not a task. There is absolutely nothing to attain except the realisation that there is absolutely nothing to attain.”
The whole personal investment in making spiritual progress, becoming more aware, more still, more open or more anything at all can simply unravel in this radical revelation. The whole perception of “the self” or “the world” it seems to live in, can be transformed and leave nothing to support the illusion of personal separation, control and continuation.
Suddenly, the absence that was feared is the absence which is unknowable, but paradoxically is also the very fullness, the freedom that was longed for.
Whilst not the traditional way of expressing the ‘consequences’ of the non-dual reality, this is still recognizably Advaita and there can be no real objection to what he is saying.
The problem with neo-Advaita has always been its doomed-to-failure attempts to handle the transition from the everyday, ignorant, dualistic beliefs to the final understanding. “This is IT” simply does not cut it! Neo-Advaita attempts to say how things ‘really’ are regarding the world, as opposed to how things appear to be. I.e. they are attempting to speak of the pāramārthika reality, as opposed to the vyāvahārika appearance – the world of our empirical experience. And we know that this is impossible. Whatever you might say, in an attempt to define, characterize or describe a non-dual reality, must be limiting to some degree, when that reality is necessarily unlimited. Even words such as ‘unlimited’ ‘infinite’ ‘absolute’ are unacceptable.
All adjectives are qualifications and Brahman is unqualified (nirviśeṣa); and they are concepts only, when Brahman is beyond thought. Even a word such as ‘absolute’ implies a relation or contrast to things that are not absolute. And there are no ‘things’. This is why the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad uses the ‘neti, neti’ construction to speak rather of what Brahman is not.
But there is no escaping the fact that traditional teaching contains much that is simply not relevant to modern Western society. All the teaching has to be dropped in the final realization of the truth. The adhyāropa-apavāda progression is intrinsic and unavoidable. Any teaching that brings one to this final realization is valid and must be acceptable. Accordingly, it seems perfectly logical that aspects that are not essential to the progression of teaching in traditional Advaita may be dropped. And aspects which contradict modern scientific understanding should be circumvented if possible.
Śaṅkara points out in the Bhagavad Gītā (18.66) that the purpose of scriptural statements is to convey those things that are not accessible to other pramāṇa-s. If they contradict those other means of knowledge, they will be intended only in a figurative sense. And it must never be forgotten that the Upaniṣad-s, Gītā and Brahmasūtra were written a long time ago. Even Śaṅkara’s commentaries were produced around 8th Century AD. All these writers had a very much ‘pre-scientific’ understanding of many topics. Not only that; they were also writing for a society that differed drastically from our own. The karmakāṇḍa part of the Vedas addresses the rituals that were routinely performed in order to propitiate gods and earn the desired karma-phalam. All of this is alien to those concerned with propitiating the anonymous criticisms on social media and earning more ‘likes’!
This, then, nullifies the value of much of the scriptural material for today’s seekers. They do not recognize the very many gods and loka-s, and consequently are not interested in practicing bhakti yoga. They know that their actions usually have personal consequences for them in the near future (and maybe even the distant future for criminal actions). But they are most unlikely to believe in a reincarnation, in which the actions in this life will reap consequences in later lives. Thus, karma yoga also has less than its full intended value.
Other concepts traditionally taught in Advaita lose their power when associated with these aspects. Thus, traditionally, the ‘grace’ of Īśvara may be said to be needed in order for the seeker to gain Self-knowledge. If one has no affinity for the idea of an all-knowing, all-powerful God, then one will tend to ignore the idea of grace. Even if Īśvara is accepted in the sense of (maintaining the) operation of all of the ‘laws’ that govern the (apparent) universe, this would not really provide scope for the preferential awarding of credit and debit according to accumulated ‘karma’.
Needless to say, ideas such as ‘līlā’ will carry no weight with most. All these related ideas require that there is an entity with human-like sentiments – a ‘god’ in the religious sense – and this no longer gels with a modern ‘scientific’ outlook. Modern science now understands a great deal about most aspects of the universe, and more is being added every year. Statements in the scriptures are often at odds with this understanding and will tend to be rejected by today’s seekers. Even where these are simply being used as metaphors to make philosophical points, their value in those endeavors is likely to be reduced.
It must be emphasized that the essential teaching of the scriptures is unaffected by any of this. The ultimate message is beyond such trivial concerns. But we are talking about conveying this message to those who are initially ignorant about, and highly skeptical of all this, so the teaching should ideally ‘tread carefully’ so as not to cause the seeker to reject the teaching as nonsensical.
Finally, at the time of Śaṅkara, Indian society was very much segregated. There were four classes or castes (varna-s) – the priestly authority of the brahmins (brahmana-s); the warriors and administrators (kṣatriya-s); the merchants (vaiśya-s); and the physical workers (śūdra-s). And life was nominally divided into four stages (āśrama-s) – student (bahmachāri); householder (gṛhastha); retired to contemplate (forest dweller, vanaprastha); wandering monk (saṃnyāsa). It was understood that those ‘seeking liberation’ from saṃsāra, the karmic process of rebirth, would follow a specific path, ending in renunciation. None of these are appropriate to modern society outside of (and increasingly within) India. Emphasizing them to Western seekers is only likely to turn them away.
Fortunately, what I would call the essential teaching of traditional Advaita does not require any of these contentious elements. It addresses our day-to-day experiences in this life and there is no need to try to consider any ‘after-life’ or transmigration. The teaching is there for those who have no problem with such notions, or still find relevance, but the rest of us can safely ignore it. Dropping them does not pose any problem or invalidate the essentials.
There are other elements such as creation and ignorance that are frequently hotly debated by some Advaitins and cannot be completely ignored. What is significant here is that most of the problems are ‘invented’ by post-Śaṅkara philosophers who may claim to be ‘clarifying’ the teaching of Śaṅkara but usually seem to be doing precisely the opposite!
Again, the point has to be made that all of the teaching is adhyāropa-apavāda. All has to be dropped eventually. What was taught by Śaṅkara is more than adequate to lead one to an understanding of the non-dual nature of reality, without the complications introduced by attempts to explain what Śaṅkara ‘really meant’.
But, although the rest of the teaching – not related to society or historical understanding – is eventually dropped, it is necessary for most seekers. It is simply not possible, for example, for anyone living ‘normally’ in the world suddenly to accept that there isn’t really any world at all. The essential teaching is valid for all times. It was, and remains, effective.
Which brings us back to the neo-Advaitins, who attempt to do precisely that. Here is Tony Parsons, from an essay on his website:
This aliveness is nothing being everything. It’s just life happening. It’s not happening to anyone. There’s a whole set of experiences happening here and they’re happening in emptiness … they’re happening in free fall. They’re just what’s happening. All there is is life. All there is is beingness. There isn’t anyone that ever has or does not have it. There’s nobody that has life and somebody else doesn’t have life. There just is life being life.
Accordingly, what I am suggesting is that, at least for the Western seeker, we adopt an ‘abbreviated’ version of traditional Advaita teaching which omits those elements that are alien to our modern society and not necessary for the essential teaching. I can immediately see, of course, that much argument may ensue about what is ‘essential’ and what isn’t! Indeed, some will suggest that the very idea constitutes a ‘watering down’ of the ‘true’ teaching and should be rejected out of hand. But I would point anyone taking this stance to the teaching of the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad and kārikā-s. Most of the teaching of Advaita is effectively rejected there! We should always keep the final teaching at the back of our mind – ajāti vāda.
I am not overly optimistic of this idea gaining hold, but I am considering writing a book in which I would endeavor to differentiate the ‘essential’ from the ‘unnecessary’. I have even thought of a name to identify this style of teaching and will herewith acknowledge the coining of the term ‘Tradapted Advaita’ – traditional Advaita adapted for the modern Western seeker. I truly believe that we can retain all of the essential ideas in their original form and only drop those which are ‘society dependent’ and non-essential for bringing enlightenment. After all, this is the position I have been effectively holding myself for the past 30 years, as those familiar with my writing on such topics as ‘Free-will’ will attest.
Lest there should be any doubts, I fully intend to continue to represent the teaching of Śaṅkara (and reject the attempts of post-Śaṅkara authors to dilute or subvert them), in all aspects other than those I consider to be ‘society-dependent’. If anyone wants to assert that this makes me no better than the neo-Advaitins, so be it! In my opinion, garnered over the past 30 years, traditional Advaita, in all ‘essential aspects’ remains the teaching most likely to bring about enlightenment (by which I mean Self-knowledge).
*** End of topic ***