Clarifying Confusions In James Swartz's Vedanta Teachings

[Shanmugam]

@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 

[Shanmugam]

@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.

Edited July 6, 2017 by Shanmugam

[Shanmugam]

@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?

 

[Ananta]

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.

Edited July 6, 2017 by Anna1

[Shanmugam]

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

[cetus]

Chill out everybody.

[Shanmugam]

@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? 

[Ananta]

51 minutes ago, Shanmugam said:

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?

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"

 

 

[Shanmugam]

@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.

[Shanmugam]

@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. 

 

[Ananta]

@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.

[Shanmugam]

@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.

 

[Ananta]

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

[Ananta]

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

[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...

 

[Ananta]

This forum really needs a "lol" button!

[Shanmugam]

@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.

[Shanmugam]

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

[Ananta]

15 minutes ago, Outer said:

I'm not a serious inquirer

Fair enough!

16 minutes ago, Outer said:

but still practice for the sake of presence in my day-to-day life. What do you think?

Can't hurt, right? ...

 

[Shanmugam]

@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.