Shanmugam

@Nichols Harvey I saw some post regarding James Swartz in this forum This thread particularly caught my attention: So I thought that he is familiar in this forum. Just search for James Swartz, and you will find many threads...

@Nichols Harvey My intention in posting here is mainly to invite discussion, not really a fight. I have posted it in my blog too, hoping that James may comment it sometime. He already left a comment on the other article I wrote him about. Yes, I did write an email to shiningworld.com and got a reply (regarding my experience and my seeking, not about the contents of this post) . The reply was exactly how I predicted it was going to be. The same things I have read already in the website.

@Anna1 Yes, I have read the entire satsang.. The whole conversation seems to imply that Buddhism is all about Jhanas.. I agree that Jhanas themselves are not sufficient.. But the emphasis in Buddhism is actually on Vipassana not Jhanas.. Jhanas are only to calm the mind and prepare the seeker more.

@Nichols Harvey Try as much as you want to insult me by calling me asshole, retarded, insane, arrogant etc... You will never succeed, period... I invite you for a challenge. Try even more, this is not enough; there are many other words in English language you can use.

@Nichols Harvey Your assumption is incorrect. I have read James's course on his website, gone through a lot of his satsangs, watched many of his videos. I have also watched videos of chinmayananda and Swami Dayananda. Chinmayananda is very well known in my state and no one here needs any introduction of the lineage... Further, the high school I went is all about Shankara and his works. I have done quite a lot of reading on Shankara's works, Gita and upanishads. What do you really know about Osho apart from what you might have watched in TV and read in media and what you heard from James?

@Nichols Harvey It seems you are avoiding the question I asked because you don't know what to say.

@Nichols Harvey What does the question I asked have to do anything with me going beyond the ego? If you could, just reply to this one question: Do you think James's comment about the Buddhist path is correct?

@Nichols Harvey I don't know how you understood my post... but my only intention was to show how certain things are not correct. It was done to invite some open discussion on the points that I have mentioned.. For example, here is a part of my post 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.” Do you think it is accurate? Doesn't it put a negative light on the Buddhist path? I know about Buddhist path and practices and I am pretty sure that this is not correct. In all your replies, you haven't addressed anything that I said in the post... All you have done is praising James and putting me down.

@Nichols Harvey If thinking that I am insane makes you feel better, then go ahead... But I wouldn't suggest as a permanent solution for feeling better. I usually have fun when I discuss things in forum. Whether someone's comment is insulting or complimenting is not going to make any difference in the fun I am having... I am surprised to see the conclusions you have drawn about me

@Anna1 I don't have anything against James at all.. But my only concern was, when some of the good teachings are put down, people may feel reluctant to explore those teachings... You would never know what can be helpful. Your testimony about James and Ted indeed shows that they are helpful, no question. Also, it is a normal human behavior to be a bit emotional and have a need to defend, when people see their own teacher getting put down in someway. I remember a conversation between Ramana and a seeker. The seeker was saying something that Ramakrishna said, and Ramana denied saying it was incorrect. But he didn't say a word about Ramakrishna and his credibility. I don't expect every teacher to be the same, but people should take certain things as a teacher's own opinion and not as a gospel.

@Snick Welcome to the conversation...I am glad you used the word 'probably'...

@Anna1 Actually. It was Osho's teachings that I was first introduced to. I had heard stories of Ramana but didn't know what he taught... After reading Osho, not only Ramana but many teachers made perfect sense to me (I had read Ramankrishna's talks when I was young, but I was too young to understand anything)... I got guidance from most of the teachers apart from Osho. Every teacher was helpful in a way.. Osho was articulate and pointed out very well on how ego functions, and during those times I felt them as extraordinary pointers and were helpful a lot. Let Osho be a rapist, murderer, pathological criminal (he was not any of these things, I am just trying to make a point), It doesn't matter. I can't thank him enough for what his teachings did to me. But I learnt a lot from other teachers.. I wouldn't say that as 'learning' but as a guidance or pointing out. When a teacher points out a trap I get into, or shows a tricky way of my ego getting in the way, it is extremely helpful. 'Btw, the quote in your post above isn't mine, it's Nichols.' - Oops, Just now I realized that

@Anna1 Thats because James has a website, he is alive and he is interacting with people now... Ramana talked to seekers when he was alive which were just transcribed and made into books... The western translation of Ramana Maharshi's talks doesn't even constitute 2% of what Ramana taught... If Ramana was alive now and has all the technology that we have access to now, things will be different.. There is nearly 150 years of difference between the time of Ramana and James... This doesn't make Ramana a disqualified teacher.

@Nichols Harvey Why are you making the whole conversation into a judgement about me and my progress? Don't you see that you are actually showing a little violent behavior here? You somehow seems to get satisfied by putting me down, saying that I am not mindful, I am doing something bad etc... Looks like I had provoked some emotions and a little violent behavior in you already... When it comes to Osho, his teachings have helped me in my progress, there is no question about that.. To talk about Osho is a whole new topic and I don't think I have time for that now. But, a lot of scandals happened were done by a few people in the Osho's commune. Osho himself wasn't into any scandal or abusive behavior. But the whole government was against him because he criticized stupidity of the government and religious institutions.. And I am not saying Osho was completely perfect and infallible, no one is...But there is a vast and extraordinary wisdom in his talks, which you can never know unless you read them.

@Anna1 Yes I agree that Osho did the same thing... I don't deny that.. I am not even arguing who is superior and who is not. Both James and Osho have some valid criticisms in pointing out the wrong way of teachings; Also, both have shown the obsessiveness in the same, out of bias.. (otherwise, James doesn't have to bring up the comment 'Ramana is not a qualified teacher', every time Ramana's name comes up). When you are enlightened, you are actually qualified to help others to guide towards enlightenment, because you know what it is and others don't know it.. That is true because someone who is not enlightened may mislead people, because he himself don't know what it is except a conceptual understanding. But I also said that people are different in terms of intelligence, communication skills etc , so one teacher may be better than the other in guiding people. This can lead to a whole new argument of what we mean by the word 'qualified'. we don't have to argue with the meaning of words, I see your point. "Btw, Ramana, although enlightened, did not unfold the teaching using a methodology, therefore has caused a lot of confusion for folks".. The above point you mentioned is the exact repetition of what James said... Tell me how many books and talks of Ramana Maharishi you went through to come to this conclusion? Tell me how many books written by Ramana's disciples (who have talked about how they were taught by Ramana) that you have read? Are you even aware that there are hundreds of Tamil books which were not translated to English? When you come across a small conversation between Ramana and a seeker, you couldn't even know in what context it happened and how exactly the seeker was introduced to Ramana (in terms of what the seeker has learnt and practiced before) etc... How many disciples and followers of Ramana did you talk to to understand that they are in some confusion. I am living in the same state where Ramana lived and I speak in the same language that he spoke.. I have access to a lot of resources that you don't have access to, in my own language. I am not saying that people can't think for themselves.. But people have something called unconscious mind.They tend to believe in things that they hear repeatedly. They tend to form emotional attachments to teachers to be blind of certain things. People have confirmation bias, self serving bias etc..

@Anna1 I didn't have to look up your past posts actually... When you talked about Ted, I looked him up and found he was James's student. The thing that motivated me to write a couple of posts on James was, his obsession to find fault with other teachers and put them down in some way. I am pretty sure he is misinformed on a lot of things and I just wanted to point a few of those things... Anyway, I agree the debate goes nowhere.. So, yeah, both of us don't have to debate on these things again as you said.. If his teachings are working for you, then its awesome. But remember to always follow your own light. Every individual has some limitations and bias no matter whether he is enlightened or not. In fact, your discussion about Osho did help me to see a lot of bias in Osho himself . But still, I know how his teachings helped me and I know that every enlightened teacher helps people on his own way. It is not that I am obsessed over James, but he seems to be obsessed with who is a 'qualified' teacher and who is not. It is enlightenment that makes people qualified. Yes, there are individual differences like intelligence, communication skills etc that sometimes makes one teacher to be more influential than others... But there is no need to be obsessed in pointing them to people, and that is what James does. You may not see this clearly, because he is your teacher and certainly you will be biased a little bit, which is natural. And, I agree my opinions were also little bit biased to believe whatever Osho said was right, but now I realize that it is not. That is why now I believe that the whole enlightenment thing has to be approached scientifically and make sure that cognitive bias doesn't interfere with what is being taught. @Nichols Harvey I agree that enlightenment is not about a personality and that a person can be enlightened but have different kind of personality. But everything else you said comes from misunderstanding you got from James's own teaching. You have accepted him as an authority and now you are going to agree with everything he says. I don't think you are going to get over it anytime soon. No enlightened person has any obligation to teach just what Shankara taught. Just because a teacher doesn't teach what Shankara teaches doesn't make him as a not so qualified teacher. The idea of sampradaya itself seems to be outdated now. It creates unnecessary identification. Just like you say 'my house', 'my family', my nation, my team, you begin to identify with 'my sampradaya' which is a trap. You are saying that Ramana was not aware of individual differences. That is just another nonsense you got from James, I think. If you are just going to repeat whatever James or your sampradaya says for your whole life time, then no one can help you. This whole sampradaya thing seems to give you some kind of identity, some security in own mind. If you want to live in the comfort of that security for your entire life, then go ahead. But remember, this is no different from the sense of security that one gets from being a catholic, being a muslim or being a Hindu. These religions seem to give people some kind of sense of security which makes them miss the freedom they can get when they are devoid of all mentally created identities. Remember, Buddha did not create Buddhism; people created it. Jesus did not create Christianity; people created it. They create such imaginary divisions, get attached to these divisions and feel a need to defend it forever. Try telling a sincere catholic that Bible has a lot of bullshit and you will see what I am talking about. I see the same kind of defense in you. If you see Ramana's wisdom and Shankara's wisdom as teachings and approach of two individuals thats great. But if you try to create some kind of philosophy or sect out of it, create a group and become a member of it then it gives rise to all kinds of prejudice and even violence. No person in this world can be a sole authority of anything. All individuals have their own limitations, imperfections etc. At the end, you are your own authority. Your Guru is actually inside you, thats what Ramana taught. He always insisted in finding your inner Guru. Follow you own light! I like to quote my favorite quote from Buddha here: "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations. ... Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. But when, after observation and analysis, you find anything that agrees with reason, and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it." – Buddha, Kalama Sutta

@Nichols Harvey I think I have addressed things about experience and enlightenment very clearly in my post, Just read it again to understand what exactly my criticism is about... I am quote familiar with Shankara's work and I am wondering how you made the assumption that I need to do more study...

If you think Vedanta is like learning any other discipline that you just learn, understand and commit to your memory, then you are completely mistaken. Intellect is only used in discrimination between what it real and what is not real. But at the end of committed practice and inquiry, it should remove all the duality from the perception of the reality or the world.

@Nichols Harvey "Ordinarily, the complaint is that Vedanta is ‘only intellectual.’ You will want some kind of emotional connection, some kind of ‘heart’ connection and you will not be subtle enough to get what is actually going on" http://www.nondualitymagazine.org/nonduality_magazine.1.jamesswartz.htm Thats where I picked it from.. Anyway, Vedanta is gnana yoga, which is a path of intellect, there is no question about it.. But it is not just intellectual understanding alone. There is a shift in reality, which is not just intellectual. Your whole perception of reality changes (I am talking from my own experience)...It is not about updating your belief system. I am quite familiar with Vedanta and understand it perfectly well..

@Nichols Harvey He doesn't say that it is intellectual.. He says people are complaining that Vedanta is intellectual.. It is not that Vedanta itself is intellectual only, but many people who learn Vedanta stop with intellectual understanding.. Because, a lot of theory gives a sense of security; it always feels good to know new information for the ego.

If you are trying to do nothing, it means you are trying to do nothing mentally as well.. Basically, you surrender the doer.. if you are trying to give loving touch to the thoughts, you are actually 'doing' something... do nothing meditation seems to be another name for mindfulness for me.. Because, when you are mindful, you are actually being a witness of whatever that happens, without you trying to do anything. When a thought arises, you give it space without repressing it or judging it as a good or bad thought.. that is what accepting the thought means. If you try to give love to the thoughts, you are deviating from mindfulness, you become a 'doer' instead of being a witness.. Assume that your mind has got nothing to do with you.. Just look at your thought process as if you are watching clouds passing away. don't interfere, don't judge, don't try to think a thought yourself.. But when the thought arises, just allow the thought to pass. don't try to love it, don't try to hate it..

@AleksM Very good and interesting explanation.. Who was your teacher? How did it all start and how did the seeking end?

@AleksM It is interesting... Do you mean all thoughts have stopped or only self-referential thoughts? How is your emotional state when you are in no-mind state? Just the other day, someone in the forum was saying that no-mind state was a fantasy... I used to wonder if such a possibility of being in no mind for ever exists.. Tell me more about it

Do nothing meditation can be tricky... Are you being mindful of your thoughts when doing the meditation?

@Loreena When I first saw Sam Harris in Youtube, he looked familiar.. I almost believed that reincarnation exists, wondering if Sam Harris was my uncle in my previous life ... I had watched movies of Ben stiller many years back, so I couldn't suddenly realize the source of the familiarity..