Hope-less

Hope-less

On your two observations: Some people, who don’t really understand advaita, speak of teachers who are “advaita” or “neo-advaita.” As Tony Parsons has commented, “The term Neo-Advaita is a misnomer.”

The bottom line for the nondual teachings, including advaita, is nothingness—emptiness, or Void. Neo refers to something which has been modified, changed in content. Nothingness is not subject to change; as is, say, colonialism modified into neo-colonialism. In other words, neo-advaita makes no more sense than “neo-nothing.” What the epithet “neo-advaita” is trying to say is that there are different styles which an advaita teacher might employ. Depending on who is being addressed, the emphasis might be purely on the aspect of the Absolute (“there is no doer”) or might relate to both the relative and the Absolute (“okay, you are the doer—but who are ‘you’?”). At one point a seeker might declare, “I am That!” At a later point, she might state: “There is no I, and there is no That.” Do we have a seeker and a neo-seeker?

The most sensible response to the term neo-advaita is to disregard it.

You have to bear in mind that for some people, all of this is just entertainment. They’ve had a long-time interest in this subject; and whenever they find time to read or hear about it, it makes them feel “spiritual.”

This kind of person generally enjoys arguing about some of the nuances (“only a vegetarian could be enlightened”), and often holds that only the three persons he can name were ever Self-realized.

So for some, Self-realization is merely a matter for pastime discussion, not a life-changing investigation. This is often because the person doesn’t believe that Self-realization is possible for him—or for you. So, you can’t expect that everyone is going to take seriously what it is that you’re pointing out.