Neo-Advaita

I've recently discovered The Urban Guru Cafe, a podcast dedicated to what is often called Neo-Advaita, and, in my usual compulsive style, I've listened to all the available episodes. Advaita, Neo or otherwise, preaches (and actually means) non-duality, meaning there's no separation between, well, anything and anything. Jargon and lines of argument may vary, but basically these people will say that striving for enlightenment is a waste of time because you already are what you seek; that past and future are illusions, and, therefore, the idea of spiritual journey is an illusion too; that there is nothing to gain from meditation or any other spiritual practices, because there is no I or you in the first place to gain anything from anything; that gurus are playing a game that keeps people trapped in the illusion that they need to do something to get enlightened, or that there is such a thing as enlightenment, or even a person to get enlightened; that undivided presence, consciousness, or simply that is all there is, and there's nothing outside of it or indeed different from it; and that experiences, things, people, mind, self, concepts, time, etc. are all appearances without any real substance.

The people interviewed in this podcast all seem very sure of themselves and speak as if what they were saying was blindingly obvious and they couldn't understand why the rest of the world would choose to remain trapped in the belief that they exist as real entities in a real world. They write books and give talks (often called satsangs), charging an entry fee (often called donation) if there are people who are willing to pay, in which they announce the end of the spiritual search. They will insist that you're not going to gain anything from any gurus, books, practices, etc., because, as I said, there isn't even a you to gain anything. How they justify their writing illusory books, full of illusory concepts, that illusory people will read and buy giving them illusory money, or going on an illusory tour of illusory satsangs, scheduled at specific times in the illusory future, in which they will go on and on about how pointless the spiritual search is, is something that escapes me.

What's really interesting is how devoid of meaning their arguments can be. You'll often hear them say, for example, that you are not a person, that the self is just a concept without any real substance. And I ask, is "person" not, by definition, precisely what we are? In other words, the word "person" was essentially "invented" to refer to that which we are, whatever that may be. So what these guys are in effect saying is that a person is not a person. Cool. And then, what does "a concept without any real substance" mean? What does a "real substance" look like? "Precisely," they would reply. But then, what does it mean to say that something doesn't have any real substance when there is no such thing as a real substance? Another one of their core beliefs is that what we call reality, including ourselves, other people, concepts, things, time, matter, etc. is just an appearance, an illusion, a dream. And again I ask, if everything is an illusion, what does "illusion" mean? Illusion only means something by comparison: we say that some things are an illusion only by contrast to the the rest of the things, which are not an illusion. Similarly, if we say that nothing is ultimately real, we are just rendering the quality of realness meaningless. It only makes sense to say that something isn't real by comparison to the rest of the things, which are real.

Imagine we all got enlightened, or saw things "as they truly are" — call it whatever is non-dualisticly acceptable. Imagine we all realised that reality is an illusion and began to refer to it as such. Would we not end up inventing a new term to discriminate between the illusion formerly known as reality and the illusion that we've called illusion all along? And if we all finally realised that the self doesn't exist, that there is no you or me, and dropped personal pronouns and referred to ourselves as, for example, empty experiencing, would we not end up devising some way of discriminating between this empty experiencing over here that writes a blog and that empty experiencing over there that reads it?

What I find most troubling about these neo-Advaita people is that they appear to be absolutely convinced of what they're preaching. They're all radically awakened, or whatever other synonym of the — for most of them taboo — word "enlightened" they use to describe themselves, and they consequently have to readily produce a confident answer to every question thrown at them. They'll never say, "Hmm... I don't really know. What do you think?" They'll just make something up, or pick one of their stock responses that's only tangentially related to the question. And then, after all this pontificating, they'll categorically reject the idea that they are any kind of gurus or spiritual teachers. But all things considered, that's hardly surprising given that they reject the idea that they are persons at all.

Why do I then bother listening to them at all? you might rightly ask. Well, I generally enjoy philosophical and spiritual gibberish, even if I don't agree with it. As long as they don't abuse words like energy, vibration and quantum too often, and don't expect me to believe in elaborate fairy tales, it's all good to keep my restless mind entertained. And, to be fair, I do find the Advaita ideas interesting; it's just that I can't stand the complete absence of self-doubt most of these people display. If you're so open-minded that you're prepared to believe that everything is an illusion, it wouldn't do you any harm to also be open to the possibility that you've got hold of the wrong end of the philosophical stick. And, of course, this doesn't just apply to Neo-Advaita.