Talk:Neo-Advaita

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Neo-Advaita. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160417164207/https://scholarblogs.emory.edu/sacredmatters/2015/01/12/seven-questions-for-arthur-versluis/ to https://scholarblogs.emory.edu/sacredmatters/2015/01/12/seven-questions-for-arthur-versluis/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150515000000/http://www.andrewcohen.org/blog/open-letter-all-my-former-students-upon-return-my-sabbatical to http://www.andrewcohen.org/blog/open-letter-all-my-former-students-upon-return-my-sabbatical
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518100046/http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/mpath/2004/october/mp.swf to http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/mpath/2004/october/mp.swf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518100046/http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/mpath/2004/october/mp.swf to http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/mpath/2004/october/mp.swf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150515000000/http://www.andrewcohen.org/blog/open-letter-all-my-former-students-upon-return-my-sabbatical to http://www.andrewcohen.org/blog/open-letter-all-my-former-students-upon-return-my-sabbatical

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Confusion between two different definitions of neo-advaita
Being a long-time student of neo-advaita myself, I object to this article combining two different teachings into one article without distinguishing them.

To me, the term "neo-advaita" simply means "advaita vedanta for the modern world." Advaita Vedanta is one of the six systems of Indian philosophy, the one that advocates a direct transformation from experiencing oneself as a separate person, struggling with limitations and problems, and seeking liberation from those problems and limitations, to freedom from them in a "stateless state" of knowing that we are all the relative play of the One Absolute Consciousness (Brahman). The "for the modern world" part started with teachers like Vivekananda and Ramana Maharshi, who gave talks, answered questions, and led retreats to help people reach self-realization directly instead of through intellectual knowledge (such as through Sankhya) or through a series of steps of "right living" (such as the first two steps of the Eightfold Path of Yoga).

However, some of the teachers of the neo-advaita movement have taught before being validated as having actually achieved self-realization and freedom from limitations and problems and without the ability to teach to those who have grown up in a culture of anxiety, trauma, and conditioning. A few of these teachers substituted the mere repetition of dogma (such as "there is no one here and nothing to do") for true teaching (I think of them as teaching "pseudo-advaita"). What I mean by "true teaching" is the ability to explain nonduality and to point to pure consciousness (Atman) in a way that can be understood clearly by those who have not yet achieved the goal of self-realization, which brings with it peace of mind, happiness, harmony with others, wisdom, and freedom from individual limitations, doubts, questions, and problems.

The article as it stands mixes these two streams of teaching, one helpful in bringing peace, happiness, and direct knowledge of our true Self, and the other that gives the mind more to juggle and play with, postponing the true state of self-realization.

This gives the entire article a questionable status in my mind. I do not see it as an accurate and reliable definition of the direct path of nonduality, as taught by great living teachers such as Swami Sarvapriyananda, Rupert Spira, Mooji, Francis Lucille, and Adyashanti (just to mention a few), from the more pedestrian teachings of the half-dozen or so pseudo-advaita teachers, who merely repeat the same dogmatic statements over and over, resulting in confusion or lack of progress in many or most of their students. David Spector (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Advaita is not Hinduism
This article is classified under "Hinduism" here on WP, so I thought I would raise a lone voice to point out that neither Advaita Vedanta nor neo-advaita are part of Hinduism. Hinduism is a religion, which comes with priests and temples and the usual unique assortment of beliefs one is supposed to accept as a follower of the religion. In the case of Hinduism, there is a fundamental set of beliefs, notably a large set of gods governing various parts of life, as well as a set of holidays that are widely celebrated by Hindus inside and outside of India.

None of these characteristics of Hinduism, the religion, are shared with modern Advaita Vedanta or neo-Advaita.

Yes, there is some overlap: the basic scripture of Vedic times in India (particularly the Bhagavad Gita, Ashtavakra Gita, Avadhut Gita, Ribhu Gita, and various Upanishads) is cited both by the secular philosophies of self-realization as well as the priests of Hinduism. But the primary distinction here is that in nonduality these scriptures are read to point to and to confirm our actual experiences of nonduality (the shifting of the student's identity from the person to impersonal consciousness), while in Hinduism they are used primarily for religious study and for achieving specific goals, such as prosperity or a good marriage (specifically, hiring pandits to chant scripture in a ceremony called a yagya).

So, Advaita Vedanta and neo-advaita should not actually be classed under any religion, since these philosophies of transformation are not religious in nature. David Spector (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

External Link to Dennis Waite's site
Site: Avaita Vision

I took a quick look at his website/blog and believe it violates WP:EL Specifically links normally to be avoided: [ #11- This website is not just a blog- it is a collection of blogs. And not be a recognized authority. Joshua Johnathan lists three reasons to include:
 * Dennis Waite is a published author,
 * the site is not for self-promotion,
 * and it's rich in information

None of these three things are considered valid reasons for inclusion per WP:EL. The third would be if Denis Waite was a recognized authority.... which he is not in any formal sense- publishing books does not qualify one. WP:EL says that for a blog they must meet wiki's notability requirement. Denis does not appear to and all or nearly all the other bloggers would need to meet it.

Lastly- the site really disqualifies itself- it says it is: This site provides a platform for all who are attracted to the vision of non-duality and like to share their views and their approaches. Here’s why Advaita Vision will be an open platform for all committed to self-enquiry.

It also has a donate button at the bottom, and advertises books for sale- on which Denis Waite makes a profit.

Let's get some other people's input- and please keep the discussion focused on the specific wikipedia policy

[WP:EL] Sethie (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * WP:ELYES: "What can normally be linked [...] 3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article." That's the criterium to include this site. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  17:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Except that it is self-published and could not be used as a source. That's the distinction that makes it WP:ELNO. I have to agree with Sethie about this, due to the promotional content they pointed out and the possiblity of the site containing user-generated content. Skyerise (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Johnathan, I am in agreement with you that the policy that you cite is one of the ones to look at.


 * I am in disagreement that this website meets those criteria.


 * It does not help with an "encyclopedic understanding" for a few main reasons:
 * The majority of the site is not about an "encyclopedic understanding" but about presenting Nonduality (neo and traditional) "teachings" not an academic or scholarly or encylopediac understanding... and more importantly Denis' Waite's view and teachings- his PARTICULAR POV. And other non experts POV


 * Which brings us to the central issue- this person is not a recognized authority. WP:EL is CRYSTAL, 100% clear on this topic- only blogs of respected authorities are allowed per WP:EL Sethie (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Tony Parson's section
This entire section is cited from the same website as we discussed above.

The site is problematic as we talked about above.

On top of this, Tony Parson's is certainly popular- but has no credentials.

I believe this section violates WP:RS on these two counts: The source is a self-published blog. The articles are in essence blog enteries, not scholarly by people with no credentials. Sethie (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)