Ananta

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Shanmugam you seem to be on some sort of crusade, I for one am not. So, Vedanta is fine and dandy with me. It's time tested, it makes sense and furthermore, it works. What more could one want? I have no need to integrate teachings. What so one should learn both traditions? Yikes, that will take some time. Then piece meal them together? Ack, no thanks.

That's fine with neo-advaita, but I found what I needed. Thanks.

If not, don't worry the universe will bring something to rock your world. Meaning, if you don't have a complete "seeing" you will find this out.

My teacher is very clear that he is teaching "traditional" Vedanta, not a sub-school, knock off, or modern version, but he is teaching mostly westerners and teaches accordingly.

Actually, I'm not. It doesn't make sense, but we don't have to beat a dead horse. You made your point and I made mine.

What Are You Talking about? I'm quoting "your" statements. They weren't clarified and no reference was given to there origin. So, I'm left to presume they are your thoughts/opinions "now" and didn't portray Vedantin's in a good light.

Vedanta literally means "end of the Vedas", reflecting revealed Self knowledge contained in the Upanishads. The above ^ is ignorance, plain and simple. First, vedantins would say "all" is the Self/Brahman, since reality is "non-dual". Maya appears, because it it a power within Brahman that makes Brahman appear to be something it's not.

Where to even start? If this is your opinion you haven't correctly learned Vedanta by a qualified teacher and haven't applied it. You have a mis-understanding, meaning you would need to go back to the beginning. I suspect your opinion is from a mishmash of piecing together various teaching of Vedanta. Not because you are/were a serious student of Vedanta, applied the teaching and have come to this conclusion.

@Joseph Maynor oh, yes I did. Seems I quoted his post within your post, sorry.

What is non-existing? Isn't that an oximoron? I'm aware that I'm aware and I exist. So, how does one not exist, when you experience existing?

My advice, do what you will, but don't get attached to what you'd like the outcome to be. Think about that for a minute.... it's the attachments we have to our fears and desires that cause emotional pain. Accept what comes after you do an action (karma yoga). Sometimes the universe knows whats best for you. It's thinking too far into the future or ruminating about the past, that usually causes delusion, pain and suffering. Another thing, every situation/experience has an upside and downside. If you have a job, you have money, but not enough time. If your married you have a life partner, but you aren't "free" to do as you choose, ect, ect.

You already are what you are seeking. Its you. If you can "realize" it, then it was there all along. So, what's the issue then? The issue is Self ignorance. We were spoken to as babies/toddlers as though we were objects, given a name-called that name over and over, told your good/your bad, do this/do that, then we started to "believe" we were that object. This (body) must be "me", these thoughts must be "mine", so on and so forth. When the "I-thought" first arose it said "I AM", then over time it learned, I AM this and I AM that. The "identification" became more and more solidified. So much so that we can not see beyond. When you start inquiring into this fallacy and questioning it endlessly. One day the truth is revealed and it was there all along.

Btw, Vedanta is the science of Self knowledge. Therefore, the lingo doesn't need changed and doesnt need to be improved. Why would I change it? Of course, most words have been translated into English but it's thousands of years old and a time tested way to realize your true nature. Certain wordage I've picked up from my teacher(s). They make sense and are used often, so I use them also. However, I'm not a teacher, so may make a mistake while writing a post. So, if you are questioning what I wrote, as in it doesn't make sense to you, then so be it. Doesn't seem like that is the line of questioning you have though. Also...not "every" post is about Vedanta. I have a diverse spiritual background. So, I write what I write. Just so happens the post you are referring to was inspired by Vedanta and my experience.

@jimrich You are asking me the same question in different ways and I've answered it already, after you asked me the first time. Vedanta AND experience.

@2000 The painful aspect is the ego seeing how damn stupid it is..lol. How needy, self rightous, defensive, ect. It's painful to realize this is what you've identified as... But, you must see it, to eventually go beyond it.

Depends on what thoughts you need. Isvara supplies the thoughts. I'm an administrative nurse, have a family, bills, ect. If my thoughts were to slow to a stuper I could not function. My job alone takes analysis and trouble shooting, on a moment to moment basis. However, I can thought stop at will, as long as no one is talking to me. Lol.

Oh, and how many years did he sit in that cave? He trained his mind to be quiet. Most don't have that luxury.