What is Neo-Advaita?

Exoterically the word Vedanta refers to the knowledge contained

in the texts that are at the end of each Veda. These texts are called
Upanishads. The fundamental idea of the Upanishads is that
reality is non-dual (advaita) Awareness and that the ultimate goal
of human life is the realization of the non-dual Self. The
realization of the Self is called moksha or liberation.

Vedanta is a Sanskrit compound. ‘Veda’ means knowledge and

‘anta’ means end. So esoterically Vedanta is the knowledge that
ends the quest for knowledge. What is it, the Upanishad says, that
‘knowing which, everything is known?’ The realization that the ‘I’
is whole and complete actionless Awareness ends the quest for the
meaning of life because it destroys the belief that the self is limited,
inadequate, incomplete and separate, a notion that is commonly
called duality. Duality is a problem because it causes people to
seek lasting happiness though the enjoyment of impermanent
objects, a quest that always ends in disappointment and
disillusionment.

A long teaching tradition has developed over the last three

thousand years based on Upanishadic ideas. This teaching
tradition is also known as Vedanta. But to convey the precise
meaning of Vedanta the word ‘pramana’ needs to be added. A
pramana is a means of knowledge. All knowledge takes place with
the aid of some means. Sense objects require sense organs to be
known. The knowledge of ideas depends on an intellect. But since
the Self is not an object, the senses and the mind cannot know it.
But Vedanta can reveal it by using ideas and logic to remove one’s
ignorance about it, delivering direct Self knowledge.

As Vedanta evolved over time it became a very attractive means of

knowledge as great sages added their commentaries and
contributions to the literature. At some point in its long history
enough apparent doctrinal differences concerning the nature of
reality appeared that Vedanta seemed to be disintegrating into
several ‘schools of thought.’ These apparently conflicting views do
not compromise Vedanta as long as it is taken as a means of
knowledge because the purpose of any teaching is to remove Self
ignorance. And because different minds formulate Self ignorance
differently, an idea that may reveal the Self to one person may not
reveal it to another. But many people who are not interested in
liberation and are not qualified for it are nonetheless attracted to
Vedanta for intellectual reasons because it is a very beautiful and
profound body of literature. In India these people are known as
pundits. The pundit class by and large takes Vedanta as a
philosophy and views the emphasis on different doctrines as
‘schools of thought’ or sects. But in its original sense advaita is not
an adjective used to modify a particular school of Vedanta but an
adjective indicating the nature of Awareness, the Self.

Vedanta is not a philosophy or a school of thought because it is not

the contention of an individual or a group of individuals.
Philosophies are subject to negation and correction because they
are invariably speculations, imaginations, beliefs and opinions of
an individual or a small group of individuals…which means they
are always subject to error or irrelevancy because they do not
serve a fundamental human need, in this case the need be free of
limitation. Where is existentialism today? Vedanta has thrived for
several thousand years precisely because it is not a personal
philosophy.

Vedanta is called ‘shruti.’ Shruti literally means ‘heard.’ Its

teachings are meant to be ‘heard’ from someone who has been
freed by them and who can skillfully wield them to help the
qualified aspirant remove his or her ignorance. But ‘shruti’ has a
more general meaning too. It means revealed unauthored truth
that has passed the test of time. In other words the essence of
Vedanta, the teachings that remove Self ignorance, do not change
because they effectively do what they are intended to do. Nobody
is pressing for a new improved eye, since the eyes do all they need
to do. So in this sense Vedanta, like the Sanskrit its mantras are
formulated in, is a perfected body of knowledge. Nothing needs to
be added to it, no timely modifications are necessary to help it
adapt to recent times. But this has not stopped people from
making of it what they want.

In approximately the last one hundred years Vedanta has suffered

an apparent change largely as a result of the teachings of
Vivekananda around the turn of the twentieth century. Its basic
function as a means of Self knowledge became confused with the
doctrines of Yoga because Vivekananda who had a profound
influence on the West’s understanding of Vedanta (probably
unintentionally) reduced it to ‘jnana’ (knowledge) yoga, one of the
many branches of Yoga. In fact, Yoga has traditionally been
considered a subset of Vedanta, its purpose being to aid in the
preparation of the mind to receive the teachings of non-duality.
Before Yoga sullied the pure teachings of Vedanta enlightenment
was considered to be the removal of ignorance about the nature of
the Self. But with the ascendancy of the Yoga teachings
enlightenment came to be considered a ‘permanent experience of
the Self’ in contrast to the mundane experiences of everyday life,
which it obviously can’t be if this is a non-dual reality as the
Upanishads claim. It can’t be a permanent experience first,
because there is no such thing as a permanent experience and
second, it can’t be an experience in a non-dual reality because the
subject object distinction necessary for experience is missing in a
non-dual reality. If this is true then the quest for a permanent
enlightenment experience is pointless and what is needed, as
traditional Vedanta says, is the knowledge of reality since the
craving for experience, including the experience of the Self, is
Maya, the consequence of seeing oneself as a doer who is separate
from reality. Or to put it another way, trying to get out of Maya
experientially is not ever going to happen because Maya is unreal.
How can one be ‘in Maya’ in the first place if Maya is only an
apparent reality? The only way out of Maya is to see that Maya, the
belief in duality, is only in the mind and to destroy it with the
knowledge of reality. In any case, the experiential notion of
enlightenment has been the dominant view for the last one
hundred years, although it goes back to the Yoga sutras of Patanjali.
This Vedantic evolution has been labeled ‘modern’ Vedanta, an
oxymoron if ever there was one.

By and large the wave of ‘export gurus’ that inundated the West in
the Sixties peddled Modern Vedanta with considerable success.
Then in the Eighties the Western spiritual world became
reacquainted with Ramana Maharshi, a sage in the Vedic tradition
who had achieved international recognition around the middle of
the century but who had been all but forgotten since his death in
the Fifties. Ramana was not a traditional Vedantic sage but he
realized the non-dual nature of the Self and taught both Vedanta
and Yoga. Self inquiry, which many Neo-Adviatins believe to be his
invention, is as old as the Vedas itself. The rediscovery of Ramana
roughly coincided with the rise of ‘Neo-Advaita.’ Neo-Advaita is
basically a ‘satsang’ based ‘movement’ that has very little in
common with either traditional Vedanta or modern Vedanta or
even its inspiration, Ramana…except the doctrine of non-duality.
Neo-Advaita is so abstracted from its Vedantic roots that I recently
met a person who had been ‘empowered’ to give satsang who did
not know that the word satsang was a Sanskrit compound meaning
‘keeping the company of reality.’ It is a typically American hybrid,
although Europe, particularly Germany, has become its capital. It
would not be unfair to compare it to a beautiful period house
purchased by a rich yuppie couple who had it completely gutted
and then proudly installed all the latest modern conveniences. In
the end all that remains of the original is the lovely advaitic façade.

Perhaps the best way to approach Neo-Advaita is not by what it

teaches as by what it doesn’t, because taken at face value many of
the teachings are quite reasonable although they owe more to
modern than to traditional Vedanta. Probably the most obvious
omission is the notion of adikara, the qualifications necessary for
enlightenment. Neo-Advaita is burdened with an understandably
democratic ethos, the idea being that anyone who walks into a
satsang off the street can gain instant enlightenment. Traditional
Vedanta completely disagrees with this notion and insists that a
person be discriminating, dispassionate, calm of mind, and
endowed with a ‘burning’ desire for liberation along with other
secondary qualifications like devotion, faith, perseverance and so
on. In other words it requires a mature adult with a one-pointed
desire to know the Self. The reason for this insistence is based on
the fact that enlightenment takes place in the mind. Therefore the
mind must be capable of grasping and retaining the knowledge “I
am limitless Awareness and not this body mind.” The retention
and assimilation of this knowledge will necessarily destroy one’s
tendencies (vasanas) to seek for happiness in the world, so the
qualified aspirant has to have come to the hard and fast conclusion
that nothing in the world can bring lasting satisfaction before he or
she exposes his or her mind to Vedanta. This is what Vedanta calls
maturity.

To my knowledge no Neo-Advaita satsang teacher espouses this

view. The reason is obvious: he or she would have virtually no
disciples. Neo-Advaita seems to be more about emotionally
wounded middle-class people looking for an alternative spiritual
lifestyle, one that offers a sense of ‘community.’ The word ‘sanga’
means a company of like minded souls. Far from the idea of
relying on the Self to supply all one’s needs from within most
satsangis believe that enlightenment will help them gain the
worldly things that have so far eluded them, particularly love. And
it is clear from the behavior of most of the teachers of Neo-Advaita
who have ‘got it’ that their Self knowledge has in no way
diminished their lust for fame, wealth, power and pleasure.

Traditional Vedanta does not reject any person who is sincerely

trying to solve the existential riddle. So, if a person has a strong
desire for liberation he or she might wish to develop the
qualifications. The lifestyle that prepares the mind is called
‘sadhana,’ the ‘means of attainment’ in Vedic culture. Yoga is a
traditional Vedantic sadhana because its disciplines prepare the
mind for enlightenment. Even modern Vedanta, with its emphasis
on Karma, Bhakti, Jnana and Raja Yoga, is sadhana based. Yogas
are by definition sadhanas made for doers. Sadhana is
evolutionary because the mind is a very conservative instrument
and much extroverted by the pressure of the vasanas. So progress
is incremental. It is not uncommon that many years are required
to produce a clear, quiet balanced mind…depending on the nature
of the vasana load.

Neo-Advaita does not endorse sadhana. Again, the reason is

obvious. Most who are attracted to Neo-Advaita are children of the
modern age looking for instant gratification. Hard work is out of
the question. The idea promoted by the teachers of Neo-Advaita is
that at any moment you can ‘wake up’ and ‘get it.’ All you have to
do is ‘surrender’ and pay attention. If you don’t get it today you
can come to the next satang and maybe you will hit the jackpot
tomorrow. A second argument against sadhana is that it
strengthens one’s sense of doership. It is true that, lacking the right
understanding, one can develop a sense of spiritual doership to
replace one’s sense of worldly doership. But this idea is promoted
in the Neo-Advaita scene to make it easier to attract followers, not
for a legitimate spiritual reason.

It would be impossible to underestimate the importance of Karma

Yoga in the Vedic tradition. In fact the Bhagavad Gita, which has
the status of an Upanishad as a scripture on liberation, devotes
many verses to the practice. Karma Yoga is an attitude that one
takes with respect to one’s actions and the results of one’s actions.
It is based on the understanding that a person has every right to
act in this world with the idea of getting a certain result but that
the result is not under the control of the doer of the action. The
result is a consequence of the appropriateness and timeliness of
the action and the nature of the field in which the action happens.
In religious terms it is up to the ‘grace of God.’ Or, in New Age
terms, ‘the universe.’ Because the results of one’s actions are not
up to the doer, whatever result, positive or negative, comes should
be gladly accepted as a ‘gift’ from God. Because it is the
identification of the doer with the action and its result that
produces binding vasanas, the Karma Yoga attitude reduces the
vasana load and eventually causes the attention to turn inward
and meditate on the Self. A mind that has operated with the Karma
Yoga understanding for a long time becomes peaceful, pure, and
rock solid. It takes pleasure in itself and is indifferent to the
temporary joys that come from the senses and their objects. A
mind prepared by Karma Yoga is ideally suited to receive and
assimilate the teachings of Vedanta.

Most Modern Vedanta teachers teach a perverted self-serving

version of Karma Yoga that has no basis in the Vedanta scriptures.
According to them Karma Yoga is ‘selfless service.’ It is under the
guise of this doctrine that ashrams, religions and spiritual
movements of all sorts exploit the labor of unsuspecting seekers to
build their satsangs and institutions. On the wall of the kitchen of
a large ashram of one of the Eighties richest and most famous
export gurus was a sign reading. “One hour of washing dishes
burns up one lifetime of karma.”

Karma Yoga is not taught in the Neo-Advaita world because its

teachers define enlightenment in terms of an experience of the Self
that comes ‘by Grace’ or as a result of ‘transmission’ from a guru,
experiences that do not require a prepared mind. And it is also not
taught because it requires patience and diligence, qualities not in
evidence in people seeking instant enlightenment. Karma Yoga
requires continuous monitoring of one’s motivations and reactions
to events and the willingness to change one’s attitude when
observation reveals it to be vasana producing. It requires great
awareness and diligence because the vasanas continually divert
one’s attention away from Self observation. And, as is the case
with any spiritual practices, change is incremental and gradual.

The Neo-Advaita movement owes a considerable debt of gratitude

to the teachings of Bhagawan Rajneesh who rechristened himself
as Osho when his bad karma became unbearable. Rajneesh
perverted the tantric concept that the essence of every experience
is Awareness. Tantra is a very broad concept that applies to every
conceivable kind of experience and insists that its practitioners
enjoy the same qualifications as those practicing Vedanta sadhana.
But Rajneesh focused his attention on the sexual aspect, not that
much focusing was required, and opened wide the gates of tantra
to tens of thousands of immature disaffected Western hedonists
with his brilliant concept ‘Zorba the Buddha.’ Zorba the Greek was
the literary creation of a Greek writer Nikas Kazanzaksis. Zorba
was not a bad guy but was he emotional! He was the original party
animal: lusty and enthusiastic in his pursuit of pleasure. As is well
known the Buddha was a holy ascetic. By wedding the two ideas
he provided a clever ‘spiritual’ justification for the unrestrained
pursuit of pleasure in the name of spiritual growth. Wags not
unfairly called his sadhana the ‘fuck your way to God’ path. I was
once told in all seriousness by a devotee that Osho ‘’gave us
permission to do what society forbids us to do.” When he died
thousands of his disciples gravitated to a relatively unknown guru,
HWL Poonja aka Papaji, who was considerably more Vedic in his
orientation and taught enlightenment as an experience of non-
duality. A number of them ‘woke up’ and began what is now called
Neo-Advaita. It seems the only practice encouraged by Neo-
Advaita teachers is satsang and ‘the celebration of life’ which
dovetails with the mindless hippie philosophy that so many Neo-
Adviatins adhere to: if it feels good, do it.
In contrast, traditional Vedanta and modern Vedanta are firmly
rooted in the primary spiritual idea of the Vedic age: yagna. A
yagna is a sacrifice. The members of a community bring offerings,
a small portion of which are symbolically offered into the
sacrificial fire. The remainder of the yagna is distributed to the less
fortunate members of the community. Sacrifice plays a central role
in Vedanta sadhana, the idea being that as far as the ego and its
desires are concerned you cannot have your cake and eat it too.
The vasanas that extrovert the mind need to be sacrificed for the
sake of a quiet mind, one capable of meditating on the Self,
reflecting on the non-dual teachings and assimilating the
knowledge.

Traditional Vedanta deals with the vasanas by insisting that the

seeker practice Vedika Dharma. Vedika Dharmas are the rules of
conduct set out in the karmic portion of the Vedas that govern all
aspect of human behavior. Following Vedika Dharma is considered
a sacred duty. Indian society today is closely tied to its Vedic roots
and is a duty orientated society. Modern Vedanta adheres to
Vedika Dharma and the Yogic idea of vasana exhaustion through
the practice of samadhi, surrender to God, and other practices.
When a person takes a duty-oriented approach to life the vasanas
produced are non-binding and therefore are not an impediment to
Self realization. When a person practices karma yoga and
surrender to God the binding vasanas are neutralized. But when
neither of these ideas are operating and there are no teachings
concerning the relationship between the pursuit of ‘kamya
karmas,’ desire-prompted activities, and the production of binding
vasanas is it any wonder that whatever non-dual experiences are
acquired in satsang quickly vanish with the appearance of the next
binding vasana? This is why the Neo-Advaita world is little more
than thousands of people, including the teachers, who have had
scores of non-dual experiences but who at the end of the day are
still prisoners of their vasanas.

Ramana Maharshi, who had a profound experience of the Self at

the tender age of seventeen, understood the wisdom of sadhana in
so far as he sat in meditation on the Self in caves for twenty years
after he was ‘awakened.’ Had he been a Neo-Advaitin he would
have immediately advertised satsang and begun instantly
enlightening devotees. But he had the wisdom to understand that
his epiphany was not the end of it. Had it been he could have
returned home, ate this mother’s iddlies and played cricket like any
normal seventeen year old Tamil. But in line with the traditional
teachings of Shankara he ‘practiced knowledge’ until such time as
all the vasanas were reduced to ashes in the fire of Self knowledge
(jnanam).

Another essential component of any valid spiritual path Vedic or

otherwise is bhakti, devotion to God or the Self. Ramana, the
shining icon of the Neo-Advaitins, gave devotion to God equal
status with Self inquiry as a spiritual path because devotion to God
functions in the same way as Karma Yoga; it exhausts vasanas by
breaking down the concept of doership. “Not my will, but thine.”
It also teaches that God, not the ego, is the dispenser of the fruits of
one’s actions. But Neo-Advaita sees devotion to God as ‘duality’ and
has nothing to do with it. This shunning of the devotional aspect of
life is based on ignorance of the value of devotion as one of the
primary requirements for Self realization. In fact ‘dvaita’ works
just as well as ‘advaita’ in preparing the mind for Self realization
because the Self functions through one’s chosen symbol to bring
the necessary qualities into full flower.
Some schools of Neo-Advaita subscribe to the notion that
enlightenment can be transmitted in some subtle experiential way
via the physical proximity of a master. Traditional Advaita
disagrees with this view for the reason that ignorance is deeply
entrenched in the aspirant’s thinking and that it is only by deep
refection on the teachings that the ultimate assimilation of the
knowledge is achieved. This assimilation is often called ‘full’ or
‘complete’ enlightenment. The ‘transmission’ fantasy fits nicely
into the Neo-Advaitic conception of easy enlightenment as it does
away with the need for serious sadhana. One need do nothing
more that sit in the presence of a master and presto-chango!...one
wakes up for good. If this were true, however, the tens of
thousands who sit at the feet of enlightened masters everywhere
would be enlightened.

Another half-baked idea that has gained currency in the Neo-

Advaita world is the notion of ‘awakening.’ While sleep and
waking are reasonable metaphors to describe the states of Self
ignorance and Self knowledge, Neo-Advaita assigns to them an
experiential meaning that it not justified. Just as anything that
lives, dies, anything that wakes, sleeps. The Self never sleep or
awakens. This ‘waking up’ and ‘going back to sleep’…all of which
takes place in the waking state incidentally…is a consequence of
the play of the gunas in the mind. When the mind is sattvic, the
reflection of the Self in it causes the individual to wake up to the
Self, but when rajas or tamas reappear, as they inevitably do, the
mind is clouded over and the experience of the reflection of the
Self in the mind is lost i.e. the mind ‘sleeps.’ Until the rajasic and
tamasic vasanas are purified one is condemned to a frustrating
cycle of waking and sleeping.
In the Twentieth Century psychology came of age in the West. It
has left the confines of the therapist’s office and entered popular
culture. Much of the energy in Neo-Advaita satangs is devoted to
pop Neo-Advaita psychology which is nothing more than an
attempt to apply advaitic concepts to the ego and its dysfunctional
patterns. Vedanta sadhana assumes a healthy ego. The
qualifications for enlightenment that are presented in Shankara’s
Vivekachoodamani might be profitably thought of as the qualities
of a mature healthy ego. Traditional Vedanta begins where the ego
leaves off by revealing the nature of the impersonal Self though its
teachings. One need not kill or destroy the ego, as many Neo-
Advaita teachers claim, but one should embrace through
understanding a greater or ‘universal’ Self. This Self is not in
opposition to the ego but provides the Awareness that allows the
ego to function.

Finally, the reason Vedanta has survived as a viable means of

knowledge is not due to its doctrines alone but to the application of
a sophisticated method of teaching. Many realize their non-dual
nature but are incapable of teaching non-duality because they lack
a viable method. The Neo-Advaita statements to ‘Be the space for
the thoughts’ or ‘Be what you are” are not skillful teachings
because a non-dual teaching of identity is being delivered in
experiential language. Such teachings give the impression that
something can be done to achieve Awareness and that Self
realization can come about through an act of will. In traditional
Advaita not only should the teacher have realized his or her
identity as the Self in such a way that he or she never re-identifies
with the ego (the belief that the ‘I’ is limited) but he or she should
be able to wield the means of knowledge skillfully.
Many Neo-Advaita satsang teachers use a picture of Ramana lend
legitimacy and gravitas to their satsangs and promote one of
Ramana’s favorite ideas, that ‘silence’ is somehow the ultimate
teaching. While understanding the nature of the Self in ‘silence’
apparently finishes the sadhana of a very few qualified sadaks,
silence is not superior to the skillful use of words in bringing about
enlightenment. This is so because silence is in harmony, not in
conflict, with Self ignorance…as it is with everything. One can sit
in silence without instruction for lifetimes and never realize that
one is the silence, meaning limitless Awareness. Knowledge,
however, which is the result of Vedanta pramana, destroys Self
ignorance like light destroys darkness. Additionally no experience,
including the experience of silence, can change one’s thinking
patterns. An experience of non-duality may temporarily suspend
thought or increase one’s resolve to see oneself as limitless
Awareness but the notion that the ‘I’ is limited, inadequate,
incomplete and separate is hard wired. It is only by diligent
practice of the knowledge ‘I am limitless awareness and not this
body mind’ that the mind’s understanding of reality gets in line
with the nature of the Self.

Why are binding vasanas such a major problem for anyone

seeking enlightenment? Because they disturb the mind to such a
degree that one’s contact with the Self as it reflects in the mind is
broken. It is meditation on the reflection of the Self in the mind
that allows the intellect to investigate the Self and gain the
knowledge ‘I am the Self’ that breaks down the subject-object
distinction and ends one’s sense of duality. I was informed
recently by a friend who has considerable knowledge of the Neo-
Advaita satsang world that we have now entered into the ‘Post-Neo
Advaita’ period. Not surprisingly Neo-Advaita has not lived up to
its promise as a quick and easy means of liberation and people are
now looking for the next most incredible path to enlightenment.
And you will be happy to know that it seems their prayers have
been answered by the appearance of the “Kalki Avatar’ who, for
the modest fee of $5,500 and twenty one days of your time will lay
his divine hands on your cranium and rewire your nervous
system, read brain, so that you become fully enlightened.
Evidently his promise is thinning the ranks of the Neo-Advaitins
who, in typically Western fashion, are always looking for the most
efficient shortcut to limitless bliss.

Does Neo-Advaita have any redeeming virtues? In non-dual reality

everything somehow eventually serves to reveal the Self. Just as
kindergarten is a prerequisite for grade school, people seeking
enlightenment need to start somewhere and Neo-Advaita,
imperfect as it is as a vehicle for spiritual practice or Self
realization, provides entry-level access to the idea of non-duality.
Finally, because Neo-Advaita is more sanga than sat (the Self) it
serves to satisfy to some degree the emotional needs of its
disaffected followers. Because it does serve a need it will probably
continue in some form or other for the foreseeable future but will
probably remain as a lifestyle fad unless it investigates its roots
and discovers the wisdom of the Vedas.
 The Horse’s Mouth
An essay on the 'lineage' game

Human beings seem particularly vulnerable to the need for

validation. Nowhere is this need more evident than in the modern
spiritual world’s obsession with status. Forty years ago the word
‘avatar’ was barely known in West. A few rare souls knew it
through the Bhagavad Gita but it was definitely not a household
word. These days the old words that served to indicate an exalted
spiritual condition…guru, yogi, lama, sage enlightened being,
etc….have been eclipsed by the word avatar, God in human form
but God miraculously free of all human foibles. One seems not to
be worth one’s salt spiritually these days unless one is an avatar.

Another word that reveals a need for spiritual validation is

‘lineage.’ A lineage is meant to confer status by suggesting gravitas.
And the modern spiritual world…in so far as it comes out of
modern life which certainly lacks gravitas…seems of late to be
particularly prone to inventing lineages. Any Tom, Dick or Harry
who 'sat' with a brown-skinned Indian...preferably in India...for
twenty minutes suddenly becomes part of a great lineage. With a
lineage to back you up your spiritual resume is enhanced and your
words take on added meaning, particularly if they are short on
truth.

One of the most noticeable modern ‘lineages’ is the Ramana-Papaji

lineage. Papaji is the father of the modern ‘Neo-Advaita’
movement which has spawned a plethora of self proclaimed
‘enlightened’ beings who are responsible for the satsang culture
that has attracted tens of thousands of seekers in the last fifteen
years.

Papaji, who was virtually unknown in India during his life, came to
the attention of the Western spiritual world shortly after Bhagavan
Rajneesh, the notorious ninety-three Rolls Royce guru died.
Rajneesh, the ‘horse’s mouth’ concerning the topic of
enlightenment for Westerners for many years, was a particularly
clever man who created a very large following of Westerners by
wedding two largely incompatible concepts, sense enjoyment and
enlightenment. His ‘Zorba the Budda’ idea gave a whole
generation of rebellious disaffected community-seeking
Westerners a good excuse to party hearty on their way to God.
When Rajneesh…who rechristened himself Osho to avoid the bad
karma his notoriety produced…died, his devotees, ever on the
lookout for the next master, ‘discovered’ Papaji, by this time an old
man languishing in Lucknow, a hot, dirty noisy city on the banks of
the Ganges. Papaji, like Rajneesh, was a clever man with an
outsized personality, a shaktipat guru. A shaktipat guru is
someone with a superabundance of ‘spiritual’ energy. By ‘hanging
out’ with such people one often ‘experiences enlightenment.’ It
seemed lost on Papaji…and his followers certainly didn’t know the
difference considering their provenance…that reality is non-dual
‘light’ or Awareness and therefore all experiences are the
experiences of enlightenment. In any case many people got ‘high’
on ‘his’ energy and imagined themselves to be enlightened, a
condition known in yogic culture as manolaya, a temporary
cessation of thought…or if you prefer an English term, an
epiphany. A new horse’s mouth had appeared…by the grace of
God.

It so happens that the Osho people, in spite of the fact that most of
them spent long periods in India, had virtually no knowledge of
Vedic spiritual culture even though they paraded around in red
clothing...much to the consternation of the locals...and called
themselves 'neo-sanyassis' which translates as ‘new renunciates.’
Renunciation is a tried and true Vedic spiritual idea but in this case
it is not clear what was actually being renounced. It is not
surprising that they knew virtually nothing about Vedic culture
because Rajneesh was not a Hindu and seemed to have had a
certain contempt for the great spiritual tradition that surrounded
him. His role models, who he was not above criticizing, were Christ
and the Buddha. Papaji, on the other hand, was a died in the wool
Hindu from a family of Krishna devotees. His contribution to the
spiritual education of this group was two-fold. He introduced them
to Ramana Maharshi who he claimed was his guru…thus giving
himself a golden, nay platimum, credential. And he introduced
them to the word ‘advaita’ which means non-duality. Hence, the
‘advaita’ movement.

Although Ramana was Papaji’s guru their idea of spiritual practice,

self inquiry, was quite different. Ramana’s involved persistent and
intense effort moment to moment basis to dispel the mind/ego's
idea of duality while Papaji’s involved only the question ‘Who am
I?’ and then ‘keeping quiet’ until the answer appeared. Papaji was
no fool and understood quite well that he was not talking to yogis,
serious practicioners, but bhogis, enjoyers. Most took Osho
seriously when he told them that spiritual life was a big celebration
and encouraged them to get on with it. And, to be fair, most
thought they were doing spiritual work…although therapy would
be a more accurate term. Sadhana, spiritual work, presupposes a
healthy mature individual with a clear, discriminating,
dispassionate mind and a burning desire to be free of the quest for
satisfaction in this world. Whether Papaji was enlightened is open
to question…many unenlightened yogis can give shaktipat more or
less at will and speak eloquently about the truth…but whether he
was or wasn’t isn’t important, only that he gave shaktipat and
reserved his ‘final teachings’ for qualified aspirants, who were by
his own admission non-existent.

In an extraordinary interview in a book about his life entitled

‘Nothing Ever Happened’ by David Godman he talks about his
teaching and the people who received it…or not.

David: “You used to give experiences to a lot of people. Why did

you do it if you knew that the effect would not be permanent?”
Papaji: “I did it to get rid of the leeches who were sticking to me,
never allowing me to rest or be by myself. It was a very good way
of getting rid of all these leeches in a polite way. I knew that in
doing this I was giving lollipops to the ignorant and innocent, but
this is what these people wanted. When I tried to give $100 bills to
them, they rejected them. They thought that they were just pieces
of paper. So I gave them lollipops instead.

David: Many of the people you gave lollipops to left Lucknow

thinking that they were enlightened. Does the fact that they
accepted the lollipop and left indicate that they were not worthy to
receive the $100 bills?

Papaji: “If one is not a holy person, one is not worthy to receive the
real teaching. Many people think that they have attained the final
state of full and complete liberation. They have fooled themselves,
and they have fooled many other people but they have not fooled
me. A person in this state is like a fake coin. It may look like the
real thing. It can be passed around and used by ignorant people
who use it to buy things with. People who have it in their pocket
can boast of having a genuine coin, but it is not real. But it has no
value. When it is finally discovered to be a fake, the person who is
circulating it, claiming that it is real, is subject to the penalties of
the law. In the spiritual world, the law of karma catches up and
deals with all people who are trafficking in fake experiences. I have
never passed on the truth to those whom I could see were fake
coins. These people may look like gold and they may glitter like
gold, but they have no real value. There are many people who can
put on a show and fool other people into believing they are
enlightened.” “Why does hearing the truth only work in a small
percentage of cases? The simple answer to that is that only a small
percentage of people are interested in the truth.”
David: “Many people have heard you say, ‘I have not given my final
teachings to anyone’. What are these final teachings, and why are
you not giving them out?”

Papaji: “Nobody is worthy to receive them. Because it has been my

experience that everybody has proved to be arrogant and
egotistic… I don’t think anyone is worthy to receive them.”

Here we have the horse’s mouth, the father of the satsang

movement, saying that those teaching in his name are not
enlightened. Traditional Vedanta, the source of the idea of non-
duality would agree in so far…as stated above…reality is non-dual
Awareness and therefore the search for a discrete permanent
experience that one might call ‘enlightenment’ is gratuitous. This is
not to say that the occasional intense experiences of non-
duality...the lollipops…that power the searches of many are in any
way unhelpful, although they may become a source of frustration
and disappointment if not properly understood. Shaktipat is
indeed a wonderful experience but it is simply another experience
and will not set you free…although it can give you an idea of what
you are seeking…in so far as freedom is the nature of the Self. This
freedom cannot be produced by anything, particularly an
experience, because it is limitless. What is limitless i.e. the Self can,
as Ramana conclusively says…and traditional Vedanta agrees…be
only gained by knowledge since you have it already. The purpose
of Self inquiry is to gain Self knowledge and remove ignorance
about your nature…not to get a discrete permanent experience of
the Self. In any case an epiphany is not enlightenment and it is
certainly not the proper basis for a ‘teaching.’

Papaji’s insistence that a seeker of enlightenment be qualified is in

harmony with the teachings of traditional Vedanta. Why should
one be qualified? Because enlightenment…the knowledge that one
is whole and complete actionless Awareness and not this body
mind…will only arise in a pure mind, one free of the limited
perspective and the consequent suffering it produces. And
secondly this knowledge will only stick in a pure mind. A pure
mind can be produced by action, unlike the Self. And finally, action
in a spiritual context is Self inquiry, the consistent application of
Self knowledge…the idea that I am limitless Awareness…until the
mind accepts it completely. It is clear that while Ramana gained
that knowledge when he was very young he spent many years
applying it to his mind, hence his teaching of self-inquiry. If he
didn’t do sadhana, as many believe, where did he get the authority
to teach Self inquiry? The belief that he didn’t do Self inquiry
stems from the unfortunate idea that Self inquiry is simply asking
the ‘Who am I?’ question when it is in fact a willingness to examine
all one’s thinking in light of the truth of one’s being. It is, as
traditional Vedanta states, ‘the practice of Self knowledge.’ What
else are you going to do once you wake up? You see the Self and
you see the mind and you see that there is some disconnect
between them and you either let the mind be knowing that it isn’t
you…which is not Self inquiry but is a perfectly legitimate path…or
you make an effort to get the mind in alignment with the Self. Self
inquiry is a continuous discipline until the mind no longer throws
up limiting concepts about the nature of the ‘I’ at which point one
could be said to be ‘fully’ enlightened.

Evidently Papaji neglected to inform his followers that they needed

to prepare themselves for the ‘final teachings’ and that self inquiry
was a lot more than getting high from ‘getting it’ and then running
off to ‘teach’ enlightenment. Consequently they had no idea how to
prepare themselves apart from developing therapies on their own
to clear up psychological problems. If they were informed the
message somehow got lost in translation because this teaching is
conspicuous by its absence in the Neo-Advaita world. Instead, in
Papaji's inquiry lite method, you were meant to ask who you are
and then sit still, presumably waiting for the answer, as if there
was somebody other than you in you that knew the answer. The
obvious problem with this approach is the fact that who you are is
not a secret. Even if it is to you and you are lucky enough to get an
answer from within as you sit in ‘silence’ how will you evaluate its
meaning? What does it mean to say I am limitless non-dual
actionless Consciousness? What does it mean to say I am the Self?
How should this knowledge impact on my life? Do I get up and
shout for joy and get on with my doings because nothing ever
happened? Do I shut up and keep silent the rest of my life? Do I
hang out a shingle and make a business of enlightening others?
Knowing that I am not a doer do I quit eating, die and merge with
the Absolute?

The purpose of scripture…teachings…is to remove one’s ignorance.

It is meant to guide Self inquiry. Ramana read and wrote scripture
dedicating at least one work to Shankara…indicating the
importance of getting the overview and not just relying on one’s
own interpretation of the revelations that come when the mind is
quiet either as a result of conscious Self inquiry or from an outside
event like shaktipat…or an intense pleasure or tragedy.

Yes, you are temporarily enlightened...assuming wrongly that you

aren't enlightened all the time...when you have your non-dual
epiphanies but when your old patterns return you will invariably
re-identify with them and return to endarkenment. Unless a
seeker understands the value of purifying the mind along
scriptural lines, he or she will not remain enlightened…in so far as
‘permanent enlightenment’ depends on the nature of the mind.
Enlightenment is only for a Self ignorant mind. The Self is
enlightened by default.

Another point that Papaji makes concerning the search for

enlightenment is also in harmony with the teachings of traditional
Vedanta: very few people are actually interested in enlightenment,
not only because they don’t know what it is but because their
presence in the spiritual world is due to other factors. Take away
the unrestrained sex, the discos and the touchy feely sense of
‘community’ from the Osho experience and you would not have
had a mass quasi spiritual movement. Add some straight talking
purified teachings devoid of a guru’s beliefs and opinions
harkening back to the Upanishads…like those of Shankaracharya…
and you will be left with a small handful of dedicated people. I
have interviewed hundreds of people in the forty years I’ve been in
the spiritual world concerning their motivations and well over
ninety-five percent…after paying lip service to the idea of
enlightenment…will admit that that they are really looking for a
sense of ‘community.’ They want to associate with people who
think and feel like they do about the spiritual nature of life. There
is nothing wrong with it but it is an emotional need, not the desire
for freedom that is the hallmark of a true spiritual seeker. The only
question remaining concerning Papaji is that if he really believed
what he said why did he open up his life to a crowd of parasitic
people…and then complain vociferously about their presence?
Presumably enlightened people are free to say 'no.' Many truth
seekers survived both the Osho and the Papaji experience and
have continued to grow spiritually but it is impossible not to notice
the downside of this so-called ‘lineage’: the many aging middle-
aged Zorba the Buddhas still trolling the spiritual world in search
of the next big ‘celebration of life’ and the raft of modern Neo-
Advaita teachers desperately trying to cobble together a ‘teaching’
from their own limited experience. Enlightenment does not a
teaching make.

What Papaji meant by enlightenment is anybody’s guess but it

obviously wasn’t experiential…the experiences were only
‘lollipops.’ Somehow, it involved his ‘final teachings’ which
presumably involved some kind of knowledge…although what that
knowledge was is not clear. You will notice that in this interview
he does not answer the question ‘What are your final teachings?”
And it need not be clear because the idea of a ‘final teaching’ is
absurd in so far as you can crack any Upanishad or any of the
hundreds of great Vedantic texts…or listen to any traditional
Vedanta master…and discover that the final teaching is that you
are non-dual Awareness and not the body mind entity you think
you are. The Upanishad’s roar, “You are That!” meaning limitless
non-dual Awareness. This teaching is not secret or ‘final’ in any
way. It is simply a fact to be appreciated, assuming you are mature
i.e. qualified. And the permanent appreciation of this fact depends
on the nature of the mind…how free it is of beliefs and opinions to
the contrary. What’s apparently secret and a 'final' bit of unwanted
knowledge is the idea that you need to roll up your sleeves and get
to work on your mind…if you are going to actualize this teaching.

One suspects…and there is no way of knowing in so far as Papaji is

no longer with us and would probably not be inclined to ‘share’
with us if he was…that the ‘final teaching’ myth was one of the
tricks Papaji picked up in guru school…keep them dependent on
you by shrouding yourself in mystery. Why would a truly
enlightened teacher perpetuate this myth? He or she wouldn’t
because the whole purpose of enlightenment teaching is to give
you the tools that will set you free, including freedom from gurus.
When you take into account the contemptuous and cynical attitude
that Papaji expresses in this interview toward his ‘disciples’ and
the fact that he knew that the people coming to him were not
qualified for enlightenment…and neglected to tell them and also
neglected to provide teachings and techniques that would prepare
them for it…one is tempted to conclude that less noble motivations
were at work.

In another portion of the interview Papaji says that he did not

authorize people to teach in his name, only to send them to
Lucknow to get the ‘final teachings.’ One wonders why people who
were obviously not enlightened and not qualified for it would be
successful in attracting those who would be prepared for the ‘final
teachings’ which, as far as I know, Papaji never declared. But he
couldn't really declare them because it would make him seem
foolish in so far as they are an open secret.
Does this mean that there is no value to the teachings of Neo-
Avaita? Not at all, only that the truth stands on its own and does
not need validation by any guru or any lineage…although it
certainly becomes more desirable when purified gurus with proper
teachings…like Ramana…teach it.

A lineage is much more than a couple of gurus. In fact the guru is

only one small link in a vast teaching tradition...the Sanskrit word
is sampradaya...that stretches back to the first enlightened being,
the Creator, and even beyond to the non-dual unborn
Consciousness that makes the apparent creation possible. These
teachings and the understanding that contexualizes them have
survived repeated attempts to corrupt them with the personal
views of Johnny-come-lately gurus who think they need to
'moderinize' them to make them palatable for modern audiences
or hide them for want of qualified aspirants. As the poet says,
contrary to the opinion of most modern seekers, there is nothing
new under the sun, including advaita, non-duality and sannyass,
renunciation. Human beings are human beings and will always be
human beings. We suffer the same fundamental problem today
that the first human being suffered, a crippling sense of limitation.
And from the very beginning the knowledge that removes this
problem has been with us. That it is still unsullied today...in spite of
repeated attempts to modify it...is a tribute to a lineage that
outshines all the individuals in it.

Why is Neo-Advaita not a skillful means of Self knowledge?

Because it is a victim of level confusion, the belief that you can
simply negate yourself by saying that you don’t exist or shouldn’t
exist. Yes, it is true that from the Self’s point of view ‘you’ don’t
exist as a separate entity but this teaching only creates spiritual
frustration if you are not ready to receive it…which most aren’t.
Ignorance…the belief that one is separate from everything…is hard
wired. It does not go away because you deny it. The logical
conclusion is that you need to get rid of this belief. But this is
precisely the point at which the teachings of no doer, no work, no
guru, etc. float off into fantasy land because getting rid of it is very
hard work. Denial is much easier; you just tell yourself that you
are ‘awakened’ or ‘cooked’ and you avoid noticing that you are still
the same old fool. Or you explain your foolishness away with some
clever non-dual tidbit like “I’m not chasing things in this world, I’m
playing in Consciousness.” Or ‘nothing ever happened’ or ‘I’m not
really here’ or ‘what I’m teaching is crazy wisdom.’ Or “Ramana
got it without doing anything so that means I don’t have to do
anything.’ Or, “How can I do sadhana, I’m not a doer.”

Yes, it would be wonderful if life was that easy. But it isn’t. We do

not choose to be here…New Agey theories to the contrary not
withstanding. We appear here, the result of vast complex of
factors that nobody understands. Life somehow wants us here…it
needs us. And one of life’s nasty inconvenient little truths is that
there are no free lunches. You have to pay all the way. It provides
a lovely world and a beautiful body and mind with which to enjoy
it. But it also requires you to play your part. If you don’t, you
suffer. Why? Because along with the good stuff it infects you with
a completely debilitating disease, the beginningless disease of
ignorance. This disease will not go away because you want it to.
You have to take your medicine. You have to admit that you are a
human being and do the work. Neo-Advaita fails because it is
basically dishonest. It wants the fantasy, not the truth, because the
truth is a hard sell.

A successful teaching is not content to merely preach non-duality

from its ivory tower. It comes down into the dream of duality and
shows the way out…from within the dream. This is why traditional
Vedanta has survived for thousands of years and Neo-Advaita will
rate little more than a footnote in modern spiritual history. It
humbly accepts you where you are at, shows you the goal and
supplies the tools you need to succeed: the karma yoga attitude,
discrimination, the hugely effective three guna model, devotion
and many others. It is sophisticated enough to understand the
human tendency toward self delusion, its desire to cut corners and
take the easy way out. So it supplies the logic that cuts through age
old spiritual myths.

To its credit Neo-Advaita has awakened many to the idea of non-

duality and pointed out a fact little known to extroverted people
looking for relief from their suffering…that you are not your
mind/ego. And through the satsang vehicle it has given many
seekers experiential validations of this truth along with
rudimentary bits and pieces of Self knowledge…which
unfortunately only serve to confuse without the big picture. It
disappoints, however, in so far as it does not provide a detailed
road map to enlightenment because it is…like Osho’s teachings
before it…isolated from the great teaching tradition of Vedanta…
which provides just such a map: time tested profound and brilliant
teachings about the nature of the Self, the nature of the mind and
the nature of the cosmos in addition to a huge database of
techniques…the scriptures of yoga…that help the sincere seeker to
prepare the mind for this noblest of human pursuits.