14/08/2018 Misconceptions about Advaita – American Institute of Vedic Studies

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 Yoga Vasishta, 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.

https://www.vedanet.com/misconceptions-about-advaita/ 1/4
14/08/2018 Misconceptions about Advaita – American Institute of Vedic Studies

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 Advaita Bodha 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.
https://www.vedanet.com/misconceptions-about-advaita/ 2/4
14/08/2018 Misconceptions about Advaita – American Institute of Vedic Studies

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.

https://www.vedanet.com/misconceptions-about-advaita/ 3/4
14/08/2018 Misconceptions about Advaita – American Institute of Vedic Studies

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!

https://www.vedanet.com/misconceptions-about-advaita/ 4/4