what I AM cannot be conceptualized. this true because ‘mind’ appears and
therefore I have to be prior. like witnessing an accident, but there is no witness, only witnessing. no object exists. name anything, it comes and goes – conceptualization, no existence. but, I claim existence. as nisargadatta said: i take my stand prior to all, i am the primal ground. and, does witnessing have power? no. I AM the powerless witnessing of manifistation. I do nothing and am all there is. if no thought, identify the enemy….

What traditional Advaita, as taught by the people mentioned above offers, is deconstruction of one’s notion of Self, using very logical means.

The self-sense, as it is normally taken, is a mistaken habit of mind – a mistaken knowledge, they would say.

And the whole teacher methodology, is to break up that mistaken self-sense, in order to reveal the always existent Self, that’s right there, when false notions of self are dropped.

As such – if accurate and true – this methodology is actually much more promising for people, without relying on some mystical grace, but instead relying on a intelligent, inquisitive mind, capable of perceiving both parts and wholes.

There is no doubt that the methodology HAS an effect. When false notions of self are dropped, the mind resolves into a place that there is no separation, no grasping, from.

Unfortunately, since the methodology is taught as part of the knowledge of the Vedas, it’s all bound up with being taught all of the Vedas, as if the Vedas are truth. And here we begin to see some of Wilber’s notions of how the worldviews of an enlightened mind is embedded, matter. And in this case, the methodology of Advaita Vendanta, is embedded in retro worldview.

It will be interesting to see when that methodology is taught without the context of the Vedic retro worldview.

I enjoyed this post very much, Vince. Thanks for sharing.

Nice post. I agree it can be most useful to shake up any view, or any practice that’s seemingly stale. Recognizing when and how is always a challenge, although we’re so blessed to have such an availability of teachings freely accessible on the net – including yours. So thanks for your words.

Those of us (I include myself here) seemingly using diverse views – leading to what is ultimately un-fixated, I find humorous, although I couldn’t say why this is so. For me the “deepest intuition” is somehow a recognition of the activity of the dharma itself revealing itself, first to itself, and then as itself, and “I” have no idea why. Go figure not.

Har-Prakash.

on a more contemporary view, I think Adyashanti is a good representative of Advaita (even if he would also disagree with my categorization).

but from a more embracing view of enlightenment I think Wilber still has one of the best riffs on his horizontal and vertical enlightenment concept/metaphor.

~C

Yeah, I hear you bro and agree, on the whole, that after deconstruction comes reconstruction. Somehow there seems to be a dynamic tension between these two–a paradox of sorts–that I believe sincere practitioners actively walk. It’s been my experience that if one walks that line, with deep sincerity, then as Papaji says, the methods are secondary. It seems to me that there’s something more fundamental happening, beneath the methods, which is the X-factor of awakening. I guess that doesn’t mean that having good methods, teachers, and models are extremely helpful, but just that they’re not as important as the deep intuition about the possibility of awakening, and the complete alignment with that intuition.

In some ways, I think the best thing that teachers can do, is to empower students to discover and trust that deepest intuition, and then offer methods and guidance that are in alignment with what the student is discovering for themselves. And in some cases, I’ve seen that the deepest intuition of a seeker is to completely abandon their previous techniques, models, methods, etc. and that is there path. For others, as you say, it’s the opposite path. They realize their true nature, and then need to find concepts, models, methods to make sense of things.

Anyway, I’ve been swinging more toward the Advaita pole lately, I guess, and have been finding it really fruitful. Here’s to finding what works!

-Vince

i agree with you that Advaita teachers are excellent at pointing out our true nature (whatever that is). they are good at deconstruction. heck, my anti-guru hero U.G. Krishnamurti was even good at deconstructing Advaita peeps.

however, once someone gets “deconstructed” and awakened, what’s next? how will they express the No Self (or True Self)? how can this expression be both practical as well as liberating? if pointing out works alone, then anyone who goes to these awakened teachers can get awakened (in a short time). but that is not the case. that’s why i find value in the Five Ranks of Tozan development model. (Bill Harris has a good post about this – http://www.centerpointe.com/blog/2008/06/10/so-there-you-are-enlightened )

another a good example is Eckhart Tolle. he had some meditation background before his uber-enlightenment. but he didn’t get “there” through consistent practice. however, after his awakening, he went back and hang out with Buddhist teachers and other spiritual peeps to understand what happened to him, as the story went. so in his case i think he had to train the No Self to operate again in the relative world because he had no prior training/model/concept. but that’s just my humble opinion

thanks, dawg!

~C