Template talk:Advaita

Really neo-advaita teachers?
Are Osho, Poonja, Eckhart Tolle and Robert Adams really neo-advaita teachers? Poonja did not advocate any of the teachers which followed him. Osho has nothing to do with Ramana Maharshi. Robert Adams was completely separate from Poonja. And Eckhart Tolle had his awakening separate from Poonja as well.

Is it the fate of any new western spiritual teacher who talks about non-dualism that they must be lumped with Gangaji, Cohen and Mooji as neo-advaita teacher? It seems like incorrect and weak classification. Bodhadeepika (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Poonja belongs there, yes; he's seen as the "source" of the neo-Advaita hype. Osho might be seen as an influence, since mant of Poonja's "students" came from Osho. Eckhart Tolle is often regarded to be neo-Advaita; see, for example, Lucas 2011. As for Robert Adams, ah well, you might also call him "nondual" or so. In a broad sense, the influences are the same. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Joshua, have you ever seen this? The Fake Messengers - Quite interesting. I put Osho, Eckhart and Robert Adams in a new category of Other. Best, Bodhadeepika (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That's fine with me too. The video is the famous message "I sent them back to the west to sent others here"?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   10:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Great, that's that then. If you haven't come across them yet, you might enjoy a new series of talks about Bhagavan given by Mr. Godman. Talks on Sri Ramana Maharshi Best, Bodhadeepika (talk) 10:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to re-arrange
The Origins section looks strange and repeats part of the Scripture section. The placement of Buddhism in origins section is misleading because it makes it feel that Advaita originated from Buddhism, and this does not reflect mainstream scholarly consensus. Yet, the navigational links are useful. How about we title that section as History (like Buddhism template), and add in an Influences section. In History we could add in Yajnavalkya etc? Or, we can keep it general (Advaya, Advaita, etc), re-label it as Non-dualism? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Renaming "Buddhism" into "Influences," and add some links, would be usefull, I think. Let me ponder over this a little longer (just woke up). Regarding "Nondualism": that name is so vague and all-encompassing, it would become meaningless, I'm afraid.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Neo-Advaita
Hi Joshua 👋, I saw that you reverted my edit on Template:Advaita that removed the "Neo-Advaita" category (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Advaita&curid=36928820&diff=1042283402&oldid=1042243702&diffmode=source). Could you explain a bit what you meant when you said "not Advaita Vedanta in a strict sense indeed"? I'm not sure I understand where you were coming from.

The reason I made the original edit is that I believe Ramana Maharishi and Nisargadatta Maharaj are more properly classified as teachers of Advaita Vedanta. Even the Wikipedia article for Neo-Advaita describes that its "teachings are derived from, but not authorised by, the teachings of the 20th century sage Ramana Maharshi, as interpreted and popularized by H. W. L. Poonja and several of his western students." Ramana_Maharshi also says that:

Ramana Maharshi has been further popularised in the west by the neo-Advaita movement, via the students of H. W. L. Poonja; this movement gives a western re-interpretation of his teachings by placing sole emphasis on insight alone. It has been criticised for this emphasis, omitting the preparatory practices. Nevertheless, Neo-Advaita has become an important constituent of popular western spirituality.

In that sense, I don't think it's fair to say that Ramana Maharishi is more properly categorized as a teacher of Neo-Advaita, which is really a Western New Religious Movement that is loosely inspired by his teachings and more a product of H. W. L. Poonja. I believe similar arguments can be made for Nisargadatta Maharaj (he followed the teachings of the lineage of the Inchegeri Sampradaya, not spearheaded the "Neo-Advaita" movement, notwithstanding any inspiration the movement might have taken from him), so that's what motivated me to move these two teachers to the Advaita Vedanta category. It didn't make sense to just have a single category for H. W. L. Poonja for "Neo-Advaita" (why privilege "Neo-Advaita" as a category if there's just one main proponent listed?), so that's why I moved him to be under the "Modern Advaita Vedanta" category.

Hope that helps better explain my thinking! Let me know if / how you disagree. Llightex (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * thank you for your post. With 'Advaita Vedanta in a strict sense' I mean that there is a 'formal' Advaita Vedanta sampradaya, to which Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta surely don't belong. Yet, in a broader sense, the AV-tradition has also incorporated Yoga-influences, and in a still broader sense AV is used as a label for a broad spectrum of Hindu non-dual teachings.
 * The term 'neo-Advaita' is indeed being used as a label for a western NRM; yet, the two of them are two of the main inspirators. I don't know of any other term that conveniently fits them together, but Advaita Vedanta is not the right term. Something like 'neo-syncretistic jnana-Yoga'... "Neo-Samkhya" might also be somewhat fitting. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * right, I agree with that. I think it's fair to say that the "Classical Advaita Vedanta" category is what contains the "formal" Advaita Vedanta sampradaya that you refer to. I think the category of "Modern Advaita Vedanta" basically covers the latter category you're discussing ("neo-syncretistic jnana-Yoga") -- if you see the teachers already listed under that category (Vivekananda, Chinmayananda), it's hard to argue that they're part of some "formal" Advaita Vedanta sampradaya (or at least in any way more than Ramana Maharishi or Nisargadatta Maharaj do). I do think that "Neo-Vedanta" (as opposed to "Neo-Advaita") would also be an appropriate description for this category, though it seems to make sense just to lump these all into "Modern Advaita Vedanta" as this existing category seems sufficient to cover the general category of what we're trying to describe. What do you think? Llightex (talk) 12:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * No, Ramana Maharshi was not affiliated to Advaita Vedanta, nor was Nisargadatta, while they do form the inspirartion for neo-Advaita. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hmm, the infobox on page for Ramana_Maharshi says "Philosophy: Advaita Vedanta" (and see Ramana_Maharshi) -- so does the infobox on the page for Nisargadatta Maharaj. What is your basis for saying that "Ramana Maharshi was not affiliated to Advaita Vedanta, nor was Nisargadatta" (and how do you define "affiliated")? Llightex (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Ramana Maharshi was once offered to be initiated into the AV-sampradaya; he declined. Nisargadatta's sampradaya is related to the Nath-tradition; that's not Advaita Vedanta. He called his way "Nisarga Yoga." The info-boxes contain unsourced info, I'll bet? Read "The Hidden Lives of Brahman" to see what membership of the AV-sampradaya involves. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that the name on top of the box is "Advaita Vedanta," while the template is called "Advaita." Someone changed the name somewhere? - ah yes, somewhere in this series of edits.  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)