Current Page: 51 of 52
Re: James Swartz—What is the Truth?
Posted by: Dis-illusioned ()
Date: November 15, 2020 07:17PM

Perfect, clear, and spot on.

You’ve been we taught, and are skilled at clarifying. I say that not to flatter you, but to express my gratitude.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: James Swartz—What is the Truth?
Posted by: earthquake ()
Date: November 15, 2020 07:55PM

It's the lineage. :)

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: James Swartz—What is the Truth?
Posted by: Dis-illusioned ()
Date: November 15, 2020 08:05PM

Impressive :)

And happy making. A relief even.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: James Swartz—What is the Truth?
Posted by: zizlz ()
Date: November 15, 2020 08:20PM

I'm watching Rick Archer's latest interview with Swami Sarvapriyananda. They talk about ethical foundations of nondual spirituality. At 55:00 there's a question about the problem with abuse and such among modern advaita teachers. Swami S. says that discipline is often under-emphasized (as opposed to knowledge). Knowledge is only for the intellect, which is like the rider on an elephant, the elephant being the rest of the body-mind system. The elephant doesn't respond to spiritual talks; it learns by repetition, training. It's a creature of habit. (Both the question and answer are much more insightful than my paraphrased summary; here you can hear it for yourselves: [youtu.be] )

I think this is relevant to this discussion because with Swartz his understanding hasn't progressed far beyond his intellect (if at all), as evidenced by the clearly ego-driven behavior and words he frequently displays.

I think it's interesting the missing ingredient Swami Dayananda found was disciplined self-inquiry (as Earthquake wrote). This corresponds to Swami's answer.

BTW, Rick Archer, maybe you're reading this, since you have posted in this thread, so I'll take this chance to say: thank you (and ASI) for your efforts w.r.t. spiritual integrity! It's much needed. And on a totally unrelated note, I'd like to say that your conversation with Donald Hoffman is one of the most interesting conversations I've ever heard.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: James Swartz—What is the Truth?
Posted by: Dis-illusioned ()
Date: November 15, 2020 08:28PM

Without wanting to dominate this conversation, I’m grateful for that link and reference to other useful resources ziziz.

And more importantly, I think even the term self-inquiry needs clarifying. I took it to refer to the process of enquiring into the nature of the self.
Earthquake seems to be suggesting, and with reference to Swamiji - that it refers to the application of the scriptures, to one’s personal life situation, in order to bring about total freedom from ignorance.

Perhaps they’re the same thing, although I seem to see a slight difference (one being Knowledge, and the other being the application of the knowledge, to/for the jiva.)

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: James Swartz—What is the Truth?
Posted by: earthquake ()
Date: November 15, 2020 09:03PM

Self-inquiry is atma vicara in sanskrit. It is in regard to I/Self. That's only one 'component' of freedom. The other is understanding the world. What the world is, is what I experience. So, it's understanding what I experience.

it's assimilation. Trying to solely identify as Brahman is nididhyasnana. The last stage. At that stage one isn't trying to understand the world. Understanding of the world comes at Sravananam and mananaam. It's possible to cycle through the three stages also though.

The reason why inquiry into my experience is important is that I seem to think I am this person. A limited being. That's the problem. In Vedanta we first see what the problem is. Then we see what the solution is. Then we begin to do something about it. We do this by showing me what i'm not first. And that's done in study and inquiry.

Once the mind understand's what i'm not, it is revealed to mind what I am.

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

This is in a teaching method called adhyaropa apavada. Adhayropa is deliberate dualistic teachings. We introduce them, only to take them away. But they must be took away. Taking them away is called apavada.


An example is the foundation teaching of cause and effect. We call this creation. A pot is a creation, and clay can be said to be cause. This is adhyaropa...

... Can we separate pot from Clay? No, and this is because pot is not separate nor different from clay. Since pot is effect, and effect is not different from cause, we no longer need the term effect. Since we no longer need the term effect, we no longer have use for the term cause. So there is no cause and effect. There is no creation. This is because one thing has not been created from another. As that is two things. This is apavada.

If we replace clay with God and Pot with the world (or even person). We see that the person is not seperate nor different from God. there is only God. The reason why the person and God are the same, is because there only is consciousness, Brahman.

Like the wave and ocean are the same as there only is water.

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


It's one thing to read this literal meaning, but the value is in the laksyartha, implied meanings. Since this person and God is the same, every person is also God. Every object is God. Every event and emotion. Why are emotions sometimes a problem? Because there's an assumption that they change I. But, since this inquiry shows that there only is God, even change itself is not really change. Change is God, and no change is God. Fear, sadness, upset, etc, are less issues because of this.

What this shows is that yes, there can be name and form, like many waves on the ocean. But even so, there is only advaita. The countless waves (objects) are only water (advaita).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2020 09:08PM by earthquake.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: James Swartz—What is the Truth?
Posted by: Dis-illusioned ()
Date: November 15, 2020 09:28PM

I’ll read through all of that slowly and carefully, so thank you for posting.

What I’m then not understanding, is, what was it that Swami Dayananda couldn’t get or accomplish, with Sw Chinmayananda, and why? And what was your reason for telling that story.

I assumed there was something lacking with the teaching of Sw C, that meant that Sw D needed to go and do some inner self-reflection, before the teachings of Vedanta, opened up to him. And I thought you were calling that self-reflection, self-inquiry. I couldn’t understand why Sw C wouldn’t have had a complete teaching, sufficient to complete things for Sw D.

Clearly I got the wrong end of the stick :)

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: James Swartz—What is the Truth?
Posted by: zizlz ()
Date: November 15, 2020 09:34PM

Quote
Dis-Illusioned
I’m grateful for that link and reference to other useful resources ziziz

I'm glad it's useful to you!

Quote
earthquake
Swami Dayananda came back and studied Shankaracharyas works and the Bhagavad gita. And in a short time, that was that, he attained moksha. Inquiry was missing.

Swami Dayananda said that he was expected to sit at the feet of his Guru, and just 'get it'. This is what has been taught by Swami Dayananda to his direct disciples, and down to the rest.

Thanks for all your explanations, Earthquake! Could you give an example of how to do self-inquiry? Is this done only during meditation or also during daily activities?

What happens in your lineage once you "get it", is the practice of self-inquiry continued, or replaced with another practice, or is practice abandoned altogether?

Edit: I hadn't read Dis-Illusioned's latest post when I wrote this, so there's some overlap in our questions.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2020 09:35PM by zizlz.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: James Swartz—What is the Truth?
Posted by: earthquake ()
Date: November 15, 2020 11:33PM

Quote
Dis-Illusioned
I’ll read through all of that slowly and carefully, so thank you for posting.

There's numerous teachings in that post. The foundation of Vedanta is there, the karana karyam prakriya (cause/Effect). Ajativada (non-origination of creation). And Adhyaropa apavada. :) .


Quote
Dis-Illusioned
What I’m then not understanding, is, what was it that Swami Dayananda couldn’t get or accomplish, with Sw Chinmayananda, and why? And what was your reason for telling that story.

Swami Dayananda always kept great Bhakti for his Guru, who was without doubt a great teacher. It's a difference in approach. That's why I also mentioned it in the topics context. Swami Dayananda in fact has three teachers.

I've just been talking to a Swami, and he is saying the opposite of what the other Swami is saying in regard to Swami Dayanandalol. I've just been gave a clarification over it. Not a gentle rebuke, but I don't appreciate myself saying something that isn't accurate, lol.

I guess the best thing then is to take what I said with a pinch of salt earlier. I'm going to speak to the Swami who said this directly. It'll take a little time. The Swami who said it is also a direct disciple. I'm taken aback a little. Anyhow...



Always prasad, i'm going to be taught Swami Dayananda's complete story starting tomorrow after this, in a one-to-one.



Quote
Dis-Illusioned
I assumed there was something lacking with the teaching of Sw C, that meant that Sw D needed to go and do some inner self-reflection, before the teachings of Vedanta, opened up to him. And I thought you were calling that self-reflection, self-inquiry. I couldn’t understand why Sw C wouldn’t have had a complete teaching, sufficient to complete things for Sw D.

It's difference in approach. The same as Ramakrishna Mission, Swami S was mentioned by Zizliz there. Rick Ross, this forum owner, also rates SWami S. I do personally myself. I'm not saying it's been said that there was something Wrong with what was taught at Chinmaya mission.

I don't want to say anything else now, in regard to the whole thing. I've put my foot in it a little. It's not my fault as such, but still, I dont' want to make it worse, haha.


Quote
Zizliz
Thanks for all your explanations, Earthquake! Could you give an example of how to do self-inquiry? Is this done only during meditation or also during daily activities?

Vedanta vicara is sravanam, manananam & nididhyasanam. This reveals the meaning of the teachings, and this counters the existing notions of conditioning.

What happens is the person listens and applies the knowledge (sravananam). This is done through set teachings. These teachings carefully strip away prejudiced and personal ideas about reality. The student receives the teachings from the teacher, and uses that knowledge in class, and after, to challenge existing conditioning. The teacher will take questions at the end, which is personal one to one, and this can happen anytime after also. But the teacher only guides, the person must walk themselves.

A good example is that everyone doesn't like sadness. So they come to Vedanta to sort that out, place it in Vedanta context but, they're maybe not as quick to sort happiness out. This is because first happiness is nice, and second there's spiritual idealism in regard to that. So, the person carries on thinking happiness completes them. That is looked into. If sadness doesnt limit me, does happiness complete me? What does Vedanta say? It says that any happiness is merely vishaya ananda, object happiness. And it only anandamaya kosa, the bliss body. if i'm not the bliss body what am I? So I recall orlearn that Vedanta says I am atma, consciousness. I am ananda. Limitless. And anantam Infinitude. This is reasoning and deducing. Inquiry. And we use the teacher and scripture to confirm it. The mind is taking away personal ideas in conditioning by reinforcing what they actually are.

Why would happiness by inquired into? Because it never lasts. In fact, there is happiness, along with the fear of losing it. There is losing happiness, and there is no-happiness. Life is more non-happiness than happiness. What Vedanta offers is constant contentment.

There is other vicara (inquiry) such am Omkara Vicara. This is inquiry into Om. Which is Brahman. That includes the world also. It's taught in the Mandukya. And is enough for enlightenment itself.

Myself and a Swami were just talking about sadhana. A discriminating mind into the nature of self is what it's all about. If the teachings have been proper, this isn't only that im not the person, that im consciousness, it's also how that relates to the world. This is through the implications.

The Swami says: 'Looking at Vedanta or reading Vedanta on one's own won't show what Vedanta is about. They need a teacher. it's not like a novel to read.'

That's because we only can understand something from our current ignorance. The teacher knows the way, and so is able to lead. :).







Quote
Zizliz
What happens in your lineage once you "get it", is the practice of self-inquiry continued, or replaced with another practice, or is practice abandoned altogether?


Pujya Swamiji teaches that enlightenment is only the starting perspective. Sadhana is sanskrit for a means to an end. Sahaja is the goal. Moksha sadhana is sadhana for enlightenment as the goal. Once that is resolved, there's no need for sadhana. No need for Vedanta, but the question is why would one not carry on. Sadhana for enlightenment is freedom from suffering so there is suffering. Once there is no suffering, there's simply Vedanta for the sheer joy.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2020 11:41PM by earthquake.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: James Swartz—What is the Truth?
Posted by: zizlz ()
Date: November 16, 2020 02:05AM

Thanks, Earthquake! I'll probably have to reread your posts a few times to let it all sink in, as information-dense as they are.

Options: ReplyQuote
Current Page: 51 of 52


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