On May 2, 2008, at 1:52 PM, Duveyoung wrote: > The funniest thing to me is that no one here has yet convinced me that > they grok Advaita enough to know what it is enough to accept or reject > it. To reject neo-Advaitans is easypeasy if you don't know what > you're talking about. It takes some very adroit observations to catch > the neo-Advaitans being dissonant with the words of Ramana Maharshi or > Nisargadatta Maharaj, but the very fact that "language" is being used > can account for most of the errors of the neo-Ads.
LOL. Oh really? > When the signs of ego attachment -- not merely "egoic presence" -- are > seen in the neo-Ads, this is not a legitimate disproving of Advaita's > axioms or techniques. If such logic were valid, then every religion > on Earth would be quickly discounted to zilch, if the true believers > were to be judged as signs of the dogma's practicality. > > So, when I see anti-neo-Advaita smarm, it comes off as such uninformed > retching that the expression of that POV signals a major > dysfunctionality of them whats doin' the rejectioning. I could easily say the same of advaitins and neoadvaitins -- if the constant bickering and infighting on any of their popular Yahoo! lists are any example. > Why is this so surprising that a sub-set of a group should be > "slightly off message/dogma?" And who cares? If the technique is not > used, understanding Advaita intellectually is evolutionarily > worthless. Well if you want 200% you'd have to master BOTH the relative AND the absolute, no? The advaitins I admire master dualistic meditational approaches and the different levels of nondual contemplation AND have a sound grounding in the relative expression of That. Thanks for sharing with us one of the most typical mistakes of modern advaitin talkers and satsangeroos.
