Advaita and Neo Advaita.

[TraineeHuman]

There is much more to all this than there may seem to be at first glance. Almost nothing is quite as it seems here. Let me give you one example.

One thing I guess I must have in common with Sri Ramana Maharshi is that I discovered a lot of the truth about the universe and reality naturally. Also, the fact that I did it all completely on my own, and at the ages of fourteen to sixteen.

Now let’s jump forward about a decade. Up till then I’ve read nothing about the Buddha’s teaching. But I discover that Buddha’s big initial insight – or one of them – was that there is no “something” that survives death. Did he mean that when we die we cease to be, altogether? Some loudly claimed Buddha was saying Yes and others claimed he somehow meant No. I had to laugh, because of the incredible similarity from every angle to what I had clearly seen at fifteen, just by looking deep into reality. I had seen that the whole trouble was the notion of a “something”. Human beings are not “somethings”. Not even close. They are – deep inside -- far too dynamic, far too unpindownable and unlocatable and ungraspable and infinite and ultra-interconnected for that. The Buddha wasn’t saying that “There is something of ourselves that survives death” was false. He was saying it was a nonsensical sentence. Rather like talking about “the present king of France” (in the traditional sense of “king”).

Skip ahead a further decade and a half. I see a number of videos of Krishnamurti – who I consider was certainly a reincarnation of the Buddha. In these particular videos the audience is shocked because, over and over, with great vigor he apparently denies human survival after death. The audience includes a number of members of the Philosophy Department of both Cambridge and Oxford University. These are considered to be a very sharp crowd, and yet even they all fall into that misunderstanding. In the last video Krishnamurti has to be very emphatic and clear in stating that he was not trying to deny that we survive death at all, not in the slightest.

So, what am I saying? Firstly, along with the Buddha and Krishnamurti I’m saying that the whole notion that reality or life or the world or we are made up of “somethings” is utterly wrong. Trouble is, this denial entails that the whole way of conceptualizing, the entire English or similar language, is utterly wrong. It’s so misleading it’s just all wrong, in the end. This sounds like what pie’n’eal calls Neo-Advantism. However, I believe I could only have the insight that it was all wrong through having done much “work” on myself in previous lifetimes on other planets or dimensions. So, I agree with pie’n’eal that rejection of everything in the consensus reality is only genuine if it’s the end result of many years of “work”.

But at fifteen and sixteen I also discovered something else. I discovered what kinds of “language” would be much less misleading. So, I claim it’s not accurate at all to reject everything, the way pie’n’eal says Neo-Advaitins do. What we should reject is the inadequacy of most forms of human language and culture. At fifteen I did get some dazzlingly vivid insights into what a language true to reality would be like. One example of such a language is mathematics. Unfortunately, that language gets greatly abused too. For instance, many IT workers are infamous for their somewhat robotic or immature personalities, and so on. But mathematics still has a glorious true nature, however much it may get abused. In essence, what professional mathematicians study is infinities, plus their applications to physical reality. Most fine arts are also at least partial qualifiers as “reality” languages. Mathematics is all about patterns (and also the unpatternable), all about relatedness. These are treated as being real, while any “somethings” which appear at the intersections of relatednesses are treated as being just another component of all the relatedness.

Regarding the importance of “work” on yourself, I can vouch that in spite of my having such direct insights it took decades of very tough “work” on energies and emotions before I found how to apply the truth behind such insights constantly and permanently into my everyday life in the 3D world.

[Tony]

Thanks for the contribution TH!
Just to clarify, it's not me using the term Neo-Advaita..I only learnt of it yesterday

[shijo]

Posted by pie'n'eal (here)
Dear Bhusuda,

I totally concur with what you say. I smile at Buddhism being too passive - you must mean the Theravadan tradition!
If you want a bit of fire try Dzogchen.

All the very best,
Tony

If you want some real fire, the fire in the Lotus, try the Nichiren tradition!

[Tony]

Posted by shijo (here)

Posted by pie'n'eal (here)
Dear Bhusuda,

I totally concur with what you say. I smile at Buddhism being too passive - you must mean the Theravadan tradition!
If you want a bit of fire try Dzogchen.

All the very best,
Tony

If you want some real fire, the fire in the Lotus, try the Nichiren tradition!

Ok, then, now you've asked for it!! Try Vajrayana's wrathful flaming deities with many arms and legs, and...and ....I'd better not go on....it gets a bit scary!

[Tony]

No teacher I know of will ever say they are enlightened. They know the Dharma inside out, and instruct thousands of nuns and monks and lay people. Not one of them is a stupid person, and would certainly not make a claim about themselves.
No teacher will tell a student they are awake, the student has to find that out for themselves. However if you 'think' that you are awake, the teacher has ways of verifying it! ...and I think it could be quite painful!!!

Maybe we all have different ideas about what enlightenment is?

[Tarka the Duck]

I honestly never even consider whether those I listen to are enlightened or not...it really doesn't seem relevant. And I am in no position to judge whether or not that is the case anyway !

In fact, if someone deliberately lets it be known that they are "enlightened" or "awakened", I would probably move on - unless what they subsequently say is helpful, in which case, I'll listen.

Whetherr someone is enlightened is not something I need to hear: although it may be something they need to tell me...

[greybeard]

I like Eckharts humor he says
"If you think you are enlightened go spend a weekend with your parents/relatives"

Strictly speaking there is no self left to claim enlightenment.

Chris

[jimbojp]

Tony,

I'm not sure what your going on about here,
Is there someone round these parts claiming to be enlightened, how rude!
1,2,3....slap!

[Tony]

Strictly speaking there is no self left to claim enlightenment.

Ah! Strictly speaking...seems to be claim! Laughing!! The Buddha wouldn't answer the question, to whether there is a self or not. Once the mind made self has dissolved, what is left is pure essence, which cannot be said to exist or not exist. But to say nothing is left, is a bit nilhilistic. But different systems use different wording and language, as you know.

Tony

[greybeard]

Posted by pie'n'eal (here)
Strictly speaking there is no self left to claim enlightenment.

Ah! Strictly speaking...seems to be claim! Laughing!! The Buddha wouldn't answer the question, to whether there is a self or not. Once the mind made self has dissolved, what is left is pure essence, which cannot be said to exist or not exist. But to say nothing is left, is a bit nilhilistic. But different systems use different wording and language, as you know.

Tony

Unlike me to be strict Tony lol.
I mean no individual self--- there is awareness left.
Your right in that different teachers can use the same word to mean different things.
Context also important.
It might be an idea for some Avalon member in London to go to a Tony Parsons talk and report back.

Regards Chris

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by jimbojp (here)
Tony,

I'm not sure what your going on about here,
Is there someone round these parts claiming to be enlightened, how rude!
1,2,3....slap!

Is that the sound of one hand slapping?
Sorry I just seem to be in that kind of mood.
No disrespect intended.
Chris

[Tarka the Duck]

Is that the sound of one hand slapping

Hahaha! That made me laugh

[jorr lundstrom]

Posted by Tarka the Duck (here)

Posted by jorr lundstrom (here)
De-stressing? Hmmmmm.......

Humour and fun? Hmmmmm..........

Tavistock? Hmmmm...........

Keep up the speed. Hmmm.........


Jorr

What an enigmatic post, Jorr! In the interests of clarity, could you please elaborate on what are trying to say here?
As it stands, it sound rather like comments about a person, rather than insights into the issues raised in the OP...

Wot you have quoted; Kathie, is no enigma. It is my reactions in relation to
the sentence I quoted in #11. LOL Im sure the one who wrote that sentence
knows exactly wot Im pointing at. But maybe you like enigmas. I have one
that maybe can be useful for some people on a conspiracy forum. LOL
Wot can you do to avoid becoming, wot you fear most?


Jorr

[jorr lundstrom]

Tarka The Duck wrote:

I've been genuinely struggling for months to understand an idea that is often expressed here on PA, that meditation is of no benefit and that following a path is foolhardy.

Ill tell a story: Once upon the time there was a monk working in a monastery garden.
When he was taking care of the vegetables he suddenly caught a glimps of a
movement in the corner of his eye. He turned his head and saw a little blue bird.
He was so fascinated by the little blue bird that he followed it fron bush to bush
around the garden. When the little blue bird flew over the walls surrounding the
garden the monk climbed over and continued following the little blue bird. The bird
flew into the forrest surrounding the monastery and the monk followed it. The little
blue bird flew from bush to tree and back to a bush again and the monk always
caught up with it. They got very far into the forrest and often the monk wondered
if he was astray, but no, there was the little blue bird. After a long time they reached
the end of the wood and the monk saw the gate of the monastery. The little blue bird
flew off into the forrest and the monk went up to the gate and knocked at it. The
gate was opened by a young monk he couldnt recognize. He asked the young monk
if he knew of someone called "his own name" and teh young monk pondered over the
question for a while and said: We have a story of a man with that name in this monastery.
He disappeared, working in the garden 40 years ago, but come inside and we will give you
something to eat.

Following a path or a little blue bird is taking us away from where we actually are, thats the
idea of a path and even with the idea of a path. It seems many people have to walk some kind
of path, imagined or not, maybe just to know the way of the world or going astray enough to
motivate them for the journey home. Some people seem to have grown such a strong strong
relationship to their path that they just cant stop walking til the end of their lives, without
ever turning home. The path has become like a home for them.





Jorr

[jimrich]

Posted by Tony (here)
I have been looking into Advaita and discovered Neo Advaita.
For months I've been wondering what some on the forum were talking about, and where their information came from. This seems to be it.
I am not trying to be controversial, but just making sure what is being meant. I used to study under the Shankarasharya system, and do not recognise what is being said, in Neo Advaita.
My greatest obstacle is understanding why advocating doing nothing and negating everything, was being promoted. The first article is from Sri Aurobindo 1932. The second is an unknown author, but rings true, as this concurs with what can be found in buddhism, mistaking the eighth consciousness for ultimate empty essence.

I was wondering how Neo Advaita can help anyone, as it is a partial picture.

I have been looking ….I've been wondering….I am not trying….I used to study…. I was wondering…..My greatest obstacle…..

Who or what is this ‘I’ and this “my”? Who are you? Ask your self – don’t tell me.
My current understanding of Advaita or Neo-Advaita is that I need to look and see exactly who/what this ‘I’, 'my', ‘me’, etc. is. I need to clarify my identity and not get all caught up in theories, practices, states, Zen, samadhi, enlightenment and other external stuff. Who am I? is about all I currently need to ascertain and that could happen in an instant WITHOUT any “practices”, reading, study, a guru, good karma, luck or special genetics, IMO.
So I don’t get all the fuss over technicalities or who said or did what. Did Ramana know who/what he was/is? Does Tony Parsons know who/what he is? Do you know who/what you are? Ramana would say you are the (indescribable) Self, Tony would say you are Wholeness, Oneness, Awareness, This - but add that what you are cannot be put into words! IMO, all of them are pointing to the very same thing – the Source - that alone is. Ramana often warned his followers about intellectual wrangling and hair-splitting over these matters.

These articles explain it better than I could.


Spiritualteachers.org
Neo-Advaita Demystified
Although written in 1932 as cautionary words for his disciples, they are more relevant and important today than they were then.

...These things, when they pour down or come in, present themselves with a great force, a vivid sense of inspiration or illumination, much sensation of light and joy, an impression of widening and power. The sadhak feels himself freed from the normal limits, projected into a wonderful new world of experience, filled and enlarged and exalted;what comes associates itself, besides, with his aspirations, ambitions, notions of spiritual fulfillment and yogic siddhi; it is represented even as itself that realisation and fulfillment. Very easily he is carried away by the splendour and the rush, and thinks that he has realised more than he has truly done, something final or at least something sovereignly true. At this stage the necessary knowledge and experience are usually lacking which would tell him that this is only a very uncertain and mixed beginning; he may not realise at once that he is still in the cosmic Ignorance, not in the cosmic Truth, much less in the Transcendental Truth, and that whatever formative or dynamic idea-truths may have come down into him are partial only and yet further diminished by their presentation to him by a still mixed consciousness. He may fail to realise also that if he rushes to apply what he is realising or receiving as if it were something definitive, he may either fall into confusion and error or else get shut up in some partial formation in which there may be an element of spiritual Truth but it is likely to be outweighted by more dubious mental and vital accretions that deform it altogether.
These words by the Indian sage Sri Aurobindo, refer to what he called the Intermediate Zone, a dangerous and misleading transitional spiritual and pseudo-spiritual region between the ordinary consciousness of the outer being and True Realisation.

I once had a guru who told me of his "Intermediate Zone" experience after leaving an Indian Ashram and going back out into the world. He apparently became quite uninspired and disappointed with life after several years of Awakening, so he went to see his Indian teacher who was briefly visiting the States. When he told his teacher how depressed and unhappy he was with life and the world his Indian teacher said, “Because you know that chocolate is made by, of and for the Mind, can you not ENJOY IT?”
My guru got it that he could just enjoy life on its own terms and be happy with things, as they are, which relieved him of his judgments and expectations.
LOL, that happened many years ago and I am just now beginning to just enjoy life and NOT need it to be a certain way.

SECOND ARTICLE

It seems that every other day another self-proclaimed 'enlightened' teacher of Neo-Advaita appears on the scene. These Neo-Advaita guru's have reduced thousands of years of Advaita teachings into the spiritual equivalent of McDonald's junk food. No longer is it necessary for the spiritual student to engage in self-inquiry or inner work on oneself. Now all that is necessary to 'realize the Self' is a constant repetitive denial of one's own identity and the (pseudo) 'understanding' that the ego and all and everything else that happens in the universe (essence and belief systems included) is 'simply an illusion'. Everything 'just happens, there is no path, no cause', so consequently there is absolutely nothing to do.

I don't get that from neo-advaita. All the teachers I currently study repeatedly point to the ancient concept of knowing myself as NOT a limited, separate person but as the Source through just a little self examination which may or may not include: yoga, meditation, a guru, visiting or moving to India, special practices, etc. IMO, the new teachers are way ahead of the Advaita (What am I?) that my 1st guru introduced me to so long ago. He wanted me to learn to meditate, find the OverSelf (a Paul Brunton concept) and a few other "practices" which I've found utterly unnecessary for realizing who/what I am.

It's really simple, just like it was for Shankara, Buddha, Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Rumi and the relatively few others who are generally agreed to have been enlightened.

As far as I currently know, it was "simple" for Ramana and some others who seemed to "wake up" in an instant.

What? Wait a minute, I don't recall that it was easy for the above mentioned Masters. Didn't they spend years, and sometimes entire lifetimes meditating, engaged in self-inquiry and inner work? Oh yeah, they did. And this is the problem that exists now, because the Neo-Avaita movement claims lineage from and history from Advaita, but advocates none of the work. In fact they continue to espouse that it is simply not necessary. Merde!
No real work on oneself is necessary, only a constant repetitive denial of one's identity and the 'understanding' that the ego and all (and everything) that happens (essence and belief systems included) is 'just an illusion'. Everything ‘just happens, there is no path’, so there is nothing to do.

In my experience, there is nothing that NEEDS TO BE done but my ambitious, frightened ego sure thinks there is. Once freed of the "needs" of my ego, I can live pretty much like Ramana did - free and unencumbered by ego needs, desires and ambitions. Not saying everyone needs to live like Ramana did - to each his own.

Occasionally these self proclaimed 'enlightened or awakened masters' even believe themselves to be superior or more advanced than their own teachers. For example Tony Parsons has declared that Ramana Maharshi was obviously still living from duality and Andrew Cohen has said that his guru Poonjaji was not enlightened – in other words both Maharshi and Poonjaji were asleep and Parsons and Cohen are awake. Yeah, right! In addition to Parsons and Cohen, the best known English speaking Neo-Advaitin gurus also include Eckhart Tolle and Ramesh Balsekar. Meanwhile there are hundreds of others in Europe, the United States and Australia.

And thank god for all of them! Knock them if you must, but those guys have helped and continue to help me a lot! If their teachings don't work for you, I'd move on. They crucified Jesus for the same reasons - he disappointed some folks back then.

And they all have one thing in common, they declare that they have realized the Self, and awakened to their true nature. And of course they all want to teach (and in some cases) prey upon Neo-Advaita adepts in search of their own liberation. In the process these Neo-Avaitins have bastardized and twisted the original tenets and practice of Advaita until it is no longer recognizable except by the most discerning of adepts. Unfortunately it appears that most adepts are not able to discern the differences between Advaita and Neo-Advaita.

LOL, I can recognize and discern it so I guess that makes me an Adept.

Perhaps this will help.
The Path of Advaita according to Shankara
For the purposes of this article, presented below is a very short summary of the pre-requisites needed by a seeker before achieving Self-Realization or Liberation (as specified by Shankara in his Vivekachudamani - The Crest Jewel of Discrimination translated into Tamil by Ramana Maharshi and from Tamil into English by Sir Arthur Osborne).

IMO, all of Arthur's books about Ramana are priceless!

In order to be qualified for enquiry into the Self, a man must have a powerful intellect and ability to seize the essential and reject the inessential besides the various qualities enumerated in the scriptures. What are these? He must be able to discriminate between the real and the unreal. He must have an unattached mind. He must ardently desire liberation. And he must be tireless in practice Only such one is qualified to enquire into Brahman.

I totally disagree with all of that. All one needs is a little curiosity about their assumed identity and the 'I' or 'me'.

The qualifications are enumerated as follows:
Intense yearning for liberation.

That's the only one that matters, IMO.

The Neo-Advaita Shellgame
Contrast this with what is necessary according to Neo-Advaita. Which is nothing. Absolutely nothing is necessary

Yes, that's it right there!

except for a strategy of denial. Neo-Advaita teachers simply declare or fool themselves into believing that their identity/ego doesn't exist, in fact, that nothing really exists and everything is simply an illusion.

Not true at all. Most of them will insist the I am NOT an ego.

This can easily done by anyone, just give it a try and you’ll see. Take a few minutes now and start rebuffing everything you perceive, everything that comes up in yourself, including yourself. If and when you do this regularly, you may find yourself getting hooked by the fundamental Neo-Advaita trickery. Of course there is also a bit of cheating necessary. You need to be ready and willing to deny values and ethics and if you are ready and willing to cheat yourself then you’re ready to be enlightened the Neo-Advaita way. Having integrated Neo-Advaita will bring up the joy of a constant feeling of superiority. You will also be rewarded with the feeling of constant rightness and will never be proven wrong anymore no matter what you say or do. Simply because nothing is real – all is illusion. Who is there to be wrong? Merde !

Who hurt you? This reads like "sour grapes". Did some guru disappoint you?
Whew, I give up..........

[jimrich]

Posted by Bhusunda (here)
Hello pie'n'eal and Tarka the Duck,

thanks for this interesting posts. It triggers quite some emotional response inside me.
I have a long background in exactly that what is called Advaita Vedanta. I studied the Upanishads and Shankaras commentaries and still like to read them today. I also like some of the Neo's very much like the books of Karl Renz.
I am initially coming from Maharishi and its Transcendental Meditation. You can find some of my experiences with that on my blog bhusunda.wordpress.com.

Basically, my take on it is, whatever name you give it, what ever you may write, its a concept. It has absolutely no bearing to reality, the nature of which is your experience. I hate to interpret the idea that your intellect and ego are living their life and are trying to enhance and protect themselves, as something bad.
Its their nature for gods sake.
I hate to give the realization that everything is an illusion any name. Be it so, but you created that illusion by partaking in it, so take responsibility for experiencing duality.
If you want to avoid it, you are sacked and caught in an endless loop, which becomes quickly hypnotic. You can't avoid pain or joy, so say to it "even this will pass" if something becomes unbearable.
For gods sake, duality is here, because you want to experience it, good and bad.

I like the Buddhists attitude of serenity, patience and non attachment, but often I find their stance to life too passive.
I like the clearness of thought of Advaita that leads the intellect to bite into its own tail in an endless loop, until it gives up and pure experience remains. But often people on this path get high, not realizing, that even this will pass.

So, the Buddhists are often passive, the Neo-Vedantins often high.
Both is part of my own experience in life. Ups and downs, periods of being caught in rigid focussing, and periods of getting lost in heights. I do not want to give up any of this experiences, really.
Its very enjoyable, once you don't try to avoid any of your experiences.

To make it short, my realization is:
As long as you want to avoid the experience of you being an individual, you will end up being neither, not an individual, nor a non-dual entity in any way.

As a consequence of this, I started to accept my talents, becoming more creative, writing more poems and articles, painting, and enjoying life as I thought was not possible before, when I was caught in my search for eternal peace. I accept the suffering that is part of it, not trying to escape it, but try to stay in it until tears dry up and I have no wish to escape anymore.

Cheers, Bhusunda
--Happily looking forward to a 10 day Vipassana retreat in April. :-)

Hi: I like your whole post and can see that you may be saying that you are (happily) in it BUT not OF IT. Thanks for your comments, jim

[greybeard]

Hi Jimrich
Tony was the leading authority on Buddhism here but left---thats some time ago. Tarka is his wife.
So you wont get a response.
As you well know you have to exhaust yourself searching till you get it that nothing works, but you may have become accident prone--awakening being random, almost an accident.
Seems you cant accelerate or delay the process--but then that is eventually obvious when one realizes there is no doer, no subject nor object. One without a second.
Nothing ever happened---it takes more than one for anything to happen.

No self no problem.

Good night

Chris--

[jimrich]

Posted by greybeard (here)
I like Eckharts humor he says
"If you think you are enlightened go spend a weekend with your parents/relatives"

Strictly speaking there is no self left to claim enlightenment.

Chris

LOL, that's what they say at a lot of therapy/support groups. In the sense that most if not all of our dysfunctions were installed in us by our dysfunctional parents, getting anywhere near them can TRIGGER a lot of dysfunctions that we may think we got over! For me, just thinking about my parents wipes out my "enlightenment" - instantly!
Perhaps, getting near one's parents (i.e. Ramana and his mother) MIGHT enhance one's enlightenment, once the dust settles.

[jimrich]

Posted by greybeard (here)
Hi Jimrich
Tony was the leading authority on Buddhism here but left---thats some time ago. Tarka is his wife.
So you wont get a response.

Chris, having attended a lot of 12 step sharing groups I no longer need responses but am willing to offer my opinions and feedback for the benefit of anyone who might hear or read my words. The other benefit of sharing meetings is that I learned to speak for and about myself with 'I' statements so, whatever I say can be seen as just my opinions and MAYBE some kind of "truths".

As you well know you have to exhaust yourself searching till you get it that nothing works, but you may have become accident prone--awakening being random, almost an accident.

No, I don't "well know" that but I can see how what you wrote might apply to you or someone you know well. As for me, I have experienced a few "accidents" along the way and am getting closer and closer to seeing what Tony P. and John Wheeler speak of - that "this is it" and looking for or waiting for some special event or state of grace to happen is foolish and totally unnecessary but OK if someone wants to do or be "something".

Seems you cant accelerate or delay the process--but then that is eventually obvious when one realizes there is no doer, no subject nor object. One without a second.

Not sure who or what this "you" or this "one" is but, I can and do accelerate and/or delay the process in a variety of ways. I now know that there is just One (not-two) without a second. I just don't currently know what to "do" with that realization except LET LIFE HAPPEN. My ego really hates that!!!

Nothing ever happened---it takes more than one for anything to happen.
No self no problem.

Hmmmmm, interesting cliches! Did you create them?
Thanks, Cris and,

Good night (from Calif.),
jim

[greybeard]

Good morning Jim
Yes 12 steps saved "my" life
The majority of the cliches in the aforesaid post came from Nasargadatta as explained by Stephen Wolinsky
""No self no problem is an Eckhart Tolle quote of a Buddhist summing up Buddhism
As said elsewhere I try to explain my understanding of that which cant be explained by going up and down levels-duality --non duality

If time is available these three videos, are from my perspective, invaluable.

Much love
Chris

Ps everything "you" ever wanted to know about this subject is answered here---I suspect.
The YOU being a generality --non specific LOL

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=oNZ4zjeHZAg

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=PgmjJ7eu5sA

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=h4JzomejobU

[jimrich]

Posted by greybeard (here)
Good morning Jim
Yes 12 steps saved "my" life
The majority of the cliches in the aforesaid post came from Nasargadatta as explained by Stephen Wolinsky
""No self no problem is an Eckhart Tolle quote of a Buddhist summing up Buddhism
As said elsewhere I try to explain my understanding of that which cant be explained by going up and down levels-duality --non duality

If time is available these three videos, are from my perspective, invaluable.

Much love
Chris

Ps everything "you" ever wanted to know about this subject is answered here---I suspect.

I tried but could not stay with any of Steven's unbearably technical/intellectual 3 videos. I studied some Steven's work before in a book or maybe a tape and found him to be way to complicated and intellectual, which might appeal to some folks but, for me, Rupert Spira, Tony Parsons, Nathan Gil and especially John Wheeler are much simpler and direct than Steven. Also, although Steven seems to be an expert on those subjects, his commentary about Ramana M. is totally wrong, IMO. Ramana was directing folks back to their real identity and not just chasing the 'I' thought here and there.
Finding my Real identity is the whole point for me and not understanding or figuring out: states, teachings, pointers, destinations, levels, and other technical stuff - just my identity!

The YOU being a generality --non specific LOL

Is that a personal, egoic "you" or the Absolute?

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=oNZ4zjeHZAg

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=PgmjJ7eu5sA

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=h4JzomejobU

[/QUOTE]