> This came via email to me by a friend of mine, he
> would like me to post it for him:
> "I have been studying with James for eight years.
> I and my friends have hosted and organized James'
> classes annually for the past eight years.
If that is the case, we will know one another very well. If I was able to know who you are (and I am not asking btw at all), I could likely allude to situations that either you were affected in course or witnessed. There are quite a few of SW course organisers that have been affected greatly by his behaviour.
You forget, I also know what I am talking about.
> completely satisfied with my life and I owe my
> contentment to James. James has introduced me to
> a knowledge that has helped to set me free.
Your way of expressing is familiar to me.
Anyhow, in traditional vedanta, guru bhakti is fine. However, it is only a side show. The traditional vedanta view would be that you do not own anything to anyone. There is no moksha, or don't you know that part of nididhyasana. Also. a teacher is not responsible for vedanta, so any credit is not valid. We keep the person out of it. And see only the spoken word of Isvara.
Personalities are not supposed to come into teaching. That fact that you feel compelled to defend your teacher shows that it is very much there with you. And the fact, that I know for a fact that SW are attempting to counter what is being said, on here now, show that the teachers are also reacting. And that is fine. There are no judgements on that, though a point is a point.
James and Isabella SWartz would tell you that your wording is dualistic. Though of course all wording is. You are talking from the jiva, person, perspective. Moksha will show that you never needed to be free. That in fact, there is no dvaita. It is acceptable you have further to go. And this goes to my point. The use of vedanta in SW is often not complete. Students are told it is. In reality, this is more to do with academic knowledge, sattva, and release of oxycontin. The latter is interesting.
In cults, there needs to be a them and us mentality. Something that JS has promoted for many years. In that SW is the truth, all other western expressions, are not. He can attack anyone he wants, but bo hoo when someone stands up for themselves. This them and us mentality creates a group mentality. A protectionist mentality. And this in turn creates oxycontin. Which has a big bonding ability. So much so that the people lose their individual reasoning. They become sheep. This is a cult tactic. In this way, the JS is correct, the countering of SW will have brought together many in it. It is the way the human mind works.
However, and this is a personal gambit between myself and former students. Former students and I understand that only the very clear and mentally strong could leave now. What we are are doing with our input is making sure less new people get sucked in.
> Someone on this forum has consistently stated that
> James does not teach traditional Vedanta.
What has happened is that the tradtional teachings of vedanta have been held up the teachings of SW, that i myself know intimately.
> not really care that James does not teach
> traditional Vedanta.
You organise his courses, and have been his student for eight years. You say he set you free. You are alluding to enlightenment. Though in reality it is likely the modern vedanta teaching of self realisation you were awarded. Still, it is important for you that you are seeing that there is a difference. Now that you see there is a difference, if you decide to stay with SW, which you will, you are quite entitled to. There is no judgement on that.
This is not about control. It is about informing. And that is quite proper.
What James actually taught
> transformed my life meaningfully when I applied
> what James taught to my life. As they say, the
> proof is in the pudding.
Isabella says that, as well as one of the newer teachers often. You are not her, and I am seeing if you are the other teacher. Maybe not.
Again, if this was traditional vedanta, the teacher gets no credit for that. In fact, the teacher would want no credit. This is a dangerous road to being a little celebrity. No teacher owns vedanta, God made it, and the world own it. The teacher is not responsible. For that is between student and Isvara.
However, I understand that you, a serious student of his, would make such a claim about him. It is common in modern vedanta.
James taught you nothing. Isvara is the Karma Phala Data, the deliverer of Karma. And there only is prasad from Isvara.
This whole business about James Swartz being to great is something that he should not have allowed. It has clouded him and her. They never stop posting those satsangs of how great students are saying they are. And Students have told me that they doctor those publications. I have had three contact me in the last three months. I caution anyone who contacts them to beware of this.
> James has never set himself to be Miss Goody Two
> Shoes and taught me to become a do-gooder.
That is interesting to know. So tell me, if he is not setting himself up as something, how the heck is he meant to actually teach you it? Reading from a book again, like he does with traditional vedanta, I guess.
> James taught me is how full, whole and complete I
> am, a simple fact that I never knew until I
> learned this from Vedanta via James as Isvara's
Nope. That is modern vedanta way. Tradtional vedanta cannot show you what you are. Because you always knew and know what you are. Tradtional vedanta only shows you what you are not. This is another superimposition of attributes onto James Swartz that is not valid. It is rife in SW though.
There is too much focus on life management stuff. And this is a symptom.
More importantly, James taught me
> what I need to do to prepare my mind so this
> important knowledge about myself becomes firm.
The truth is, it was Krishna that taught that to Arjuna. And James has used SWami Dayananda's material always before he goes into a class to teach it.
And again, the teacher is not doing anything special. Your whole email is reinforcing this hero worship modern vedanta teacher cult thing.
> Suppose you learned something about yourself that
> transformed your life in the the utmost positive
> way possible and you find out that the person who
> taught you this most wonderful thing about
> yourself actually had a heinous past. Does the
> knowledge of this person's past negate what the
> person taught me about myself that I value so
We are now firmly in the psychological realm of the main problem in SW. In working with the former members who have extracted themselves from this cult, there is a high degree of sattva blindness. This is what a main issue is. With this comes spiritual by-passing. You are all right, and vedanta is wrong. And those with academic knowledge will use it to try to support their own interpretation.
The heinous act most certainly in valid right here and now. And this is because if the person cannot be truthful about said act, then they are lieing, they are manipulating the situation. If they are hiding what happened, then everything else asserted about them is more supported. And the general thrust is of a cult.
So yes, if the person did a bad act, and is still being adharmic to his students, then it supports the assertionm of a cult. This would without a doubt be relevant to any current teachings. And also, be important to whatever any student is told, or thinks they have attained.
I understand that it might be the case for
> some people, but I know that the knowledge would
> not negate the wisdom for me. I believe that
> Jesus would be happy to learn from sinners as well
> as do gooders and I personally think that sinners
> have more to teach me than the do gooders.
You believing this about jesus hardly means it is factual. That is very important to point out.
And how do you know the knowledge would not negate the wisdom? You dont believe he is a child rapist heading a cult. So it is easy for you to say this. However,r for those that see either all of this, or part of this, and are free of it, they can see the hold that JS and IS had on them.
> I have the following thought to share with
> Heather. Suppose James raped Heather. I imagine
> that the rape experience was physically painful
> and psychologically and emotionally wrenching to
> Heather. To allow the supposed perpetrator the
> power to affect Heather to the extent that it
> affected Heather to this day after all these
> decades is ....... (fill in the blank; I am at a
> loss for a word to describe this jiva condition).
> A person once asked the Dalai Lama if he is angry
> at the Chinese. He said something to the effect
> "The Chinese already take my land. I am not going
> to let them take my mind too." You do not see the
> Dalai Lama going around badmouthing the Chinese
> even though they stole his land and killed his
> disciples. He has more sattvic things to do with
> his time. Blaming someone is very useful; it
> deflects the attention from issues in ourselves
> that we do not want to face.
How dare you do this. You have got no validity to use spiritual arguments against a child rape victim, by trying to assert their response should equate that of the Dalai Lama's. Easy for you to say. I assume you weren't repeatedly raped as a child in a cult?
Your comment on someone still carrying trauma after all these years, and it being somehow something they are deflecting. That is disgraceful. But I am glad people like you keep showing this. All of you are the perfect example of JS and IS.
Instead of organising modern vedanta courses. You should learn actual vedanta, and you would be able to look at this. This is prasad for you to have this out in the open now. One cannot judge abuse victims in this way, and be dharmic.
Being dharmic does not mean you act like this toward others, all in the name of defending your teacher. A teacher should not actually allow this.
I have compassion for you. Krishna says to Arjuna in the Gita to go beyond the gunas. So stop focusing on Sattva. Trigunatha, beyond the gunas is what is wanted. Gunas are maya Karayam. Effect of maya. Who wants to be in thrall to that. Modern VEdanta of course. Sounds so much like SW teachings of Dvaita vedanta they have incorporated.
> If James did what Heather accused him of doing, I
> believe that James will get his reckoning with
> Isvara. James has had a good life so far and we
> will see what results Isvara will deliver to James
> for the rest of his life if we still are around to
> see it.
You are of course free to judge what Isvara should and should not do. Though you should have been taught in Karma Yoga, properly, that there is no validity in this. Again, your teachers are life management, that is there is so much non-assimilation in SW. Which is fine.
The fact is, that this movement that Heather and Trav have begun, is the beginning of things being balanced. I can honestly say that SW members are thinking hard about what is being said. Many are still being suckered, as they of course go to the teachers, and are indoctrinated again. Others though, they are making their own minds up.
You can be free. It is not easy. It was not for me. And the pull can remain some time after. But you can do this.
> What I noticed about the writing in the cult forum
> is that there is a huge emotional charge behind
> the writing of the people on this forum who are
> critical of James. Emotional charge is often a
> very useful indicator of something that we are
> uneasy with that we do not want to look at.
Modern vedanta agian. Spiritual by-passing, lol. It is understandable that people that have be traumatised are, well, traumatised.
It is not understandable, that people in vedanta do not see the validity of this. In tradtional vedanta it is ok to have the human experience. All of it. If it is okay to be happy, it is okay to be sad. We do not place spiritual idealism on such things. Only modern vedanta, and cults tell what way a person should and should not be.
People that are spiritual by-passing are ignoring their own stuff. And it is a real problem in vedanta. You should look at why you feel it is valid to make judgements on victims of abuse. Every single one of you who post here is doing the exact same. And you are going to be called out for the world to see each time.
> I know of many people personally who have
> benefited much from James' teaching and whose
> lives have been transformed for the better due to
> James' teaching.
It matters not that people in a cult say what they will. Such is the nature of indoctrination. What is more important is the people who have got free. And are able to speak fully independently.
> If James had not been an American who could teach
> me Vedanta in American English, I probably would
> not benefit from Vedanta as much I did."
You are not aware of the Ramakrishna mission in USa then a few decades ago? They are modern vedanta, by their own admission, but the point is they are Indian teachers then. Or, what about Swami Dayananda is USA?
Vedanta is able to be taught to anyone in any language. Anywhere in the world. You have bought into the hyperbole I did about JS. That he is amazing bringing vedanta to westerners.
It is not sure what he has brought, or made up as he goes along. But there are many problems with people attaining what vedanta actually does teach. And this is because his own attainment was questionable.
Even in his autobiography, his lack of shradda in what he is saying and alluding to in regard to SWami Chinmayananda. Pure ego trip. Things are not as you think they are.