*** Read Part 2 *** *** Go to Part 1 ***

Advaita refers to the unchanging reality by the Sanskrit term paramārtha and to the constantly changing appearance by vyavahāra. Within this phenomenal realm, separate individuals and objects are recognized and a creator-god, Īśvara, uses the power of māyā to obscure the truth and project the apparent world. It thus affirms that our experience does not tally with its non-dual claims. It acknowledges an appearance of duality, which is at odds with the reality. It also states that we can never directly know the reality. Accordingly, its effective teaching strategy is to successively negate the appearance. That which ‘remains’ and cannot be negated must be the reality. Once the reality is thus effectively (but not literally) known, then it is also realized that the appearance, too, is that same reality.

This process inevitably takes time, from the vantage point of the seeker who is still mired at the level of appearance. The ignorance that prevents the immediate apprehension of reality is effectively in the mind and it is at the level of the mind that this ignorance must be removed. Knowledge must be introduced in such a way that the mind can accept it, using reason and experience. Just as a student is unable to appreciate the subtleties of quantum physics without having the preliminary grounding in mathematics and science, so the seeker is unable to assimilate the ‘bottom-line’ truth of Advaita since it is so contrary to his everyday experience.

Neo-Advaita does not recognize this seeming distinction between the reality and the appearance, between paramārtha and vyavahāra. Instead, it attempts to speak of the reality directly. This appearance IS the reality, they say  – ‘This is it’ is one of the favourite catch-phrases. They speak of the appearance only in metaphor, one of the most popular being a ‘story’. Thus, the life of an apparent individual is merely a story and whatever happens is only happening in the story. This might include enlightenment or it might not – it makes no difference either way. The story has already been written and nothing can change it, since there is no free-will – there is no person who could have free will. This doesn’t, of course, prevent the story of the neo-Advaitin teacher including such things as continuing to hold satsangs, publish books etc. and make money.

It is certainly true to say that the way things truly are is the way they are, i.e. reality is reality. But this is not saying very much – it is a truism. However, to expand on this, the way things are seen to be depends upon the state of the equipment that sees them. If you are wearing rose-coloured spectacles, things will appear rosy but that does not mean that they are. Just because it appears that the lady is being sawn in half does not mean that is genuinely the case. The fact of the matter is that all apparent individuals are deluded until so-called enlightenment occurs, removing the ignorant view of vyavahāra and supplanting it by a direct apprehension of how things really are. Note that this does not change the appearance – there will still seem to be separate people and objects – but it will then be known that these are only names and forms of the non-dual reality.

Neither is it true to say that nothing can be done to bring about this enlightenment, absence of free-will not withstanding. The point that “nothing can be done, because there isn’t actually any entity present that could do anything” is a non-sequitur. Although ‘I’ cannot do anything (because ‘I’ do not exist as a separate entity), this does not mean that things do not happen. Yoga will cause movement in one direction; selfish indulgence will cause movement in another, simply according to the natural law of cause and effect within the phenomenal realm. The implication that ‘nothing needs to happen’ (in order to become enlightened) is erroneous. What needs to happen is a particular transformation of the mind to eliminate the ignorance once and for all. (This transforming thought is called akhaṇḍākāra vṛtti in Sanskrit.) Then this particular instantiation of mind and Consciousness (i.e. ‘person’) becomes ‘enlightened’ – and (knowingly) ceases to be a person.

If nothing is done, nothing will happen! The imagined ‘I’ will continue in its life of suffering. Of course this is irrelevant at the level of reality – after all ‘I am Brahman’ – but to the ignorant jīva it makes all the difference. This is why, having heard this message many times (and, after all, it is simple enough!), the seeker still keeps coming back to satsang and reading books that only tell him the same thing over and over again.

The statements of neo-Advaitin teachers cannot be made from the standpoint of paramārtha by definition. Language itself is part of vyavahāra. For the teacher to speak to a seeker assumes duality so that it is self-contradiction for those words to deny all of this. It is not possible to describe the appearance from the vantage point of reality since there is no duality in reality; no teacher or seeker and no language. If we are to speak meaningfully about anything in the appearance, we have to make our stand in that appearance. From this vantage point, while there is identification, ‘I’ seem to be suffering; when there is liberation, it is known that the ‘me’ who seemed to be suffering does not really exist. So (in the phenomenal realm) there are seekers and there is enlightenment once the obscuring ignorance is removed. (Note that the word ‘liberation’ never really applies, since ‘we’ are already free. We just don’t know it.)

Being repeatedly told that there is nothing to do, that ‘this is it’, may be comforting to the western mindset but it carries with it the very great danger of increasing frustration and helplessness. This might indeed be the intention of neo-Advaita, namely to take away the props that hold up the ignorant position of the ego, but if it fails to do so (as, I suggest it fails in the vast majority of cases) it leaves the seeker in a very vulnerable and directionless situation. Furthermore, the teacher is unable to help since she has said all that she can say.

Another aspect of the same teaching is the implication (though it is often actually expressed) that it doesn’t make any difference what the seeker does – ‘do what you like’! (Though it is not explained how this can be achieved in the absence of free will!) This is again confusing real and apparent. What ‘I’ do only makes ‘no difference’ at the level of reality. In the apparent world, where the seeker lives out his albeit apparent life, if he ‘does what he wants’ and breaks the law for example, he will end up in prison or worse.  He is most unlikely to end up ‘enlightened’! Regardless of how unappealing the mental preparation and practices of the scriptures might be, it is those that are most likely to lead to enlightenment in the world of appearance.

*** Go to Part 4 (conclusion) ***