Ananta

Yes, it's definately a karma yoga situation. Either stay struggling in a dysfunctional mess where one is bound to suffer or let the results of actions take there natural course and be ok with the results. I stopped struggling, stopped trying to change her, stopped asking for her to give...what she's incapable of giving. It's a relief really. I hold no resentment or anger towards her, so it's not like that...I just let her go.

She's an alcoholic also, so, yeah, bad. Anyways, sorry for your ordeal with your family also. Seems you've been able to work something out, so you can have contact, but it doesn't affect you anymore. That's great. I tried that for many years, just wasn't in the cards for her to stay in my life. I'm at peace with it. She knows if she ever stops drinking I'll talk to her again. She said, that will never happen. So, she made her choice.

Yep, this is what I did. It was dysfunctional mommy who created inappropriate guilt. In a vicious circle, kinda like the cycle of abuse, but she was verbally abusive, then honeymoon phase, ect Took years to figure out why I always felt quilty for everything, you'd think it would've been obvious, it wasnt. Finally, I figured it out. There's much more to the "story", but you get the gist. I had therapy many times in my earlier 20"s, a few times in my 30's. I'm 47 now, got over my mommy issues awhile ago. Finally, after many warnings of my boundries, mommy had one of her outbursts "your a stupid bitch, I hate you, fuck you!" on Christmas eve (she loves ruining holidays), a year and half ago. Needless to say, that's the last time I've spoken to her, as I've gone no contact and she's blocked from contacting me. Toxic peeps have no business in my life anymore, no matter there biological relation.

And there you have it, case closed.

@Prabhaker it's still a joke. It's a guy with a jacked up fake microphone and a fake reporter.

Most would consider one's defining characteristic combination as one's ..."personality". To my knowledge, Carl Jung made some kind of reference to Self (capital S), but that's psychology, not spiritually.

It's a switch in "identification", knowing/realizing the truth of who you are and priorities/behaviors can change over time (or not), but otherwise, you still have thoughts, feelings, emotions, issues/challenges, sickness/health, job/career, family, vacations, ect. You know that although that these things exist, as you experience them, they ultimately aren't real. What's real is what never changes, you, pure awareness.

I know this wasnt directed to me, but thought I'd give my take, if you don't mind. The self (lower case) is the false-self, which is the same thing as ego. It's the "I-thought" that arise with reference to the body, to experience (subject-object) and prior to "enlightenment" falsely identifies itself with awareness/consciousness. Which makes it (ego) think its an independent, individual, "person". Where as after enlightenment you know you "are" awareness/consciousness which is the background/foreground, permeates everything and from which everything is created, including the apparent person you think you are. So, that "one" aspect of ego dissolves, because there is a switch in identifying as the "limited person" as self, to identifying with "awareness" as Self. The other 2 aspects of ego (I-thought) continue to arise after knowing/realizing your true nature, as awareness. Now, in the spiritual community, the Self (with a capital S), means Brahman or pure Presence or pure Awareness, or Consciousness. This has been my experience.

It's a joke. See the cardboard pieces, taped around his microphone?

Can anyone sum up, briefly, what a zen devil is suppose to be? No, I don't want to watch an hour long video, I don't care "that" much. I hadnt heard the term, until coming on here. Oh, also, what's shadow work? Identifying aspects of ego your not aware of? That's my guess...

Fair enough! Can't hurt, right? ...

This forum really needs a "lol" button!

Omg, James did already reply to you. Went to your blog and found the last article and here was his reply- "James Swartzsays: June 20, 2017 at 6:17 pm Hi Shanmugan, Intelligent dispassionate blog. I don’t disagree nor do I completely agree with your points of view. The Enlightenment Quiz is just a teaching tool and a joke. Nobody is ‘enlightened’ including me, although I not unenlightened. My only claim is that I am the Self which is in line with the teachings of the Vedanta sampradaya. The criticisms of other so-called teachers is not specifically about the teachers themselves but about the lack of a complete teaching that provisionally accepts duality and bridges a logical bridge to non-duality and self knowledge. I also make the difference between my opinions and the teachings of traditional Vedanta, although I have considerable contempt for so-called teachers, like Osho who I met, who violate dharma and dualists who imagine that they are non-dualists. You must be aware that Vedanta is a critical teaching tradition and attack non-Vedic or hertodox Vedic systems on the basis of an analysis of the sruti, which we accept as a valid means of knowledge for the Self. Evidently the criticisms I level are reasonable because I have been told by thousands of people over the forty five years that I have been teaching that they were what attracted them to Vedanta. The basic problem with the modern spiritual world is anti-intellectualism; most teachers and seekers don’t know how to deal with their thoughts so they try to dismiss them without inquiring into their basis." James

@Nichols Harvey I suspect it was because of me being on here.

@Outer Here is a retreat of his on Youtube- WORKSHOP - PRACTICING VEDANTA - JAMES SWARTZ - WESTERWALD GERMANY - There are 16 parts (watch in a row). My guess is there is more then 20 hours of Vedanta teaching. If you are a serious inquirer, if not, not a problem. Just watching a random video of his won't make much sense, without the basics of the teaching first.

Here is the entire Satsang, so it is not taken out of context- "Buddhism and the Jhanas Ram (James Swartz) 2014-04-09 Source: http://www.shiningworld.com/site/satsang/read/231 Kumar: I trust you are well. James: Better than ever! Nice to hear from you, Kumar. Kumar: I believe that the jhanas are a powerful technique to sharpen your mind so that insight might appear, take root and become integrated with your real life. It is also historically used as a tool to burn the mind of conditioning and residual karma. The insight is through vipassana practice since the jhanas do not lead to liberation by themselves. I am working backwards since I already know who I am but it is an excellent set of techniques to deepen your understanding of how the mind works. James: Well, working backwards is always easier then working forwards because the seeking has stopped. As long as we are here action is required and the jhanas are as good a way as any to spend your time. Kumar: In Hindu tradition doing jhanas would be like doing tapas, very useful for stilling the mind, burning karma and allowing the self to reflect in a pure mind. Enlightened or not, the mind needs to be carefully monitored all the time. James: Yes, indeed. Kumar: In my personal experience, doing tapas or jhanas is essential for maintaining equanimity and a calm, tranquil mind. I also realized the connection between the pranayama exercises taught in raja yoga and connecting to the non-experiencing witness through breath practice. It was a very powerful feeling knowing that breath can help connect the mind to the nonexperiencing witness in a radically different way. Of course, the assumption is that you already know that you are the non-experiencing entity. James: Yes, you can connect with the breath. It happens in the method I teach too but the big issue, as you say, is whether or not you know you are the non-experiencing witness. Seems your self-knowledge is firming up nicely. Kumar: Actually, any meditation practice or scriptural study should suffice but one advantage of doing jhanas is the bliss the mind feels while meditating. It would be the Buddhist equivalent of bhakti yoga. Also, in these deep absorption states, the knowledge that “I am limitless awareness” will stick better and continue to grow. There is some confusion in Buddhism about awareness/self as presented by Vedanta and nonself. When I asked the teacher if jhana arises in the mind or awareness, they had no idea what I was talking about. Nobody ever asked them this question before. Also, I asked who is the recognizer of the jhana state, because to recognize that you are in jhana, there has to be an element of recognition, otherwise you will have no idea what state you are in. Recognition necessarily has to happen in the mind because it is an instrument of the self and the mind is insentient except as illuminated by the awareness. James: I am not surprised that they don’t know the self. That is our issue with Buddhism since time immemorial. I have yet to meet a Buddhist that understands it. There is a video on my website of a Buddhist – the only one I ever came across who seems to know what it is and that he is it – that seems to indicate that self-knowledge is alive somewhere in the Buddhist world, but it is very rare. They are doer-oriented, experience-oriented, particularly the jhana guys. Kumar: Anyway, I found it odd that this obvious fact was lost to them. Maybe the concept of noself is misinterpreted by Buddhists as a non-recognizing entity, I don’t know, but I wish they just said that it was awareness or the mind illuminated by awareness. I had a big discussion with my Zen teacher after the retreat but it seems in Buddhism they dance around the fact. James: They don’t know, Kumar. When Buddhism left its Vedic roots it splintered into a myriad of ideas, most of them – I hesitate to say all – devoid of self-knowledge. They talk about it, they dance around it, but they do not have a valid means of self-knowledge. Kumar: That said, I have no doubt it is a powerful practice, and stilling the mind allows one to see the conditioning of the mind as a whole. I can bet easy money that “choiceless awareness” that Krishnamurti talks about is using the practice of jhana to still the mind so that at some point in time the spark of awareness ignites. James: This is probably true but, again, it just generates experience, and without a way to evaluate it apart from the jiva’s (always uninformed) interpretation it usually develops into another frustration and attachment. What do the Buddhists say is the purpose of the jhanas? We know they are good for getting a sattvic mind but what do they think they are accomplishing? There are a lot of other ways of getting a sattvic mind. Kumar: Maybe if you sit long enough and you are an intelligent person, the insight that you are awareness might arise, but Vedanta is easier. James: That’s right. We give them that. Meditation is called a leading error. It is a mistake but it can put you in the right arena and inquiry may develop and, like Ramana, you might just get that you are awareness. Kumar: Historically Buddha had to differentiate himself from the Vedic culture so it is entirely possible that he articulated the same concepts slightly differently. When I was reading Buddhism I came across their renditions of Sanskrit words, and some of them were right, some were close and some were completely off the mark. The problem with Buddhism is that it can be whatever you want it to be. There are more Buddhisms than stars in the sky. Vedanta is Vedanta. It does not change because the object of knowledge… awareness… does not change. If you haven’t been taught, you will not get it. Kumar: I am pretty sure when Buddha said anatman he meant that there was no permanent experiencing entity, which is correct. James: That is true but concepts are just concepts. Their implied meaning can point to the self and deliver self-knowledge but unless the concepts are used in the proper way – we have a definite method for using concepts – they won’t remove ignorance, they will just supply definitions, more concepts – for objects in the apparent reality and for the self. Their problem is that they don’t know what enlightenment is. You have to know that the problem is ignorance and that getting a concept of who you are is still ignorance. What happened is that, as you say, the Buddha felt he had to differentiate himself from the Vedic culture which means he didn’t understand what it actually was at its heart. He was only looking at it from the religious/cultural level. The Brahmins were corrupt so he assumed that Vedanta was corrupt and he decided he would reform it or provide and alternative. He would never have done this had he been properly taught. And if he was enlightened it was not due to teaching. It was like Ramana’s, experiential, from which he probably extracted the knowledge. But we really don’t know. Nobody knows. Buddhism was cooked up many years after the Buddha and he didn’t write, or if he did it was lost to time. What we have are a few snippets of his words. And who knows exactly what he meant by them, or what those who remembered them did to them as they were handed down? I think you are right about his meaning of the word anatman. But this is not a teaching. It is one small idea that needs to be contexualized within a much broader framework if it is going to make sense. Kumar: I hope your retreat went well. I am enjoying sitting still in silence and watching my breath unfold. The journey continues. James: Good for you. I have been there and done that, as they say. Yes, the retreat was excellent. Take care of yourself, Kumar. ~ Much love, James"

I will admit that prior to Vedanta teachings, I thought every spiritual teacher had their "own" made up teaching from an enlightenment "experience", regardless if they had some sort of teacher and I thought that was how all the teachings were. This was what I honestly believed. I didn't know there were traditions like Vedanta that went back thousands of years. Eckhart Tolle, Mooji, Adyashanti, ect., ect They taught what they wanted, how they want, with no real method, imo. That's why I only got so far with them. Like I said I read Ramana and Nisargadatta, but still the big picture was lacking. I had epiphanies and even realized I was the Self, at one point, but it was fleeting, an experience. It never stuck back then, something was missing and I knew it. Then, I found James Swartz and everything changed. So, my years of flailing about in neo-advaita had its purpose, it prepared my mind. That's how I see it at least.

Perfect, I feel the same about James and Ted. James is a very good teacher, especially for westerners who wants to know traditional Vedanta. He may have some personal downfalls, but who doesnt. Enlightenment won't make your jiva perfect, but as James says, "love it warts and all".

@Shanmugam also, if Ramana was so clear and complete in his writings and unfolded the teaching properly, then what need would you have had to turn to Osho? Thats a contradiction to your argument, don't you think? Osho isn't alive now, either is Ramana. Btw, the quote in your post above isn't mine, it's Nichols.

2 books, plus a lot of reading online. This was prior to James teachings. I used the phrase above (James uses), because when he said it, it made "perfect" sense why Ramana's talks/books made no sense! Now that I've learned Vedanta from James. I can pick up a Ramana or Nisargadatta book and no what it means. Why do you think that is, I know why, because I was taught using a methodology. I think I've made my point.

Osho did the same thing! So, that's no valid reason, since your own teacher was not above it. James lists his reasons when he says something, so one can either accept it or not. You're so quick to think that anyone taught by James can't think for themselves also. I assure you I can. I don't agree with your statement. Just because someone is "enlightened" doesn't make them a good teacher. It doesn't mean they can unfold the teaching in such a way, where it leads one out of Self ignorance. Btw, Ramana, although enlightened, did not unfold the teaching using a methodology, therefore has caused a lot of confusion for folks. I doubt he really wanted to "teach", so he just gave random advice to questions, no fault in that. The "who am I" inquiry has cause massive confusion, most don't get it.

@Shanmugam I'm not going to debate you, because it goes no where (although I don't agree with your assessment), as we both know. After our debate on the forum that I'll leave un-named, about Osho. You then looked up my past posts, saw I was a student of James Swartz, looked him up and you've been on his ass ever since. Although, I was stating "my" opinions from prior to James teachings, but you refuse to believe it. Anyway, You've blogged about James (I'm discussed in it also, just not by "name")- https://nellaishanmugam.wordpress.com/2017/02/25/james-swartz-a-review-and-critique-by-a-seeker/ wrote a facebook post(s) about him and now here you are on this forum writing about him, AGAIN. You are obsessed with him or so it seems. He's got opinions about Osho, that plus our debate, started all of this! You didnt even know about James until that time when you looked him up, because of our debate/discussion whatever you want to call it.. I suggest you find a way to get over it. Give yourself some peace of mind.

Here is a Satsang by Ram/James that seems appropriate here- "Is Experience Superior to Knowledge? Ram (James Swartz) - March, 2017 Tags: experience / knowledge Share Link: http://www.shiningworld.com/site/satsang/read/3174 Bob seemed rather perturbed by my post about mystic and non-mystic Advaita. I didn’t have any feelings about his reaction, because I know that most conflicts are born of misunderstanding of words. I don’t dispute Bob’s direct experience or the conclusion he drew from it, i.e. that he is limitless awareness. In fact, if you read my writings on knowledge and experience, I point out that moksa can be “gained” by extracting the knowledge from a “non-dual” epiphany. The most well-known example is Ramana Maharshi. He made an inquiry, which produced an experience, from which he drew the same conclusion, which is why he touted self-inquiry as a means to moksa. I had many such experiences and came to the same conclusion when I was an inquirer until knowledge became, as Shankara says, “a hard and fast conviction,” after which the experiences stopped. However, when you belittle or dismiss knowledge gained purely from the words of shrutibecause they are not backed up by mystic experience, you make a grave error. Experience-oriented people usually think that knowledge derived by sravana and manana is somehow invalid; only “intellectual” is the word most commonly used to dismiss it. The many people who have gained self-knowledge fall into these two groups: mystic and non-mystic Advaitins, of which the second group is by far the largest. Not one qualification for moksa listed in Vivekachoodami or elsewhere is called “mystic experience” or “direct experience.” If it was, then there would be no point inquiring; one would simply have to wait for Isvara to produce the experience that brings on assimilated self-knowledge. What you don’t see in Bob’s post is all the effort that he must have done prior to his experience. Experience is a decaying time capsule meant to deliver knowledge. The knowledge can come directly in the sravana phase if the person is highly qualified. It can come in the manana phase during the conscious resolution of self-doubt related to a comprehensive understanding of the complete teachings or it can come in the most ordinary non-mystic situations. I have a good friend who paused on the threshold of her front door and had two thoughts: “the world is not real” followed by the knowledge “I am limitless awareness.” The knowledge remained firm till the day she recently died, and it was proceeded by no formal self-inquiry nor by a mystic “non-dual” experience. If reality is non-dual, experience is not superior to knowledge. The conclusion Ted drew, like Ramana and others, is purely an intellectual conclusion. Where is the experience that generated it now? When you tout the experience side of moksa at the expense of the knowledge side, you don’t do the world a favor, because most inquirers value experience more than knowledge. So they are forever waiting for the big experience that will prove the words of scripture to be true. Since anything is possible in Maya, there may be such an experience waiting for you, some call it grace. And there may not. All that is required for moksa is an intellectual conclusion because the opposite conclusion – I am limited, incomplete and inadequate – is purely intellectual because you are, have always been and will always be the limitless, non-dual self. The circumstances that produced this conclusion are irrelevant, once the knowledge is firm. Life goes on. There is no need for some mind-blowing, mystic, non-dual experience henceforth, and generally Isvara doesn’t supply them. The point is that there is only non-dual direct experience sometimes accompanied by the belief that non-dual direct experience is a special event required for moksa. The Vedanta sampradaya is a big tent, the biggest in fact. The belief that experience is superior to knowledge is just a belief. You would certainly increase your chances of moksa if you think that knowledge is superior, because genuine non-dual epiphanies are rare and most who have them are not qualified to interpret them properly. And even if they do, the knowledge “I am limitless existence/awareness” rarely becomes firm owing to the presence of binding vasanas. In fact it usually creates a binding vasana for non-dual epiphanies. People like the idea of experience because it is sexy. Somehow, toiling away daily in the salt mines of self-inquiry is not glamorous. Nobody appreciates you. But when you have a big, mind-blowing, transcendental experience, everyone perks up and listens. You can hang out a shingle and “teach.” You can get fame, money, sex, power, etc. How titillating! I tip my hat to the tens of thousands of simple, humble, unsung heroes who keep their heads down and faithfully do their sadhana until the knowledge that sets one free dawns."

What I said was you had a "misunderstanding", regarding the comment about "Vedantins being mere intellectuals", but we've already discussed this. My take is that this mishmash of mixing different traditions is no different from what neo-advaita teachers do now. They just don't give the credit to the traditions they steal from.

"A crusade is a long and determined attempt to achieve something for a cause that you feel strongly about." (Collins English Dictionary) Such as saying this- As in you're on a "mission" to do something. Aren't you the one writing the posts, aren't you saying your opinions/thoughts here? Anyways, nothing wrong with that, but why deny it?