Shanmugam

oh Yes, definitely interested . Please go ahead

@Joseph Maynor In fact, I couldn't understand whether you agree or disagree. . It has not absolutely nothing to do with you, but my poor English comprehension, especially some colloquial or slang phrases.

@Joseph Maynor Hey, I just asked you a question. To be honest, I am not good in English because it is not my first language. I didn't really understand this : 'I think you make great points. It's like -- don't get so wise that your brain liquefies and leaks out of your skull. You heard that?' That is why I asked you to elaborate.

@Prabhaker You have seen psychic people, but you couldn't have possibly did an experiment with them under controlled conditions... I have experienced things myself too. And I did think it was psychic. But I later found out they were not. After thinking them through carefully, I could see they were not true, except a couple of things, which seemed to be just coincidences. There are many alternate explanations for everything we think as psychic. As I explained earlier, sometimes one cannot trust his own experience. When I did some serious study on the subject, I was amazed to see how much a person can be fooled by himself as well as by others, even though there might not be any intention of fooling. Anyway, all I am suggesting is, never be too quick in coming into a conclusion. Don't conclude they exist; Don't conclude they don't exist either. But if you still think you have some strong convincing experience that led you to actually conclude with 100% certainty (instead of thinking as a possibility) that psychic powers do exist, then I am very interested to hear that experience from you.

@AleksM Regarding the remote viewing in army, I guess you are referring to Star Gate project: "The Stargate Project was terminated and declassified in 1995 after a CIA report concluded that it was never useful in any intelligence operation. Information provided by the program was vague, included irrelevant and erroneous data, and there was reason to suspect that its project managers had changed the reports so they would fit background cues" - wiki We don't have any evidence for non-local consciousness either.It may be true or may not be true. But at this point, there is no certainty. I myself have lost the separate sense of self long ago, I can easily dissolve my thoughts. There is a feeling of oneness all the time but that doesn't tell me anything about whether consciousness is non local or not. But at this stage, one can easily conclude that consciousness is non-local because of how expansive it feels. It feels limitless and boundless.

@Prabhaker Ok.. let me ask you a question. Do you believe psychic powers exist or do you know psychic powers exist? (I think you know the difference, since you have read Osho) If you know Psychic powers exist, how do you know?

@AleksM thanks, there are lots of reports already available.. What is not available is a solid evidence.

Research in wrong way? Read about Jame Randi's research and the research done by other scientists... I am suggesting a practical approach to know if something exists or not... The key is not to believe in something or to reject something totally but stay in the middle.

@Prabhaker Again, you are looking at only one possibility.. It is like saying there can be no one in this world ever, who has psychic powers and who also needs money to do some extensive social work... Buddha is one human being among trillions and trillions human beings who have ever lived in the planet... Right now the population of world is 7 billion. Just look at the probability of a person who has psychic powers and who also needs money for something (again think about for how many things money is needed)...

@Prabhaker I have thought about it before... But still, there are various other reasons why one would want to contribute to such a research, not just for money. And also, money is a need for doing things in the world. A person who wants to do some social service will need money. If I have psychic powers but I don't have desire for money, that doesn't mean I wouldn't want to participate in such a research. As I have already said, I am not saying these powers don't exist. I cannot be certain about it. But you need to remember that not only James Randi, there were many other scientists who did research on this subject and none has been proved so far. Much of the research that has been done only indicates that the existence of paranormal is very unlikely. I have a very unbiased view on this. So, I have thought about every single possibility that I could think of, both for and against. The problem with many people is that they always look at one possibility alone.

@Joseph Maynor I didn't exactly get what you are trying to say... Can you elaborate a little bit? Epistemology and philosophy are different.. I have studied a lot of philosophy and many people do that... But I haven't studied Epistemology, it is very rarely studied, unlike philosophy.

@AleksM Based on the replies, I don't think everyone jumped into conclusions, .. People just expressed skepticism, which doesn't mean that everyone rejects it.. While it is necessary to be open minded to know anything, skepticism is also necessary as well. I have become a skeptic very recently, once I realized how I myself became a victim of self-delusion. Not that everyone who reports paranormal things are intentionally lying, but in most cases people give paranormal meaning to things that can't be explained. It is absolutely possible to hear a voice or see a vision when one is meditative, but it doesn't mean that what you saw actually exists. For example, one who is either in some deep meditation or in an altered states of consciousness may hear a voice that says 'I am an extraterrestrial being coming from Venus; I have some message for the humanity' and proceed to tell you something about enlightenment. The voice may teach the person techniques about enlightenment which are actually effective; it may be something that the person never heard before. The whole experience may sound real, even more real than the real life. But all these may be coming from brain activities of the altered states of consciousness, just like how brain creates dreams; The brain activities may also take your creativity and intelligence to your peak which enables that illusory ET being to speak with a lot of clarity. Whatever the person hears from that being may be just the bits and pieces of things which the person had already thought sometime in the past, that have been put together in an organized way by the brain, during that experience. But this doesn't mean that there is really such a being in planet Venus. But what I said above is just one possibility. I don't cling to one possibility alone. May be it was indeed from Venus. It is the certainty or the conclusion that we derive from the experience that closes the mind. Since you said that you are able to do remote viewing, may be you can try this experiment. Try to remote view some details of a place (which is close to your location) that you have never gone to. Make sure you don't know any details about that place from any source. Remote view that place and note down things that you see there, which can be later verified by actually going to that place. But this is very tricky, because even if in your whole life there was a slight mention about that place by somebody who said something about that place, then whatever detail you got from him (which you have completely forgotten) may get retrieved in your memory when you remote view. It is called cryptomnesia. You may be genuinely convinced that you got that detail because of your remote viewing. Because of all this, you may have to do such experiments multiple times. You can do this for fun, since you say that you are now able to handle everything playfully and nothing is serious.

@Anna1 Osho has his own style of narrating stories...So, yes, they will be different than how it is narrated then other places.. He used to make this clear saying that he is not giving any historical information but he only uses these stories to make a point, to make us understand things. For example, he gave a discourse series on Krishna.. People asked him if Krishna was a historical person. He used to say that it was not important if he was a historical person, what matters is how he lived his life playfully and what we take from the story.

It sounded like the practice I was doing (the first part), until you started talking about that light you saw at 5:30 AM in the morning.. After that, it was all like reading a fantasy story. I agree with you on being aware and mindful every moment during the daily life, that was what accelerated the whole spiritual process. But I am skeptical about all the paranormal things you talked about. But I am also open minded to all that. Most of these stuffs you are talking about are all over the internet, and they seem to be fake .. Things like channeling from extraterrestrial beings are abundant but I wonder why none of the paranormal stuff was proved in spite of serious research. Are you familiar with James Randi? He sponsored One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, which offered a prize of US$1,000,000 to eligible applicants who could demonstrate evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event under test conditions agreed to by both parties. Nothing has been proved so far and Randi shut down the project because all the research was waste of money. He started it in 1964 and terminated it in 2015. I also learnt how people can delude themselves by perceiving things that they can't explain. Once, I myself was convinced that I had paranormal abilities like telepathy and clairvoyance. Certain things which happened were so convincing with no doubt at all, but I later realized how I was fooled by my own mind. Trust me, it is very very tricky; you can be fooled very easily by what you see and you would never know. Anyway, I will have a look at the links you posted. I have curiosity and open-mindedness.

@Afonso Ask him if he is willing to work with scientists for a brain scan, to help science in finding the neural correlates of non-duality. If he says yes, ask him if he is willing to declare that in a video of his satsang and make it publicly available..

I found this incident narrated by Swami Chinmayananda very interesting and wanted to share it with everyone: “I was just emerging from high school, exams were over. On a package railway ticket I was roaming through south India. As the train steamed through the country side at a halting speed, most of the passengers in my compartment suddenly peered through the windows in great excitement and bowed revertentially to the elaborate temple beyond. Inquiring about it, I was told that it was the Tiruvannamalai temple. Thereafter, the talk of my fellow travellers turned to Ramana Maharshi. The word “Maharshi” conjured up in my mind ancient forest retreats and superhuman beings of divine glow. Though I was at that time a convinced atheist, I was deeply drawn to visit the Maharshi’s Ahsram. I chose to take the next available train to Tiruvannamalai. At the Ashram I was told that the Maharshi was in the hall and anybody was gree to walk in and see him. As I entered, I saw on the couch an elderly man, wearing but a loincloth, reclining against a round boster. I sat down at the very foot of the couch. The Maharshi suddenly opened his eyes and looked straight into mine. I looked into his. A mere look, that was all. I felt that the Maharshi was, in that split moment, looking deep into me – and I was sure that he saw all my shallowness, confusions, faithlessness, imperfections and fears. I cannot explain what happened in that one split moment. I felt opened, cleaned, healed and emptied! A whirl of confusions, my atheism dropping away, but scepticism flooding into question, wonder, and search. My reason gave me strength and I said to myself, “It is all mesmerism, my own foolishness.”. Thus assuring myself, I got up and walked away. But the boy who left the hall was not the boy who had gone in some ten minutes before. After my college days, my polical work, and after my years of stay at Uttarkashi at the feet of my master, Tapovanam, I know that what I gained on the Ganges banks was that which had been given to me years before by the saint of Tiruvannamalai on that hot summer day – by a mere look. Sri Ramana is not a theme for discussion; he is an experience, he is a state of consciousness. Sri Ramana was the highest reality and the cream of all the scriptures in the world. He was there for all to see how a master can live in perfect detachment. Though in the mortal form, he lived as the beauty and purity of the infinite”

What I just posted was an example of teaching through silence.... No wonder Swami Chinmayananda later realized that what he learnt through years of learning scriptures were already given to him by Ramana Maharshi by giving him a glimpse of absolute reality.. Here is what Ramana Maharishi said about teaching in silence. (Getting such an initiation through silence requires extraordinary receptivity. Not everyone can understand the silent transmission): D.: Why does not Sri Bhagavan go about and preach the Truth to the people at large? M.: How do you know that I am not doing it? Does preaching consist in mounting a platform and haranguing to the people around? Preaching is simple communication of knowledge. It may be done in Silence too. What do you think of a man listening to a harangue for an hour and going away without being impressed by it so as to change his life? Compare him with another who sits in a holy presence and leaves after some time with his outlook on life totally changed. Which is better: To preach loudly without effect or to sit silently sending forth intuitive forces to play on others? (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no 285) Siva appeared before them sitting under the sacred banyan tree. Being yogiraja should He practise yoga? He went into samadhi as He sat; He was in Perfect Repose. Silence prevailed. They saw Him. The effect was immediate. They fell into samadhi and their doubts were at an end. Silence is the true upadesa. It is the perfect upadesa. It is suited only for the most advanced seeker. The others are unable to draw full inspiration from it. Therefore they require words to explain the Truth. But Truth is beyond words. It does not admit of explanation. (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 569)

This post aims at removing some of the confusions and correcting some of the wrong information found in the teachings of James Swartz’s Vedanta teachings. He deserves an applause though, just for his efforts to spread traditional Vedanta in the west. However, as a person born and brought up in India, I can clearly see that he is misinformed on a lot of things. I am not going to argue whether he is enlightened or not; he may be or may not be. I have no way of knowing that. But to be honest, I have doubted his enlightenment sometimes and wondered if he is on some kind of ego trip in thinking that he is one of the very few ‘qualified’ teachers of Vedanta. When he said that Ramana Maharshi was not a qualified teacher, my doubts became even strong. A little about myself Before I start, let me give a short introduction of my own spiritual journey. I had no physical guru, but I was a very sincere seeker. I had tried yoga and Vedanta when I was a boy, but couldn’t understand it much. 15 years ago, I learnt basics of vedanta, zen and mindfulness and I had a glimpse of my own nature that changed my life. I continued mindfulness and self-inquiry for the next 12 years. Mindfulness and self-inquiry was not like two different practices to me, because both have the same procedure of inquiring into each arising thought and experience. Three years ago (in 2014), a complete shift occurred that completely removed the psychological boundaries between me and the world. Since then, I never had a distinct feeling of a separate ‘me’ and an ‘other’. The seeker of enlightenment had died and there was no doer anymore. In the next three years, things got settled down . But I still have thoughts and vasanas, even though they don’t affect me. Now, according to James Swartz’s definition, I am already enlightened. Because, now I have an irreversible hard and fast knowledge that I am the non-dual, limitless awareness and not the contents of my consciousness. It is not just intellectual, but my actual reality every moment. But, I don’t want to claim any enlightenment yet. First, claiming enlightenment is not going to make any difference in me. Second, according to Ramana Maharshi, this is not enlightenment. There seems to be a need to wait until all the vasanas are removed (not merely rendering them unbinding) and the thoughts created by all vasanas are removed. If you ask James, he would say that one doesn’t have to remove the vasanas but just have to render them unbinding by liberation. Again, I am not going to argue whether Ramana’s definition was correct or James’s definition was correct. But Ramana’s life and his words themselves indicate that he might have actually removed all the vasanas and involuntary thought movements. He himself said that he usually didn’t have thoughts running in his mind; also, the way he lived his life shows that he probably was completely vasana free. So, that gives me every reason to believe that Ramana was right. But I am no longer a believer of things. I choose to remain open minded on this and say ‘I don’t know yet’ at this point. Having said that, I am completely sure about some of the wrong information that James is preaching. I know they are wrong. So, I am just going to make some corrections here. This is not intended to offend James or his students. I just feel that wrong information should be corrected. So, let us get started. Was Ramana a qualified teacher? If James Swartz reads what I have said above, the first thing he is going to say is ‘Ramana was not a qualified teacher’. According to James, a qualified teacher is someone who systematically unfolds the teachings of traditional vedanta. By this definition, Buddha, Bodhidharma , many enlightened Zen masters and Tao masters are not qualified teachers. When someone even utters the name of Ramana Maharshi, James Swartz’s first response is always ‘Ramana Maharshi was not a qualified teacher’. First of all, what we call as traditional Vedanta is solely based on Shankara’s works and his commentaries on Brahma Sutras, Gita and Upanishads. There is a claim that Vedanta assumes Gita, Brahma Sutras and Upanishads as authority, but the actual truth is, the school (Advaita) was developed by basing Shankara as the authority. We need to remember here that Shankara was just one human being who had a certain teaching and certain way of life. It is not necessary that every enlightened person in the world should completely teach according to Shankara’s teaching model. Long before Shankara, words like Vedanta, Yoga and Samkhya were just words to represent different aspects of one essential teaching. For example, In Bhagavad Gita, chapter 3, verse 3, Krishna says that Samkhya is called as Jnana Yoga; And we all know that Jnana Yoga is another term for Vedanta. So, Shankara just revived the ancient teachings and presented according to the time he was living. (James Swartz himself has written commentaries of Bhagavad Gita, but the words Samkhya and Jnana Yoga is in the original Sanskrit verse which is translated to path of knowledge in English). Second, Ramana taught mostly in Tamil. What a westerner would read is an English version of talks which was translated by a translator guy in Ramana’s ashram. So, when the translator interprets Ramana’s Tamil words and translates to English, a part of the original teaching is lost; when that is further interpreted by the Western guy who wrote them down, another part of the teaching is most likely lost. And, the teachings given to westerners was only a very small percentage of what Ramana taught in his entire life. Because, he was talking to thousands of Tamil seekers all his life and taught them in Tamil. Ramana also wrote a lot of poems in Tamil which have his essential teaching. There are hundreds of books written in Tamil by people who were taught by Ramana and who lived with him in the ashram. Third, most of the seekers who met Ramana were very advanced. We can see that in the conversations themselves. There was no need to teach them about three gunas, five koshas, creation theories or qualifications needed for spiritual practice. In India, especially in Ramana’s time, knowledge on these subjects was abundant. With long term residents of Ashram like Annamalai Swami and others , Ramana talked about everything, probably more than what James has taught to his students. He also met visitors who just stayed in the ashram for a day or two and to them, he just answered their questions according to the level of their seeking. I also heard another reason from James for calling him not a perfect teacher. James says that Ramana’s devotees are confused by experiences and knowledge of Atman because Ramana didn’t make a clear distinction. He is completely wrong. Ramana is very clear in the essential teaching about self-realization. If Ramana’s devotees are confused with anything at all, it is just because Ramana is no longer alive to clarify their doubts. Ramana was a perfect teacher in every way. He talked and walked the talk. Being a simple guy in an Ashram, he attracted attention from people all over the world. Vedanta would be half dead by now without Ramana. Is path of Yoga all about chasing blissful experiences? I read James Swartz opinion about Yoga in many of his articles and talks. He says that Yoga is just about getting some blissful experiences and not a complete path to realization. He says that Yoga is only helpful in preparing the mind and will not help in liberation at all. That is completely wrong. The goal of Yoga is Nirvikalpa Samadhi, which is not a dualistic experience. In Nirvikalpa samadhi, experiencer and experience merge into one. However, Ramana used to say that Nirvikalpa samadhi should become Sahaja samadhi so that the yogi can lead a normal life and guide others. Also, Ramana always insisted that self-inquiry is the best path of all but he never said that Yoga doesn’t lead to enlightenment. He only said that all the other paths are indirect ways. Yoga may be a long and difficult path, but perfect for people who can’t surrender the ego; but saying that Yoga only leads to experiences and not to realization is completely wrong.James might have probably met some wrong yogis or wrong teachers of Yoga and came to this wrong conclusion. Is enlightenment experience or knowledge? This is a very complicated question. First of all, let me make a distinction between truth and enlightenment. Truth is Brahman, which is the absolute witness of everything that is observed. Truth cannot be an experience because experience can be witnessed. Also, experience generally implies a dualistic experience, which constitutes an experiencer and experience; But in truth, there is no duality. This also applies for knowledge, because in truth the knower and knowledge merge together. Enlightenment on the other hand, refers to the event of realizing the truth. We have heard that for some people it is gradual and for some people it is a sudden event. Any event is always accompanied by some kind of experience; it may be dual or non dual but the aspect of the experience still exists when the experience and experiencer merge together. In that sense, there is nothing wrong in calling a sudden enlightenment as an experience as long as it is clarified with a proper context. Because, not talking about the experiential aspect of it may mislead people to believe that just intellectual understanding is enough to call it as enlightenment. But both experience and knowledge are poor word choices, we unfortunately have no other words in English. The English word experience can be misleading because a person may believe that truth is some kind of special experience that he is going to experience for the rest of his life. The word knowledge can be equally misleading because a person may believe that enlightenment just involves committing some information to memory after understanding it intellectually. In Sanskrit, we have different words. Experience, which just represents an affective state is called Vedana. Vedana can be positive, negative or neutral. (This word is rarely used, but found in many buddhist texts). The experiential aspect of enlightenment is known as either anubhava or anubhuti, which is actually a pramana (means of knowledge); The word actually means experiential knowledge. The word Anubhava in Tamil (my first language) is exactly that but just with one additional letter: ‘anubhavam’. Also, we have two words for knowledge as well. Knowledge that refers to mere information is called Vidya or veda. The knowledge gained by enlightenment is called Jnana. Instead of providing such a detailed clarification, James seems to be obsessed with giving a lecture stating ‘enlightenment is not experience’ whenever he hears someone talking about some experience. He gives detailed reasons for why enlightenment is not an experience which is not at all necessary. Because, people who may have already read English translations of Indian texts may often use the word ‘experience’ to mean the valid experiential knowledge, Anubhuti. If James reacts the same way to these people, it is actually like giving them wrong information because of some linguistic confusion. Also, arguing why enlightenment is not an experience by providing arguments for why truth is not an experience is a huge fallacy. To wrap up, a sudden enlightenment similar to what happened to Buddha can be actually an experience (vedana, the affective state). The enlightenment itself is anubhuti (experiential knowledge) which is translated to English as ‘experience’. Is Self-realization and Enlightenment different? James Swartz adds another big confusion. He uses the word ‘Self-realization’ for a glimpse of truth, an awakening experience and he uses the word ‘enlightenment’ for Moksha, the liberation. But this will mislead a lot of people. Because self-realization and enlightenment are generally understood as synonymous. In Ramana Maharshi’s translated talks, you will only find the word ‘self-realization’ for final enlightenment. Why change the meaning of a word instead of using it in the conventional way? Why not just call the glimpse of truth as awakening, as it is usually called? This is not a big problem in itself, but big enough to cause a lot of confusion. Is criticism a part of Vedanta? James criticizes a lot of teachers. He would name each and every teacher he thinks as not qualified and just thrash them like anything. I agree with some of the criticism, especially on neo-vedanta. Although I agree that neo-advaita seems to be lacking a practical method for enlightenment, obsessively criticising the teachers and naming them is unnecessary. (Here is the weird part. James claims he knows a lot of enlightened people.. If you ask him to name them, he would say ‘No, I won’t name people’… When he names all the imperfect teachers, why not name the enlightened ones? ). Anyway, that’s not the point. To justify all this, James often says that criticism is a main aspect of Vedanta. That is not true. He probably got this idea from Sankara's debates with Buddhists. But those are debates! He met people face to face and debated with them. Debate is not same as criticism.Even if Shankara criticized people, it would not be right to say that criticism is a main aspect of vedanta itself. This like saying smoking is an essential part of psychology, just because Sigmund Freud smoked a lot. Does Buddhism have an issue in understanding the reality? I came across a Satsang article in James’s website. There was a discussion regarding Buddhism between a seeker and James Swartz. Here is what James says: “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.” Really? First of all, any Buddhist you meet will tell you there is no self. But it is not contradictory to Vedanta. Buddha used different terminology. He didn’t define reality in positive terminology so that nobody will form a concept about truth in their mind. So, he simply called it as sunyata (similar to nirguna Brahman) which literally means ‘emptiness’. So, no matter how many enlightened Buddhists you meet, you are never going to find someone who says ‘I am the self, the limitless non-dual awareness’. Also, Buddhism is not just about Jhanas. Jhanas are just concentration practices. The stress is actually on Vipassana, getting insight into the true nature of things. It is similar but more powerful than self-inquiry in my experience. In fact, understanding the theory and practicing mindfulness helps to do self-inquiry better. James Swartz seems to be obsessed with words. He would only agree with Advaita terminology. He fails to understand that the path of truth can be expressed with different words, which is exactly why we have so many traditions.But such an obsession with words and concepts would only make people suspect if his enlightenment was purely intellectual. If someone claims that He, his wife, his students who were authorized to teach, his guru and some swamis he knows are the only qualified teachers on the planet, there is every reason to doubt that something is wrong.

@Nichols Harvey Lots of assumptions.. Nothing sounds like me at all.. Not even a bit close. Are you talking about yourself?

exactly what I thought just a minute ago... I would have posted the same thing If you didn't...

@Nichols Harvey Had to look up the word 'troll' because I am not really that good in English. I guess you mean 'leaving an intentionally annoying message on the internet, in order to get attention or cause trouble'.. Honestly, no intention to get attention or annoy people...

@Snick yes, for the fun of it... Nothing serious.. I think the word 'debate' is more suitable.. When I interact with people, it gives me the opportunity to see how other people think and respond.

@Nichols Harvey First, please tell me clearly what you think I am actually doing... If it is true, I will agree

@Nichols Harvey this thread will make him well known in this forum... we see already that one person has searched for him and found his video.. Let people learn from him if they find his teachings useful. As I said, I am not against him and have no intention to put him in bad light. But in general, I see a problem in the followers or teachers of any guru... They blindly accept everything that is said, including the opinions of a teacher. And, they react emotionally to criticisms. If James thinks that Osho was not enlightened, that is just his opinion which I think is not correct. If he thinks Osho's teachings cannot help someone, then he is completely wrong as well.. Because I found Osho very helpful and I wouldn't have understood anything about nonduality without the help of Osho's teachings... If you find James helpful, then go ahead and learn from him. But don't expect to be correct all the time about other teachers or paths. I don't expect that from Osho either, sometimes he made very ridiculous assumptions about other people.