Suffering and Neo Advaita
Summary
TLDRIn this dialogue, the speaker addresses the complexity of suffering and self-awareness, touching on the contrast between individual and ultimate reality. They explain that while suffering is real from a human perspective, from a deeper spiritual understanding, suffering and the self are illusory. The speaker emphasizes the importance of context when discussing non-dual teachings, cautioning against the simplistic view that 'there is no suffering' without explaining the nuances. They highlight the need to adapt spiritual teachings for today's fast-paced media environment to prevent misunderstandings.
Takeaways
- 😀 The speaker highlights a disagreement with the idea that there is never any suffering, mentioning the importance of context in making such claims.
- 🤔 There is a nuanced perspective on suffering: from one standpoint, suffering is real, while from another, it may be illusory when considering the nature of the self.
- 🧘♂️ The concept of suffering is tied to the idea of a separate self, which can be seen as a temporary limitation of true awareness.
- 🗣️ The speaker discusses how responses about suffering vary depending on the individual and the context of their understanding.
- 🌍 A distinction is made between acknowledging the reality of suffering in human experience and the philosophical idea that the self who suffers is not ultimately real.
- 👮♂️ The analogy of a policeman versus a naked man is used to explain how both suffering and non-suffering can be true, depending on the perspective.
- 📺 The speaker emphasizes the need for teachers to adapt to modern times, where teachings are rapidly shared via platforms like YouTube, and to be careful with statements that could be misinterpreted.
- ⚖️ The balance between validating suffering and offering a deeper philosophical explanation is important, especially when dealing with people's real-life struggles.
- 💭 Statements like 'there is nobody here' need to be clarified carefully, as they can be misunderstood if taken out of context or used without explanation.
- 🙅♂️ The speaker cautions against oversimplified non-dual teachings that dismiss suffering, suggesting they can lead to a misunderstanding of deeper truths.
Q & A
What is the speaker's stance on the Buddhist concept of suffering?
-The speaker disagrees with the idea that there is never any suffering because there is no one to suffer. They explain that suffering exists, but they approach the subject from both relative and ultimate perspectives.
How does the speaker differentiate between relative and ultimate perspectives on suffering?
-From a relative perspective, the speaker acknowledges that people do suffer, and that suffering is real. From an ultimate perspective, they state that once we understand there is no separate self, suffering is seen as illusory because there is no one to suffer.
Why does the speaker emphasize the importance of context when discussing suffering?
-The speaker believes that statements about suffering can be misunderstood if taken out of context. They stress that responses to questions must be tailored to the depth of understanding of the person asking, as automatic answers can lead to confusion and misinterpretation.
Why does the speaker avoid using the analogy of John Smith and King Lear?
-The speaker mentions that they have been discouraged from using that analogy, possibly due to overuse or misunderstanding. They now rely on different examples to explain their points.
How does the speaker address the apparent contradiction between suffering being real and illusory?
-The speaker explains that both statements are true depending on the perspective. From the 'policeman' or relative perspective, suffering is real. From the 'naked man' or ultimate perspective, suffering is illusory because the self who suffers is not real.
Why does the speaker criticize non-dual teachings that simplify suffering?
-The speaker believes that repeating non-dual concepts like 'there is no suffering' without understanding or context can be shallow. They emphasize that true teaching must come from a deeper understanding and should address the person's specific experience.
What does the speaker mean by 'the one who suffers is not who he or she thinks they are'?
-The speaker suggests that our identification with a limited, finite self is the cause of suffering. When we investigate the true nature of the self, we realize that the person we think suffers is illusory.
What example does the speaker use to explain why 'there's nobody here' is a problematic statement?
-The speaker uses the example of someone named Ollie, a non-dual teacher, who says 'there's nobody here.' However, when someone calls for Ollie, he raises his hand, showing that there is indeed someone who recognizes that name, illustrating the flaw in saying 'nobody is here.'
How does the speaker distinguish between the body-mind and consciousness?
-The speaker explains that while we may recognize ourselves as not limited by thoughts, feelings, and the body-mind, there is still something—consciousness—that is present. Even though consciousness is ultimately unlimited, it appears to be located in a body as long as we are embodied.
Why does the speaker emphasize caution when making non-dual statements in today's media environment?
-The speaker highlights that non-dual teachings, when shared rapidly via media like YouTube, can be easily misunderstood without proper context. They stress the responsibility of teachers to ensure their words are clear and not misinterpreted, to prevent the teaching from being diluted.
Outlines
🤔 Contrasting Views on Suffering
This paragraph discusses the nuances of suffering from both a personal and philosophical perspective. The speaker reflects on statements about suffering, contrasting the idea that 'there was never any suffering' with the belief that suffering is a real and personal experience. They argue that such philosophical statements need context, as they can be interpreted in multiple ways. The speaker suggests that while suffering is experienced on a personal level, the true nature of suffering can be questioned when one examines the concept of the 'self.' Ultimately, they conclude that both the existence and non-existence of suffering can be true, depending on the context and the perspective taken.
🧘 Balancing Non-Dual Teachings
The speaker emphasizes the importance of nuance when discussing non-dual teachings, particularly in the context of suffering. They argue that simply stating 'there is no suffering because there is no person to suffer' can be misleading if taken out of context. This approach risks reducing complex spiritual teachings to mere concepts learned from secondary sources like books or videos. The speaker notes that historically, non-dual teachings were shared within close-knit communities, allowing for a more nuanced and gradual understanding. However, with the rapid dissemination of information today, it's crucial for teachers to adapt and ensure their messages are well-qualified. They emphasize the importance of understanding and communicating the subtle differences in these teachings to prevent misinterpretation.
🧐 The Paradox of 'Nobody Here'
This paragraph delves into the paradoxical nature of statements like 'there is nobody here,' often used in non-dual teachings. The speaker illustrates this contradiction with a hypothetical example of a person named Ollie, who teaches that there is 'nobody here.' However, when Ollie responds to his name, it implies the existence of a 'self' that recognizes the name. The speaker explains that while the essence of a person may not be limited to the physical body or mind, there is still an element of consciousness that identifies with the 'self.' They argue that phrases like 'there is nobody here' can be contradictory and misleading if not properly explained. The speaker urges caution when making such statements, particularly in a modern context where teachings can be easily misunderstood or taken out of context.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Suffering
💡Separate self
💡Non-duality
💡Context
💡Illusion
💡King Lear analogy
💡Policeman and naked man analogy
💡Neo-Advaita
💡Consciousness
💡Responsibility of teachers
Highlights
The speaker discusses how they may have said something about not agreeing with Buddhists on suffering in a particular context.
The statement 'there is suffering and someone to suffer' is true, but the opposite statement 'there is no suffering and no one to suffer' can also be true depending on the context.
The analogy of John Smith and King Lear is used to explain how two seemingly contradictory statements about suffering can both be true.
The speaker emphasizes the importance of context when discussing non-dual teachings on suffering.
The discussion points out that denying suffering without context sounds like a mechanical response, lacking real understanding.
The non-dual teaching is not about memorizing ideas but about understanding the nuance of when and how certain concepts apply.
The teacher highlights that suffering is undeniable, but the ultimate truth is that the 'one who suffers' is not who they think they are.
Modern teachings must adapt to the fast pace of information spread in today’s world, making it essential to qualify statements.
The speaker differentiates between the statement 'there’s nobody here' and the idea that the 'self' is a temporary limitation of infinite awareness.
The 'nobody here' statement from neo-Advaita teachings is explained as misleading without proper context, potentially causing misunderstanding.
The speaker uses an example of a person named Ollie to show how there is still a 'self' responding to a name, even in non-dual realization.
The discussion touches on how consciousness responds to its name, pointing to the ongoing experience of a 'self' in embodied life.
Statements like 'there is nobody here' contradict the experience of consciousness being located in a body, even in non-dual understanding.
The speaker advises caution with non-dual statements such as 'there’s no suffering' or 'there’s nobody here' because they can easily be misunderstood.
The teacher emphasizes that non-dual teachings should not be dumbed down or taken out of context, as this misrepresents their depth.
Transcripts
I really like that she said that you
don't agree with the Buddhists I think
it's the Buddhists who say there was
never any suffering did I ever say that
I didn't agree with that I'm sure you
did did I okay okay well you've just
killed my question no no just remind me
what I said but I don't agree with the
statement that there was never any
suffering because there was never
anybody to suffer do you agree with that
oh no yes and no that's my question
because when you say that King Lear
never existed it seems to me you're
saying exactly the same thing yet one
has to be very careful making a
statement like this so I may have said
and it's important not to take what I
say out of context I always try to
provide the context for what I say but
sometimes I don't provide the context I
rely on people's understanding so it is
possible that at some time in the past
in response to someone's question which
I may have intuited was founded rather
superficially on the belief there's
nobody here there's nothing to do
there's no one to suffer in order to
push that person a little deeper in
deeper and more honestly into their
experience I may have said no get real
you suffer people suffer so
in that case I would not be agreeing
with the Buddha statement there is no
suffering there is no one to suffer but
it's only in a particular context that I
would have said that the next day
someone may ask a question and in their
question they may give a long story as
to why they are suffering and I might
say to them well instead of being
involved with them the story the
apparent cause of your suffering or even
your suffering itself investigate the
person who suffers the eye that is
lonely sad ashamed unlovable guilty etc
and if you look for that eye that
limited temporary finite center of
consciousness you'll never find it so in
other words that there is no once we
understand that there isn't once we
understand and feel that there is no
separate self that the separate self is
only a temporary limitation a temporary
and ultimately in losery limitation of
the true and only self of infinite
unconditionally happy awareness then we
can say there is no suffering and there
is no one to suffer so these two
statements there is suffering and our
suffering is very real and the statement
there is no suffering and the person who
suffers is illusory is also true they're
both true I'm not allowed to use the
analogy of John Smith and King Lear
anymore so
so I have to say that the the first
statement that there is suffering and
there is someone who suffer is true of
the policeman the second statement there
is no suffering for there is nobody to
suffer is true of the naked man so it
depends which on whose behalf we are
speaking both statements are true the
does that answer your question
not quite yeah it does the question it's
just there's something in me always
rebels against that because of course we
see so much unspeakable suffering in the
world and you know it's there there is
suffering happen I agree yeah yes yes as
people we suffer undeniably and it would
be it would be facile to deny that and
and that's why I would never as I don't
just automatically answer every question
about suffering with well there's no
suffering because there's no person to
suffer that sounds like the non-dual
teaching but if that answer is just
given mechanically to every question
about suffering it betrays the fact that
the teaching is not really coming from
understanding it's just coming from a
series of non-dual concepts that have
been learned in satsang or on YouTube or
in a book that's not the real non deal
teaching the non do teaching is free
from any prescription to any set of
ideas and will one moment say yes that
is suffering your suffering is very real
and five minutes later may say no there
is ultimately no suffering because the
one who suffers is not who he thinks
here in tears
so I think one has to be very cautious
particularly in these days when the
teaching no longer takes place as it
used to a hundred years ago 200 years
ago in closed communities small closed
communities that grow up around the
teacher when most of the people are long
term students or devotees so there is a
kind of it's not necessary to build the
teaching up from scratch in relation to
every answer because that the small
group around the teaching they already
have the basics so the teaching doesn't
need to go Banta CLE through every every
step things are different now a teacher
says something and ten minutes later
it's on YouTube available to millions of
people so I feel that a teacher has to
move with the times and be responsible
to understand that things are different
now if one makes a statement like that
one has to qualify it it seems to me
when you just said now the one who
suffers is not who he or she thinks he
or she is yeah that's different than
saying there's nobody to suffer that's
right it's the nuance yes
you see we offer you you're absolutely
right we often hear on the neo advisor
circuit as such a question at a
statement such as there's nobody here
that there's nothing here there's no
there's this is of course nonsense
thank you let's well I'm going to
explain because this is precisely one of
those statements that if it went out
onto YouTube without being explained
would could give the wrong impression so
I I now have to explain what I mean by
that let's say the one who says there is
nobody here is called now I have to be
really careful I have to a think of a
name that doesn't relate to anybody that
I know or have ever heard of help me out
Holly I don't know anyone called all
these thank you
okay well let's say that someone here
called Allie is a new advisor teacher
and gives meetings and that the basic
message is there's nobody here and
there's nothing to do so that's fine we
carry on with our conversation here and
then halfway through the meeting at the
back of the room niya walks in to the
room and says sorry to disturb you but
is anyone called Allie here all he puts
up his hand
now why does Ollie put up his hand and
none of the rest of us if there was
nothing there that related to the word
Ollie Ollie would not put his hand up
but all he does put his hand up and none
of us put our hands up there is
something there to which the word ollie
refers and it is in that person's
experience alone so if Ollie then deals
with the emergency comes back and starts
talking with his friends and just says
there's nobody here it's nonsense
it's true that what is essential to the
person ollie
what are they considers to be himself he
is not limited by the thoughts the
feelings the activities and
relationships that pertain to that
particular body mind but nevertheless
there is a self if we can call it
herself there is something that only
refers to when he says I now only this I
the self of or they may recognize that
it has no limits and therefore it is not
limited to the body and the mind of or
they but nevertheless there is something
there that said yes when his name is
called what is it that says when you
hear the name Ollie he says yes I am
here what is it that says that his
consciousness that is what is really
there
even even when now Ali says only the
neo-advaita says there is nobody here
what does he mean by the word here when
he says here he means this location well
that's what the separate self is in
location of consciousness so to say
there is nobody here is a contradiction
of terms if there was nobody there would
be no here there would be nothing
located here so to say there is nobody
here is simply a contradiction of terms
there is something or someone that seems
to be located here and that is what we
call ourself and ourselves seems to be
located in and as a result to share the
limits in the destiny of this body so if
we make a deep investigation of that
self we find that none of the limits of
our thoughts and perceptions actually
pertain to that self so there is
something which is not a thing that is
present and it is essentially unlimited
and it is the self of ourselves but
nevertheless it is apparently located
here for as long as we are embodied
we have to be very careful making
statements such as there is no suffering
there's nobody here
there's nothing to do they seem to be
non-dual statements and they can be
statements of the ultimate truth as far
as it is possible to make a statement of
the ultimate truth imagine I feel one
should be very cautious saying such
things especially nowadays when anything
that anybody says is shared so rapidly
in the media where people don't have the
context or the understanding with which
to fully understand these payments and
therefore they are nearly always
mistaken and this brings the nond your
teaching into disrepute and dumbs it
down and
you
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)