Current Page: 2 of 28
Re: James Swartz—What is the Truth?
Posted by: zizlz ()
Date: May 11, 2019 07:10AM

Whoa, good find, Sahara!

Sahara71 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This information fits the picture we are beginning
> to see emerge about Old James!

Exactly! Just a few days ago I still held this man in high regard but now that I'm reading the Heather story I start noticing more and more things that are off about him.

Just like Mooji's denial-video was pretty damning for himself (for those who actually listen critically to what he says there), James' denial-newsletter is also pretty damning.

[www.shiningworld.com]

Quote

When it is not possible to determine guilt or innocence – assuming you are not able to accept uncer-tainty – the law, which is based on dharma, provides us with an interesting concept: the preponder-ance of the evidence. In this case there is actually no evidence and I categorically deny the accuser’s statement, so how can you remove your doubt? Of course the quickest way to remove it is to see it as a mithya problem and dismiss it as unreal. But in the event that you are not at that level of inquiry, you can make a reasonable determination based on what you do know.

Here it's clear that James does indeed use Vedanta as a way to dismiss any wrongdoing as unreal, since it's Maya/mithya. This confirms Heather's story.
Then he writes "in the event that you are not at that level of inquiry", in other words: if you're so unadvanced that you actually believe anything can be real, that anything can actually matter. This is very manipulative. He tries to make you believe that if you take the allegations serious, that means you're not advanced enough.

Another quote from the denial-newsletter:
Quote

Third, consider the fact that I am seventy-six years old and married to an extremely beautiful – inside and out – discriminating woman who obviously loves me. And there are public doc-uments and witnesses that will testify to the fact that at the time of the alleged event I was married to an extremely beautiful woman, a runner-up in the Miss California beauty pageant no less.

I don't know how James thinks his ability to convince beautiful women to marry him proves his innocence, but the way he emphasizes their beauty does prove that he objectifies women.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: James Swartz—What is the Truth?
Posted by: Sahara71 ()
Date: May 11, 2019 07:44AM

Zizlz,

I agree with you! Plenty of intelligent, beautiful, compassionate women have ended up marrying exploitative men.... It is very unfortunate and in no way does it vindicate those men's behavior.

I just found a critical review of one of Old James' books which I think relates to what you are saying in you post above:

"That does not mean the author (James Swartz) doesn't present Vedanta. I'm not saying that. But I had serious concerns about opinions. For example, the author says there is no value in helping others, and then gives the pull-yourself-up--by-your-own-bootstraps argument.

That is a serious error. It may be that things don't matter when taking the perspective of the Absolute. But in the relative world we have been placed into, helping others is not only valuable, it is mandatory if we are to live consciously.

That was one example. Many of these personal opinions could give seekers an excuse to live in a self-centered egocentric manner and at the same time call that enlightenment. This is a view which disconnects enlightenment from virtue. It doesn't pass muster to place "religion and spirituality" outside the realm of enlightenment. This isn't at all what Shankara was teaching."

[www.amazon.com] - reviews-filter-bar

Whenever a spiritual teacher tries to divorce spirituality form ethics - we begin to see massive problems.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: James Swartz—What is the Truth?
Posted by: Valma ()
Date: May 11, 2019 01:58PM

I have done some research and found the date of birth of JS given by no other than his current wife; found on their website so i consider it to be public accurate information for she would have no reason to lie about it:

2nd of February 1941 in Butte, MT, USA around 4 PM

I must say what i saw does correspond pretty well to what i have now come to discover about the personality of JS and things coming out now..

Now i understand better comment of A.C. who wrote if she could pick up "by whom to be traumatized" she would choose Moo over JS every single time. Unfortunately it seems "Heather" did not have a choice back then.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/11/2019 02:00PM by Valma.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: James Swartz—What is the Truth?
Posted by: zizlz ()
Date: May 11, 2019 04:22PM

I'm browsing through James' autobiography and in the part about his teacher Swami Chinmayananda he writes this:

Quote

Shanti, who had been silent throughout, asked what attitude she
should take toward sex.
"You cannot stop it all at once," he [(Chinmayananda)] said. “The tendencies are too
strong. It will disturb the mind if you try to control it completely. At this stage you need to sin intelligently, use your discrimination and keep practicing your spirituality. Eventually you will find that you start to feel good inside and the craving for sex will dry up. If you rely on it for pleasure you will not taste the great bliss of the self. At some point it will fall away naturally. That is the goal."
As we re-boarded I marveled at the concept of intelligent sin. It would certainly not fly in Christian circles but it made perfect sense. Why stress yourself repressing natural urges? And why go hog wild indulging them? Pick and chose your moments. What a perfectly wonderful idea.

I've heard James say on multiple occasions that one of his hobbies is making love to his wife. If he is in agreement with the teachings of his teacher, that means that James is knowingly still in the stage where he sins intelligently and thus doesn't taste the "great bliss of the self."

It seems that to this day he "marvels at the concept of intelligent sin" so much that he doesn't want to become enlightened and lose his craving for sex.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: James Swartz—What is the Truth?
Posted by: corboy ()
Date: May 11, 2019 07:20PM

JS sounds like an attorney who delights in finding an escape clause.

By way of contrast, here is something from a memoir written by a European born
sadhu(Hindu monk), where he tells of his own teacher giving advice similar to that of Chinmayananda.

Quote

(My guru)told me that sex was the one great obsession
of the monk’s mind—in various shapes and under the pressure
of control; internal control on account of his vows, external
control on account of society. ...

‘It is not now, when you are a young and active monk,
Brahmacari Ramachandra, that your mind will be much
troubled by sex. The real trouble begins well after 45—between
then and 60 you will have a hard time. For then your body
revolts, your mind panics—they want to enter into their rights
ere the gates close. Chastity will come relatively easily to you
for the next 10 years, with no more than a little care. At your
age, it is hard no doubt, and it is a very great sacrifice; but it is
not at all impossible.

"And if you do fall occasionally, let that
not worry your mind either. Perform your prescribed penance
and start all over again; that is the only way. I have not seen
a monk who did not fall. In fact he must fall to rise. Only the
ignorant draw a dividing line between rise and fall. And the
lawyers.

"But we are sadhus, not lawyers."

Agehananda Bharati, The Ochre Robe pp 148-149 [archive.org]

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: James Swartz—What is the Truth?
Posted by: earthquake ()
Date: May 11, 2019 08:38PM

Hello Everyone,

I've been pointed to your forum by an existing member. I appreciate this is a closed forum, however i'm going to share what I feel comfortable with as and when. I got my own reasons guys.

I've intimate knowledge about the topical subject matter, though some things that have been broached I won't talk about just yet. I'm talking with the author of Heathers book. And I am looking to reach out in phone call with someone of note also. Before I even share specific to me material.

I appreciate this may be a little frustrating to some. But my comfortability is important. If, however, questions are put to me in regards to the first hand experience (and independent evidence) i will try my best to answer. but If I say i cant answer please accept that. I wont have any (however well meaning) mind verbage used on me. I'm really adept at this.

Thankyou for understanding.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Re: Did JS learn under Swami Chinmayananda? And was he allowed to teach?

Yes, it does seem that he did learn under Swami Chinmayananda. And I do have to be careful what way I express this (as i have my own guidelines that I am bound by), but just because he sat as Swami Chinmayanada's feet does not mean necessarily what he purports.

Accordingly to JS, he was close to SC (Swami Chinamayananda) because he carried his oxygen bottle. My opinion is that sounds nice and cozy, but so what? (to use his own phrasing).

Swami Chinmayananda was important as he brought Vedanta down from the mountains. However, Swami Chinmayananda still taught the way it was up there. And it took around 8 years to complete the training.

According to scripture, a guru should be both srotriya and brahaminsta. That is, the teacher should be versed in scripture, and also have attained moksha. If I can phrase such a thing, for this point.

So, okay. The first question is did he have permission to teach? There is an initiation that is cultural. It has actually not got much to do with jnanam. Assimilated knowledge. But it does acknowledge one as a disciple of the guru. And the Guru/Shishya (Guru/Student) relationship is the parampara (lineage).

However, any student in manana (svravana, manana, nididhyasana, then moksha) can teach, and in fact is encouraged to do so. Though this is supervised. I have to say there can be expections. Though my point is what did he have authority to teach?

So, if we turn to the whole deal. A teacher is supposed to have moksha, that is, supposed to have negated the need for moksha since they are Brahman and always knew, so never needed moksha, nor wanted it. This is paradoxical. The teacher has to have that jnanam (knowledge) assimilated, in order to lead another to their assimilation.

So, was JS enlightened? It is hard to know if someone is to be totally honest, and one has to set aside opinions in this. If we are talking Vedanta, we talk Vedanta, and scripture says it is hard to know. however, it also says only Jnani know the mind of Jnani (so called enlightened people).

I personally dont believe he was. And I will explain why....

Swami Dayananda was Swami Chinmayananda main student. There from the start of the mission really. Swami Dayananda had most of the responsibility and was even gave the responsibility of taking over after Swami Chinamayananda died. This was how important Swami Chinmayananda viewed Swami Dayananda. Lets not forget, he was a swami also. completing the full training.

However, Swami Dayananda is on record as saying he was sitting in front of Swami Chinmayananda for ten years, ahd was expected to just sit there and 'get it'.

This is a difference in approach between mystic and non-mystic vedanta. Which I wont go into now. It boiles down to experience and knowledge. and what the order of sadhana is.

Anyhow, Swami Dayananda was not there for two years, oh no. Swami Dayananda was there for ten years, main student, and he did not have moksha! He was about to give up and sell his books when he found out what was wrong. And I dont wish to elaborate on that vedanta teaching here please. Cant see the relveance for this topic.

So, Swami Dayananda changed some things, and he git what he sought really quickly. within two years.

JS did not have this opportunity.

This next bit ties into the question of the fall out between Swami Dayananda and Chinmayanda.

Swami Dayananda saw that changes could be made, but he didnt have the freedom too. Not until Swami Dayananda went on his own to US. There he created the ashram in Saylorsburg, Penn. With no overall control from Swami Chinmayananda. By the time Sc found out, it was too late to do anything.

Swami Dayananda systematized the 8 years training to 2 1/2 years. then it became 3 years.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

JS also went to Swami Dayananda to train. However, Swami Dayananda threw him out after only two weeks. The story is that JS wanted to record the classes, and SD said no. and he went ahead anyhow. However, SD classes were being recorded often so I dont know if this was the real reason.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

the salient question is, why did JS leave SC? Why did SD throw him out? And why did he NOT go back to SC to complete the training?

There must be some reason....

(I cannot verify this...but....there are indications....)

So, once upon a time JS was in the Chinmaya mission. He saw this fellow student that he liked. Next thing they are bumpy bumpy. Which is forbidden. Though what is expected, JS has said himself he was a ladies man.

Sadly, JS then spurned the female, and she was quite upset. This caused a lot of issues in the mission. and is a possible reason JS was thrown out.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, here we have a superstar guru, who never completed training with two important guru's. leading one to think what is he teaching?

I have a view on that also. My view is exact. I cant explain why, but I know what I know. that's not ego, its fact.



JS has included things in what he teaches that are not the way of traditional vedanta, his version, as it is his version, is modern vedanta at best. He puts everyone down, and by implication elevates himself.

He also posts students praising him, om his site. that is a no-no. the teacher take themselves out of it, and is merely a mouthpiece for scripture. ~a genuine teacher will not accept praise, or even judegments. they dont mind either way. A genuine teacher is okay about being open to any seeming not so great things. This is very important. And I give a nod to the person above who spoke of integrity.

The genuine teacher is genuine cause they understand the way maya works. that no-one is above emotional pain nor distresss. This means tha even enlightened people still have shit happening. The only difference according to vedanta is that it is ok to be sad and cry, but it doesnt change you as Brahman. It is admittedly hard to understand how jnani can have two seeming oppostite views at the same time, yet this is how it works. And enlightenment is seeing there is not opposites. there is only advaita.

My pooint is that there is nothing for the teacher to hide nor be ashamed of. Within reason. By this i mean being a teacher in no way permits one to mess with others. However, being a teacher should enable one to ADMIT what they are doing. Being humble, being human is a sign of assimilated knowledge. And Swami Dayananda taught enlightenemnt in a way that de mystified. it.

Moksha, englightenemnt is for humans because once the person sees some crap come up, they are then able to use the assimuilated knowledge to deal with it right away. That is how it works.

So if someone way really enlightenend, why would they hide from it? Why not own up. and sort it out there and then? Jnani, enlightened people do this. They dont do it for 'them', as they arte Brahman. they do it out of compassion for everyone else.

Why does JS teach what he does? He focuses in specific vedanta teachings, more than others. The ones he focuses on actually keep the students tied into samsara. that is, keeps the students needing him.

A tradtional vedanta teacher shares the knowledge and the person is then self satisifed. independant. Then they clear off. not needing any authority. Not in sunnmy jims world. Adter all, HE IS A MAHATMA! As he exclaiomed to one teacher he spurned.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have more to say on the formating of their SW teachings. however, I must take care not to reveal to much. I have certain things I need to be aware of.


I hope this has been of some help. I'll keep an eye on here and will talk when I can. Though I am not sure where infiltrators are, haha. These guys are very. very sneaky. ;).

Thankso for having me here, and nice place, I am gonna quickly explore.

Earthquake



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/11/2019 08:52PM by earthquake.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: James Swartz—What is the Truth?
Posted by: zizlz ()
Date: May 11, 2019 10:30PM

Thanks Earthquake, very interesting to read your informed perspective. Hope to read more from you here!

Here's JS's claim that Chinmayananda asked him to start teaching:

[archive.is]

Quote

Once there was no reason to seek anymore the Swami sent me “to explode on the society and bring self-knowledge to the people.”

What I think may have been the case is something like this: around the world there are Vedanta study groups organized by disciples of Chinmayananda. The disciples aren't supposed to just start up a group out of their own initiative, from what I've understood they have to be asked or given permission by the Chinmayananda Mission to do so. I've attended such a study group myself for a few years. The fact that these disciples have been sanctioned by the mission to start a study group is not in any way an acknowledgement that they are enlightened or that they are qualified teachers. The study groups are just like any other kind of study group: it's a group getting together weekly to read specific books together and discuss them. The books in question are all written by Chinmayananda or his successors. The groups are meant to spread knowledge of vedanta and perhaps bring new members into the mission.

I could believe that Chinmayananda has asked or permitted Swartz to "bring self-knowledge to the people" by starting a study group. But it seems highly unlikely that Chinmayananda ever acknowledged James as a qualified vedanta teacher in his own right.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: James Swartz—What is the Truth?
Posted by: earthquake ()
Date: May 11, 2019 10:49PM

This is where JS trips himself up. In his own terms.

When he says seeker turned finder. That is SW speak for realization. They then have something called actualization that they term moksha.

There is mo such thing as self realization and actualization. JS claims both are two parts of moksha.

There is only moksha. One. Swami Dayananda says modern vedants made self realization up. And it doesnt exist.

A seeker doesnt turn finder in vedanta. One understands there is nothing to seek as ome always knew they are Brahman. So there ia nothing to find.

No need to seek anymore is JS claiming moksha. Yet how can a helper have it in two years, yet SC main student didnt get it in ten?


Yea anyone can host and lead a study group. There ia no way JS was skilled enough to do in two years what swamis needed to train 8 years for.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: James Swartz—What is the Truth?
Posted by: zizlz ()
Date: May 12, 2019 12:17AM

I just came across the part in his autobiography where JS gives his side of the story of why he left Chinmayananda. It's so amazingly narcissistic it may make you feel nauseous, so read it at your own peril:

Quote

One day, a month or so before the end, I was sitting in class in an extraordinary state. The body was automatically assuming complex yogic postures, the mind was so radiant with consciousness it was subtly affecting the other students. Gradually, in response to the energy the students in my vicinity moved away until there was a noticeable ring of empty space around me. I think they must have unconsciously felt someone was spying on them. Such is the power of consciousness. I came out of my absorption for a minute and noticed that the Swami was looking at me in an unkind way, as if I had consciously done something to mess with the classroom energy, about which he was very possessive. At the same time I had the sense that he was drawn to me, perhaps momentarily envious? Whatever it was, I understood that I did not belong there any more; I was simply becoming too powerful.

I say ‘momentarily envious’ because I think seeing me like that, more a god than a human being, must have called attention to the negative side of his own situation. His karma as a famous jet-setting mahatma put such heavy demands on his mind that it often pulled him down, making him cranky and irritable, sometimes downright unpleasant. His body was not well and required a good deal of mental energy to sustain, energy he probably should have invested elsewhere. My body was young and strong, an asset, not a liability. He was an upper caste Hindu born around the turn of the last century in a terribly conservative culture who followed sannyassi dharma, the rules of renunciation, strictly.
I was free to do what I wanted, as if I were a ghost, transparent and unreal, unaffected by physical reality. I did not have to lift a finger and I spoke infrequently. I could fly and soar in the transcendental sky, dissolve into the emptiness and experiment all day long as I saw fit. While he squandered his capital at an alarming rate helping others, I husbanded mine, selfishly investing it in pure meditation. And finally, he had to live with the knowledge that he was nearing the end of his incarnation, whereas I was being reborn into a brand new life.

Maybe my speculations are off the mark, but my perception was accurate; our relationship was starting to become all too human. No doubt I was fulfilling him in a very deep way, but I was also starting to be a problem.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: James Swartz—What is the Truth?
Posted by: earthquake ()
Date: May 12, 2019 12:38AM

Words nearly fail me.

The accusatory tone of jet setting across the world. He is one to talk!

His title says is all also. Mystic bg default. The issues Swami Dayananda had were cause of mystic vedanta. Placing expereince at the top of moksha sadhana. That is contrary to shankara. It is by jnanam, knowledge alone. Scripture is top.

JS also ia talking purely of exprrience here. Which is not assimilated jnanam.

Furthermore, to question and challenge his guru as he is implying is showing a lack of shradda. Shradda is one of the major requirements for vedanta. One places trust in their guru. A student should not have these views he writes. Jeez, he is placing himself above his guru.

This happens due to issues with needing sattva. Krishna advises against this is Gita chapter 2. Which JS should know as he is always teaching Gita.

Issues with sattva include projecting, by passing, and being a despicable a hole

Another juicy piece of info is that before JS does anyhow Gita seminar he always studies Swami Dayanandas Gita home study course.

Reading about it is as close as JS got.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/12/2019 12:40AM by earthquake.

Options: ReplyQuote
Current Page: 2 of 28


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
This forum powered by Phorum.