By Dr. David Frawley (Pandit Vamadeva Shastry)
The Allure of the Direct Path
Advaita, which refers to the state of non-duality of the Self and God, can
easily lend itself to all sorts of misconceptions. Indeed one can argue that
since the Advaitic state transcends all thought and all dualities, all
conceptions about it are ultimately misconceptions!
Advaitic practice is itself about the removal of misconceptions, particularly
wrong ideas about our true nature, negating its false identification with the
body and the external world.
But misconceptions about the path also exist and can be significant
obstacles to overcome along the way. Of course many of these same misconceptions
can be found relative to any spiritual path, because all spiritual paths aim to
take us to a higher state of consciousness, which can appeal to fantasy and
escapism as well as to genuine aspiration. Yet as Advaita is the highest and
most direct path this potential for distortion is even greater, like an
ordinary climber’s fantasy to quickly scale the heights of Mount Everest.
Advaita is formless in nature and in practice, so there is much room for
overestimating, if not exaggerating one’s attainments, and little objective to
keep one grounded. Going all the way back to the Upanishads there are
criticisms of practitioners who can brilliantly talk the Advaitic line but lack
the realization to really back it up. Advaita,
though referring to the Brahmic state beyond Maya, therefore, has its own
glamour or Maya.
The allure of a quick and direct
path to becoming God and guru has a special appeal not only to the awakened
soul but also to the unawakened ego that wants the glory of spiritual
realization without undergoing any real toil or tapas in order to get there.
These usual misconceptions are getting further magnified as Advaita becomes
popular in the West, which as a media dominated culture easily falls into
stereotype, image production and fantasy-fulfillment. Just as Yoga has undergone many distortions in the West, which has
reduced it largely to a physical asana practice, so too Advaita is often
getting reduced to an instant enlightenment fad, to another system of
personal empowerment or to another type of pop psychology.
An entire ‘neo-Advaitic’ movement has arisen reflecting not only
traditional teachings but the demands of western culture. While this movement
is arguably a good trend for the future and contains much that is positive in
it, it is also a fertile ground for many distortions, which are likely to
become more pronounced as the popular base of the movement expands.
The Advaitic path is rooted in a powerful and simple logic, which is not
difficult to learn. “You are That”, “The Self is Everything”, “All is One”, and
so on. We can easily confuse adapting this logic, which is not difficult, with
the actual realization of the state of awareness behind it, which is something
else altogether. We can answer all questions with “Who is asking the question?”,
when it may be no more than a verbal exercise.
Faced with both
old and new misconceptions, the Advaitic student today is in a difficult
position to separate a genuine approach and real guidance from the bulk of
superficial or misleading teachings, however
well-worded, popular or pleasant in appearance these may appear to be.
Advaita and Vedanta
Advaita is primarily a term of Advaita Vedanta, the non-dualistic tradition
of Vedanta. Though rooted in the Vedas, Upanishads and Gita, its most characteristic
form occurs in the teachings of Shankaracharya (c. 500 AD), who put these Vedic
teachings in a clear rational language that remains easily understandable to
the present day. The basic language and logic of Shankara can be found behind
most Advaitic teachings, even those who may not have studied Shankara directly.
There are many specifically Advaitic texts from Shankara’s Upanishadic
commentaries to more general works like YogaVasishta, Avadhuta Gita, Ashtavakra Samhita and Tripura Rahasya as part of an
enormous literature, not only in Sanskrit but in all the dialects in India.
Similarly, there have been many great gurus in the tradition of Advaita
Vedanta throughout the centuries. Most of the great gurus of modern India have
been Advaitins including Vivekananda,
Rama Tirtha, Shivananda, Chandrashekhar
Saraswati of Kanchi, Ramana Maharshi
and Anandamayi Ma. Most of the great gurus from India who brought Yoga to
the West like Vivekananda, Yogananda,
Satchitananda and Swami Rama, also taught Advaita Vedanta, if we really
look at their teachings.
However, a recent
trend has been to remove Advaita from Vedanta, as if it were a different or
independent path, and not bring in the greater tradition of Vedanta. Though
neo-Advaita usually bases itself on modern Advaita Vedantins like Ramana Maharshi or Nisargadatta, it
usually leaves the Vedanta out of the term and neglects the teachings of other
great modern Vedantins from Vivekananda to Dayananda, though their works are
easily available in English and quite relevant to any Advaitic practice.
This ‘Advaita without Vedanta’ is particularly strange because many
important ideas found in the neo-Advaita movement, like that a universal path
of Self-knowledge, reflect the neo-Vedanta movement that was popular in the early
twentieth century following the teachings of Ramakrishna and Vivekananda and
have been echoed throughout the modern Vedanta movement.
Neo-Advaita and Ramana Maharshi
The teachings of Ramana Maharshi are often the starting point for
neo-Advaitic teachers, though other influences also exist in the movement.
However, instead of looking into the background and full scope of Ramana’s
teachings, there is often only a focus only on those of his teachings that seem
to promise quick realization for all.
Some neo-Advaitins even refer to Ramana’s teachings as if Ramana was a
rebel or outside of any tradition, almost as if he invented Advaita himself.
While Ramana based his teaching on his own direct realization, he frequently
quoted from and recommended the reading of Advaitic texts, which he found
represented the same teachings as those that arose from his own experience.
This included not only the works of
Shankara, the main traditional Advaitic teacher, but many other texts like Yoga Vasishta, Tripura Rahasya and AdvaitaBodha Dipika.
Ramana did broaden out the traditional Advaitic path from its medieval
monastic Hindu forms. Yet even in this regard he was continuing a reformation
since Vivekananda who created a practical Vedanta or practical Advaita and
taught it to all sincere seekers, not just to monastics.
Many students come to neo-Advaitic teachers because of Ramana’s influence,
looking for another Ramana or for instruction into Ramana’s teaching, but apart
from Ramana’s image used by the teacher, what they get may be something
different. That someone may use the image of Ramana or quote from him,
therefore, is no guarantee that their teaching is really the same.
Are There Prerequisites for Advaita?
One of the main areas of difference of opinion is relative to who can
practice Advaita and to what degree? What are the prerequisites for
Self-inquiry? Some people believe that Advaita has no prerequisites, but can be
taken up by anyone, under any circumstances, regardless of their background or
life-style. After all, Advaita is just teaching us to rest in our true nature,
which is always there for everyone. Why should that rest on any outer aids or
requirements? This is a particularly appealing idea in the age of democracy,
when all people are supposed to be equal.
In much of neo-Advaita, the idea of prerequisites on the part of the
student or the teacher is not discussed. Speaking to general audiences in the
West, some neo-Advaitic teachers give the impression that one can practice
Advaita along with an affluent life-style and little modification of one’s
personal behavior. This is part of the trend of modern yogic teachings in the
West that avoid any reference to asceticism or tapas as part of practice, which
are not popular ideas in this materialistic age.
However, if we read traditional Advaitic texts, we get quite a different
impression. The question of the aptitude or adhikara of the student is an
important topic dealt with at the beginning of the teaching. The requirements
can be quite stringent and daunting, if not downright discouraging. One should
first renounce the world, practice brahmacharya, and gain proficiency in other
yogas like Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga and Raja Yoga and so on (the sadhana-chatushtya). One can examine texts like the Vedanta
Sara I.6-26 for a detailed description. While probably no one ever had all of
these requirements before starting the practice of Self-inquiry, these at least
do encourage humility, not only on the part of the student, but also on the
part of the teacher who himself may not have all these requirements!
Ramana keeps the requirement for Advaita simple yet clear – a ripe mind,
which is the essence of the whole thing, and encourages practice of the
teaching without overestimating one’s readiness for it. Yet a ripe mind is not
as easy as it sounds either.
Ramana defines
this ripe mind as profound detachment and deep discrimination, above all a
powerful aspiration for liberation from the body and the cycle of rebirth – not a mere
mental interest but an unshakeable conviction going to the very root of our
thoughts and feelings (note Ramana Gita VII. 8-11).
A ripe, pure or
sattvic mind implies that rajas and tamas, the qualities of passion and
ignorance, have been cleared not only from the mind but also from the body, to
which the mind is connected in Vedic thought. Such a pure or
ripe mind was rare even in classical India. In the modern world, in which our
life-style and culture is dominated by rajas
and tamas, it is indeed quite rare and certainly not to be expected.
To arrive at it, a
dharmic life-style is necessary. This is similar to the Yoga
Sutra prescription of the yamas and niyamas as prerequisites for Yoga practice. In this regard, Ramana
particularly emphasized a sattvic vegetarian diet as a great aid to practice.
The problem is that many people take Ramana’s idea of a ripe mind
superficially. It is not a prescription that anyone can approach or practice
Advaita in any manner they like.
Advaita does
require considerable inner purity and self-discipline, developing which is an
important aim of practice which should not be lightly set aside.
Is Advaita Against Other Yoga Practices?
A related misconception is that Advaita is against other spiritual and
yogic practices like mantra, pranayama, puja and bhakti, which from its point
of view are regarded as of little value and only serve to condition the mind
further. Even a number of traditional Advaitic texts speak of setting all such
other yogic practices aside as useless. Many neo-Advaitins emphasize such
advanced teachings. They may tell even beginning students to give up all other
practices and discourage them from doing mantras, pranayama or other yoga
techniques. We could call this ‘Advaita without Yoga’.
Traditional Advaita, which Ramana echoed, states that advanced aspirants
who are truly ready for a dedicated path of self-inquiry can discard other
yogic practices if they are so inclined. But it also states that for gaining a
ripe mind, developing proficiency in these preliminary practices is a good
idea. Most people can benefit from at least some support practices,
particularly beginners, even if their main focus is Self-inquiry. Note the
Ramana Gita VII. 12-14 in this regard.
If we study traditional Advaita, we find that Yoga practices were regarded
as the main tools for developing the ripe mind necessary for Advaita to really
work. Many great Advaitins taught Yoga as well. Even Shankara taught Tantric
Yoga in his teachings like Saundarya Lahiri and composed great devotional hymns
to all the main Hindu Gods and Goddesses. This
tradition of Yoga-Vedanta – using Yoga to create a ripe or sattvic mind, and
using Advaita for the higher realization through it – has been the dominant
approach in Vedanta found not only in the works of older gurus like
Shankaracharya and Vidyaranaya, but in modern gurus like Vivekananda,
Shivananda and Yogananda.
Ramana, though he
emphasized Self-inquiry, never rejected the value of other yogic practices. He
commonly extolled such practices as chanting the name of God, chanting Om and
doing pranayama. He had regular Vedic chanting and pujas done at the
ashram which continue today.
This traditional Advaitic view of different levels practice should not be
confused with an approach that rejects all practices as useless. In this regard
we can contrast traditional Advaita Vedanta, which Ramana followed, and the
teachings of J. Krishnamurti, which is often the source of neo-Advaita’s
rejection of support practices.
Advaitic aspirants may not be attracted to all such Yoga practices and need
not be, but they should not therefore regard them as of no value or discourage
others from doing them. Until the mind
is fully ripe or sattvic, such practices have their value, though we should use
them as a means to Self-inquiry, not in exclusion of it.
Advaita without Yoga, like Advaita without Vedanta often leaves the student
without the proper tools to aid them along their sometimes long and difficult
path.
The Advaitic Guru
Of course, the greatest possible distortions are relative to the Advaitic
Guru. Since Advaita relies less on outer marks than other traditions, almost
anyone can claim to be an Advaitic Guru, particularly once we have removed
Advaita from any tradition of Vedanta or Yoga. In much of neo-Advaita, there is
a rush to become gurus and give satsangs, even without much real study or
practice. While certainly even a beginning student can teach the basics of
Advaita for the benefit of others, to quickly set oneself up as a Self-realized
guru raises a lot of questions. One can
have an experience of the Self, while the full realization may yet be far away.
Full Self-realization is neither easy nor common, under any circumstances.
Advaita does
emphasize the advantage of instruction from a living Self-realized guru. Many people
therefore think that they must have a living Self-realized guru or they can’t
practice Self-inquiry. This is not the case either. If one has access to
genuine teachings, like those of Ramana, and follows them with humility and
self-discipline, one can progress far on the path, which will lead them to
further teachers and teachings as needed. On the other hand, in the rush to get
a living Self-realized guru, students may get misled by those who claim
Self-realization but may not really have it. Such false gurus cannot lead
students very far and may take them in a wrong direction altogether.
A related
misconception is that Advaitic realization can only be gained as a direct
transmission from a living teacher, as if Self-realization depended upon a
physical proximity to one who has it.
Practice may get reduced to hanging out around the so-called guru and
waiting for his glance! The presence of a real sadhak does indeed aid one’s
practice, but physical proximity to gurus is no substitute for one’s own inner
practice. And physical proximity to those who don’t have true realization may
not bring much of benefit at all.
If
Self-realization were as easy as coming into physical proximity with the
teacher, most of the thousands who visited Ramana would have already become
Self-realized.
If the teaching had to come from a living guru only, then no teachings
would be preserved after the guru died as these would no longer be relevant. So
the realization behind the guru and the depth of his teaching is more important
than whether he is in a physical body or not. A great guru leaves teachings for
many generations and his influence is not limited by the lifetime of his
physical body. A lesser guru, on the other hand, does not have much real
transformative influence even if we spend a lifetime around him.
In addition, true Advaitic gurus are not always easy to find, nor do they
always make themselves prominent in the external world. Like Ramana, many great
gurus are quiet, silent and withdrawn. We
can best find them by karmic affinity from our own practice, not by external
searching or running after personalities.
Which Self is Being Examined?
Self-inquiry is an examination into our true nature, which is pure
consciousness beyond body and mind. This is a very different process from
psychological analysis, which is an inquiry into our personal, historical,
ego-based individuality. Our true Self is our universal being, a consciousness
present not only in humans but in animals, plants, the very Earth on which we
live, the atmosphere, stars and planes of existence beyond the physical.
Another misconception in modern Advaita is turning Self-inquiry into an
examination of the personal self, our fears and desires, and trying to make us
feel better about it. Neo-Advaita in particular gets mixed up with western
psychology and can get caught in examining the mind rather than going beyond
the mind. Advaita is not about psychological happiness but about negating our
psychology. Naturally some clarity about our psychology can be of initial help,
but it is not the goal of practice.
Finding One’s Own
Path
The spiritual path is different for every individual. A true teacher
teaches each student differently according to their unique nature. A true
teacher will not necessarily teach Advaita to everyone, at all times or in the
same manner. If we look at great gurus, their disciples are not simply
imitations of them, but retain their own individuality. Note Ramana’s main
disciples Muruganar and Ganapati Muni in this regard.
The West has a
tendency to standardize, stereotype, mass-produce and even franchise teachings.
The neo-Advaita movement, like the western Yoga movement, is affected by this
cultural compulsion, and often gives the same teachings en masse. True Advaita is
not a teaching than can be given uniformly to people of all temperaments. It is
often best pursued in solitude, silence and retreat and can never become a
thing of the marketplace.
Certainly Advaita Vedanta is bound to continue as an important influence in
not only individual sadhana but also in world thought. But it has many depths
and subtleties that require great concentration and dedication in order to
understand. Our initial goal should be
steadiness in practice along with equanimity of mind, even in the absence of
any great dramatic results, not quick enlightenment in the absence of practice!
Peace love harmony