Neo-Advaita

Part of a series on
Advaita Vedanta
Main articles Advaita Vedanta Neo-Advaita
Subschools Bhāmatī Vivarana
People Adi Shankara Ramakrishna Swami Vivekananda Ramana Maharshi
Neo-Advaita H. W. L. Poonja Andrew Cohen Gangaji Eckhart Tolle
Practices Self-enquiry Bhakti yoga Karma yoga Jnana yoga Rāja yoga
Scriptures Prasthanatrayi (Upanishads Bhagavad Gita Brahma Sutras)
v t e

Neo-Advaita, also called the Satsang-movement^[1] and Nondualism,^{[web 1]} is New Religious Movement deriving authority from the teachings of the 20th century sage Ramana Maharshi,^{[web 2]} which were introduced in the west by Paul Brunton^[2] and Arthur Osborne,^[2] and popularized by H. W. L. Poonja and several of his western students.^[3] Other influences are western discourses, such as "New Age millennialism, Zen, self-empowerment and self-therapy".^[4]

It is a controversial movement,^{[web 3][5]} which makes little use of the "traditional language or cultural frames of Advaita Vedanta".^[6] It has been severely criticized^[7] for its lack of preparatory training in the form of knowledge of the scriptures^[8] and "renunciation as necessary preparation for the path of jnana-yoga".^[8][9]

Critics doubt whether the Neo-Advaitins are prepared for the insight into non-duality^{[note 1]} and regard enlightenment-experiences induced by Neo-Advaita as superficial.^{[10][11][note 2]}

History

According to Lucas^[12] and Frawley,^{[web 2]} the spiritual root of neo-Advaita is Ramana Maharshi:

These groups constitute a growing segment of North America’s liberal spirituality subculture and bear witness to the transposability of the Maharshi’s teachings and the portability of his method of self-inquiry into non-Indian cultural spaces.^[13]

Already in the 1930s Ramana Maharshi's teachings were brought to the west by Paul Brunton in his A Search in Secret India.^[2] Stimulated by Arthur Osborne, in the 1960s Bhagawat Singh actively started to spread Ramana Maharshi's teachings in the USA.^[2]

Since the 1970s western interest in Asian religions has seen a rapid growth. Ramana Maharshi's teachings have been further popularized in the west via H. W. L. Poonja and his students:^[3]

In North America alone, at least seventy-seven different teachers and organizations acknowledge or claim the influence of the Maharshi, or of prominent followers such as H.W.L.Poonja (a.k.a.Papaji, 1913–1997). Many of these teachers fall into the category of Neo-Advaita, a term not always complimentary from a traditional Advaita perspective.^[14]

Poonja, better known as Papaji, has been sharply critizised for too easily authorising students to teach:

One of the tragedies of Poonjaji's teaching ministry is that he either told, inferred, or allowed hundreds of individuals to believe they were fully enlightened simply because they'd had one, or many, powerful experiences of awakening. These "enlightened" teachers then proceeded to enlighten their own students in a similar way, and thus was born what is known as the "neo-Advaita", or "satsang" movement in western culture.^[15]

Neo-Advaita has become an important constituent of popular western spirituality:

...a Neo-Advaitin subculture stretching from British Columbia to Nova Scotia, from California to North Carolina, from Australia to New Zealand, and from Western Europe to South Asia.These seekers can listen to a diverse cohort of Neo-Advaitin and Advaitin teachers at seminars, workshops,retreats and satsangs on five continents.^[6]

It is being spread by websites and publishing enterprises, which give an easy access to its teachings.^[6]

The "Ramana effect"

Though Ramana Maharshi himself never initiated students, nor started a lineage,^{[web 4]} his teachings have been popularized in the west. Lucas has called the popularisation of Ramana Maharshi's teachings in the west "the Ramana effect".^[16] According to Lucas, following Thomas Csordas, the success of this movement is due to a "portable practice" and a "transposable message".^[16]

According to Lucas, Ramana Maharshi's main practice, self-inquiry via the question "Who am I?", is easily practiceable in a non-institutionalized context:^[16]

Although the Maharshi was inscribed in a Vedantic culture/tradition, he did not require seekers to adopt it in order to practice self-inquiry. He also did not demand commitment to an institution or ideology, but only to the practice itself. [...] Neo-Advaitin teachers in North America use variations on this basic practice, and present it without its traditional Advaitic framing.^[16]

Ramana's teachings are also transposable:

The Maharshi made no demands that seekers leave behind their primary religious affiliations and often quoted Jewish and Christian scriptures to Westerners. By deemphasizing specifically Advaitic elements (i.e.,traditional language, philosophy and theology) of their teaching and repackaging them within the psychologized thought-world of contemporary North Americans, Neo-Advaitin teachers are able to transform Maharshi’s Advaitin teaching into a species of self-help accessible to a sizable number of adherents.^[17]

Neo-Advaita and Advaita Vedanta

According to Lucas, Ramana Maharshi was the greatest modern proponent of Advaita Vedanta, well—known for emphasizing the enquiry of the question "Who am I?" as a means to attain awakening.^[16]

Devotion

Early on, Ramana was worshipped by his devotees. People came to Ramana Maharshi for darshana,^[18] devotion to God by looking at him in the person of a guru or incarnation.^[19][20] Ramana himself considered God, Guru and Self to be the manifestations of the same reality.^{[web 5]} In later life, Ramana himself came to be regarded as Dakshinamurthy,^{[21][22][web 6]} an aspect of Shiva as a guru.

Objects being touched or used by him were highly valued by his devotees, "as they considered it to be prasad and that it passed on some of the power and blessing of the Guru to them".^[23] People also tried to touch his feet,^[24] which is also considered to be darshana.^[25] Also the water which he used to wash his hands was valued. The bathing-water he used became an object for achamaniyam, "sipping drops of water for religious purpose".^[26]

Though driven by his own insights,^{[web 7]} his appearance as a mauni, a silent saint absorbed in samadhi, fitted into pre-existing Indian notions of holiness.^[27][28] The Indian devotion toward Ramana Maharshi is to be understood in this Indian context.^{[28][29][note 3]}

Vedanta

Ramana Maharshi never "received diksha (initiation) from any recognised authority".^{[web 6][note 4]} It was via his devotees that he became acquainted with classic texts on Yoga and Vedanta,^[24][30] and used them to explain his insights:^[31]

People wonder how I speak of Bhagavad Gita, etc. It is due to hearsay. I have not read the Gita nor waded through commentaries for its meaning. When I hear a sloka (verse), I think its meaning is clear and I say it. That is all and nothing more.^[32]

Ramana himself did not call his insights advaita:

D. Does Sri Bhagavan advocate advaita?

M. Dvaita and advaita are relative terms. They are based on the sense of duality. the Self is as it is. There is neither dvaita nor advaita. "I Am that I Am."^{[note 5]} Simple Being is the Self.^[33]

Shaivism

Ramana's teachings and his spiritual life are strongly connected to Shaivism.^{[note 6]} In contrast to Shankara's Vedanta, which speaks of Maya and sees "this world as a trap and an illusion, Shaivism says it is the embodiment of the Divine".^[34] It speaks of "the Goddess Shakti, or spiritual energy, portrayed as the Divine Mother who redeems the material world".^[34]

Shaiva Siddhanta, the Shaivism which is prevalent in Tamil Nadu, combines the original emphasis on ritual fused with an intense devotional tradition expressed in the bhakti poetry of the Nayanars.^[35] The Tamil compendium of devotional songs known as Tirumurai, along with the Vedas, the Shaiva Agamas and "Meykanda" or "Siddhanta" Shastras, form the scriptural canon of Tamil Shaiva Siddhanta.^[36]

As a youth, prior to his awakening, Ramana read the Periya Puranam, the stories of the 63 Tamil saints.^{[37][translation 1]} In later life, he told those stories to his devotees:

When telling these stories, he used to dramatize the characters of the main figures in voice and gesture and seemed to identify himself fully with them.^[38]

In later life, he came to be regarded as a Dakshinamurthy,^{[web 8]} an aspect of Shiva as a guru of all types of knowledge, and bestower of jnana. This aspect of Shiva is his personification as the supreme or the ultimate awareness, understanding and knowledge.^[39] This form represents Shiva in his aspect as a teacher of yoga, music, and wisdom, and giving exposition on the shastras.

Ramana considered the Self to be his guru, in the form of the sacred mountain Arunachala, where he spent his adult life. Arunachala is a holy hill at Thiruvannamalai in Tamil Nadu, where the Annamalaiyar Temple, a temple of Lord Shiva is located. It is one of the five main shaivite holy places in South India.^[40]

One of the works that Ramana used to explain his insights was the Ribhu Gita, a song at the heart of the Shivarahasya Purana, one of the 'Shaiva Upapuranas' or ancillary Purana regarding Shiva and Shaivite worship. Another work used by him was the Dakshinamurthy Stotram, a text by Shankara.^[38] It is a hymn to Shiva, explaining Advaita Vedanta.

Western discourses

Neo-Advaita uses western discourses, such as "New Age millennialism, Zen, self-empowerment and self-therapy"^[4] to transmit its teachings. It makes little use of the "traditional language or cultural frames of Advaita Vedanta".^[6]

The western approach to "Asian enlightenment traditions".^[41]

... is a notoriously eclectic and messy affair. The individual actors and communities involved in the dialogue have often practiced or still practice in more than one Asian or Asian-inspired tradition and borrow from numerous Western discourses such as psychology, science, and politics.^[41]

Neo-Advaita is framed in a western construction of experiential and perennial mysticism,^[42] "to the disregard of its social, ethical and political aspects":^[42]

This modern experiential and perennialist mystical framework has been hugely influential in the presentation of Asian religions in the West. It can be found in Neo-Vedanta, particularly in the works of Sarvepalli Radhakrishna and Swami Vivekananda, and is present in D.T. Suzuki's popular decontextualized and experiential account of Zen Buddhism. The notion of a philosophia perennis is also a major theme in the works of the Theosophical Society and undergirds much of the New Age appropriation of Eastern religions within contemporary western culture. Particularly influential are Aldous Huxley's The Perennial Philosophy, which champions Advaita Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism, and his The Doors of Perception, which compares his experiences on mescaline to Hindu and Buddhist soteriological goals. The perennial philosophy also reappears and is widely disseminated in psychological form in transpersonal psychology with the work of popular thinkers such as Ken Wilber.^{[43][note 7]}

Gregg Lahood also mentions Neo-Advaita as an ingredient of "cosmological hybridization, a process in which spiritual paradises are bound together",^[44] of which New Age, transpersonal psychology and the works of Ken Wilber are examples:^[45]

[T]ranspersonalism’s search for a presumed inner truth may well be the skeletal structure around which the New Age has clothed itself—with a hybrid paradise.

Central to this project was a series of strange marriages, amalgamations, juxtapositions, and cultural borrowings largely between the mysticism of the East and the psychology of West—between America and Asia. These included, the American Transcendentalists’ embrace of the Vedas [...] Aldous Huxley with Vedanta, Allan Watts with the Tao, Zen, Advaita Vedanta [...] This long cultural procession of religious blending is the fertile cultural mélange out of which Ken Wilber’s influential ladder of consciousness grew: a hybrid cosmos of Neo-Platonism and Neo-Advaita Vedanta (which as will be shown is also the backbone of the New Age movement).^[45]

Brown and Leledaki place this "hybridization" in a "structurationist or post-dualist theoretical view of the social world",^[46] pointing out that this is an "invented tradition", which claim a continuity with a "historic past", where...

...the continuity with [the historic past] is largely facticious. In short, they are responses to novel situations which take the form of reference to old situations, or which establish their own past by quasiobligatory repetition. (Hobsbawm, 1983, quoted in ^[47]

Brown and Leledaki see these newly emerging traditions as part of western Orientalism, the fascination of western cultures with eastern cultures, but also the reduction of "Asian societies, its people, practices and cultures to essentialist images of the 'other'".^[48] Brown and Leledaki also note that this Orientalism is not a one-way affair:

[T]here has been a dynamic interaction between Asian and Western representatives of various religious traditions over the last 150 years. These interactions do illustrate that sufficient numbers of cultural exchanges have taken place both formally and informally for us to suspect that cultural blending of thought and practice is embedded (to various degrees) in the invented traditions emerging from modernities in both East and West.^{[49][note 8]}

Criticism

Neo-Advaita is a controversial movement,^{[web 3][5]} which has been severely criticized,^{[7][note 9]} for its emphasis on insight alone, omitting the preparatory practices:^{[web 9][web 10]}

The teachings of Ramana Maharshi are often the starting point for neo-Advaitic teachers, though other influences also exist in the movement. However, instead of looking into the background and full scope of Ramana’s teachings, there is often only a focus only on those of his teachings that seem to promise quick realization for all."^{[web 2]}

It has also been criticised for its references to a "lineage" of Ramana Maharshi, whereas Ramana never claimed to have disciples^{[citation needed]} and never appointed any successors.^{[web 6][web 11][web 12]}

Practice

Practice is necessary

Traditional Advaita Vedanta...

[I]nvolves decades of study and practice under the guidance of a qualified teacher and has little to do with the "enlightenment" that is proclaimed in much of the present-day neo-Advaita movement.^[1]

This study and practice is necessary to prepare the mind for the insight into non-duality:

Traditional Vedanta completely [...] insists that a person be discriminating, dispassionate, calm of mind, and endowed with a ‘burning’ desire for liberation along with other secondary qualifications like devotion, faith, perseverance and so on. In other words it requires a mature adult with a one-pointed desire to know the Self.^{[web 10]}

Classical Advaita practice fits into Indian philosophy. Indian philosophy emphasizes that "every acceptable philosophy should aid man in realizing the Purusarthas, the chief aims of human life:^[50]

• Dharma: the right way to life, the "duties and obligations of the individual toward himself and the society as well as those of the society toward the individual";^[51]
• Artha: the means to support and sustain one's life;
• Kāma: pleasure and enjoyment;
• Mokṣa: liberation, release.

According to Puligandla:

Any philosophy worthy of its title should not be a mere intellectual exercise but should have practical application in enabling man to live an enlightened life. A philosophy which makes no difference to the quality and style of our life is no philosophy, but an empty intellectual construction.^[52]

Advaita Vedanta gives an elaborate path to attain moksha. It entails more than self-inquiry or bare insight into one's real nature. Practice, especially Jnana Yoga, is needed to "destroy one’s tendencies (vAasanA-s)" before real insight can be attained.^{[web 10]} Classical Advaita Vedanta uses the "fourfold discipline" (sādhana-catustaya)^[53] to train students and attain moksha.

Neo-Advaita disregards traditional practice

Neo-Advaita claims to remove ignorance, but does not offer help to remove ignorance:

A neo-advaita teacher typically claims that the world and the person are unreal. Consequently, there is no one searching for the truth and no one who can help them to find it (i.e. neither seeker nor teacher). There is therefore no point in wasting time and effort looking for the truth; the scriptures are of no value and so on. So no, you cannot say that ‘they teach advaita but without the traditional methods’ because the traditional methods are really what constitute advaita. Advaita is a proven methodology for helping seekers to remove the ignorance that is preventing them from realizing the already-existing truth, namely that there is only Brahman (or whatever you want to call the non-dual reality). Neo-advaita makes the same claim but offers nothing at all to help the seeker remove the ignorance.

Given that there is only Brahman, we are obviously already That. But clearly we do not know this to be true. Simply saying that it is true is of little help, but this is effectively all that the neo-advaitins do." ^{[web 13]}

The enlightenment-experiences induced by these teachers and their satsangs are considered to be superficial:

To assume that such temporary experiences of perceiving emptiness and enlightenment are the end of the path is a grave error.^[1]

The Neo Advaita trap

The "Neo-Advaita trap"^{[web 14]} is the fallacy of regarding seeing through the 'illusion of ego' as the main point of Advaita Vedanta:

Traditional Advaita says that the ego is an illusion. The ‘Satsang Prophets’ emphasize this as THE starting point, completely omitting that this realization may only occur at the end of years of self-inquiry and work on oneself (and not necessarily with any certainty). Once this premise is understood and the self-cheating is engaged, one obtains a constant very pleasant feeling of superiority and invulnerability. This is what they regard as being the ultimate accomplishment.^{[web 14]}

Jacobs warns that Advaita Vedanta practice takes years of committed practice to sever the "occlusion"^[54] of the so-called "vasanas, samskaras, bodily sheaths and vrittis", and the "granthi^{[note 10]} or knot forming identification between Self and mind":^[55]

The main Neo-Advaita fallacy ignores the fact that there is an occlusion or veiling formed by vasanas, samskaras, bodily sheaths and vrittis, and there is a granthi or knot forming identification between Self and mind, which has to be severed [...] The Maharshi's remedy to this whole trap is persistent effective Self-enquiry, and/or complete unconditional surrender of the 'phantom ego' to Self or God, until the granthi is severed, the vasanas are rendered harmless like a burned out rope.^[56]

Lineage

Ramana did not publicize himself as a guru,^[57] never claimed to have disciples,^{[citation needed]} and never appointed any successors.^{[web 6][web 11][web 12][note 11]} While a few who came to see him are said to have become enlightened through association,^{[note 12]} he did not publicly acknowledge any living person as liberated^{[citation needed]} other than his mother at death.^[58]

Ramana never promoted any lineage.^{[web 6][note 13]} Despite this, there are numerous contemporary teachers who assert, suggest, or are said by others, to be in his lineage.^{[59][web 15][web 6][web 16][web 12][note 14][note 15]} These assertions have been disputed by other teachers.^{[web 10][web 9]} In contrast to those Neo-Advaita teachers,^{[web 9]} Ramana and like-minded teachers like Nisargadatta Maharaj^{[web 9][note 16]}

... never charged any fees or "suggested donations" and [...] generously, virtuously, compassionately and heroically lived and exemplified the Advaita or Advaya, not just talked about it.^{[web 9]}

Western critics object to the perceived relation between Ramana Maharshi and Neo-Advaita. According to James Swartz:

Then in the Eighties the Western spiritual world became reacquainted with Ramana Maharshi [...] The rediscovery of Ramana roughly coincided with the rise of ‘Neo-Advaita.’ Neo-Advaita is basically a ‘satsang’ based ‘movement’ that has very little in common with either traditional Vedanta or modern Vedanta or even its inspiration, Ramana…except the doctrine of non-duality.^{[web 10]}

And Timothy Conway states:

...there's NO LINEAGE FROM MAHARSHI and most of these figures are NOT fully enlightened or liberated in any really meaningful sense of the term.^{[web 9]}

See also

Notes

References

Book-references

Web-references

Translations of Indian texts

Sources

Further reading

• Jacobs, Alan (2004), Advaita and Western Neo-Advaita. In: The Mountain Path Journal, autumn 2004, pages 81-88, Ramanasramam 
• Lucas, Phillip Charles (2011), "When a Movement Is Not a Movement. Ramana Maharshi and Neo-Advaita in North America", Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions. Vol. 15, No. 2 (November 2011) (pp. 93-114) 

External links

Background

• Neo-Advaita demystified
• Neo-Advaita or Pseudo-Advaita and Real Advaita-Nonduality
• Traditional vs Neo-Advaita

Teachers

• advaita.org.uk: Traditional Advaita Vedanta & neo-Advaita Teachers
• Sarlo's Guru Rating Service: list of nondual teachers

Ramana Maharshi

• J. Glenn Friesen (2006), Ramana Maharshi: Hindu and non-Hindu Interpretations of a Jivanmukta Critical assessment of the interpretations given to Ramana Maharshi