Clarifying Confusions In James Swartz's Vedanta Teachings

[Shanmugam]

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.

 

 

 

[Leo Gura]

I think we'll allow this topic because it is well-written and reasonably put. Hence we're unlocking it. But keep your discussion from veering off into character assassination or debate.

Over all, James is a pretty good teacher, whatever issues you might have with him. Not all teachings will appeal to all folks.

Yes, James likes to be critical/dismissive of some traditions/teachings which don't line up with his style of teaching. But that's true of most teachers. I've seen some of the most enlightened teachers being overly dismissive. This is a common issue.

The best thing to do in these cases is to the listen to the overall thrust of the teaching, not getting caught up in nitpicking details. Because details can always be nitpicked, and end up distracting you from your own work.

It's quite easy to criticize every single non-dual teacher in existence, from Buddha to Jesus to whoever.

[Shanmugam]

@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.

Edited July 6, 2017 by Shanmugam

[Shanmugam]

@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.. 

Edited July 6, 2017 by Shanmugam

[Shanmugam]

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.

[Shanmugam]

@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... 

[Ananta]

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."

[Ananta]

@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.

 

Edited July 6, 2017 by Anna1

[Nahm]

[Shanmugam]

@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

 

 

[Ananta]

1 hour ago, Shanmugam said:

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.

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. 

2 hours ago, Shanmugam said:

he seems to be obsessed with who is a 'qualified' teacher and who is not.

It is enlightenment that makes people qualified.

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]

@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..

Edited July 6, 2017 by Shanmugam

[Shanmugam]

@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.

[Ananta]

13 minutes ago, Shanmugam said:

"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?

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. 

[Shanmugam]

@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.

Edited July 6, 2017 by Shanmugam

[Ananta]

@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.

Edited July 6, 2017 by Anna1

[Shanmugam]

@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

Edited July 6, 2017 by Shanmugam

[Shanmugam]

27 minutes ago, Snick said:

@Shanmugam @Nichols Harvey

Guys, don't go into personal arguments! 

Let me sums it up. 

Shanmugam looks wise but he probably isn't! 

Where as Nichols Harvey IS wise but probably doesn't looks wise! 

It's a draw in other words! 

 

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

Edited July 6, 2017 by Shanmugam

[Ananta]

16 minutes ago, Shanmugam said:

I can't thank him enough for what his teachings did to me.

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]

@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.