Re: James Swartz—What is the Truth?
Posted by:
Traveler99
()
Date: November 27, 2020 01:23AM
Meritorious Service
in Revealing the (Sad and Deplorable) Truth
About the abominable
James Swartz,
Kudos to (among others):
Earthquake, Dis-Illusioned, Valma, corboy, ziziz and Sahara71.
In exquisite detail in recent posts the above-lauded worthies have done a superb job of detailing how
-- a foul human being.
-- an execrable "spiritual teacher."
To discover whether this was true or not, in this public forum, has of course been our goal since its inception.
Now, over 500 posts (which have over 44,000 views) have absolutely given us the answer. Even leaving outthe rapacious truths described in "Guru? The Story of Heather", James Swartz has been proved to be loathsome in virtually every way, with the accurate conclusion to me made that he should be avoided at all costs by all (non-masochistic) persons.
A bonus has been some very interesting insight into better, truer Advaita Vedanta as revealed in some of these posts. Swartz, just by mentioning certain spiritual texts (even as he deliberately distorts them) and 'real' teachers like Sri Ramana Maharshi and Adi Shankara, does (almost accidentally) point beginning seekers in a good direction.
It is now more apparent than ever that the perspectives shared in this forum by some of his more discerning ex-students are better 'teachings' than those Swartz himself has ever given. (This partly begs the question-- can any intelligent person who is not emotionally or psychologically disturbed stay with Swartz for a long time? Eventually, it seems his smallness, meanness, and lack of human empathy and spiritual depth drives everyone away...)
Also, an apology to two of the worthies mentioned above who in some cases well over a week ago sent me "PM's" (Private Messages) using this Forum's system. I did not see these until today. Personal matters have been quite demanding the last few weeks, and the "You've got PM's" notice somehow ended up in my junk mail. From now on, I'll check more carefully.
However, as goes "Posts," I haven't been necessary, have I? Even this post was mostly "cheerleading" for others-- which is something Heather and I could have only dreamed about even a couple years ago.
Re: James Swartz—What is the Truth?
Posted by:
Traveler99
()
Date: November 30, 2020 12:42AM
In a private message a sincere spiritual person sent words which I shall paraphrase:
"Trav, just this one verse from Ramana Maharshi below devastates the teachings of James Swartz totally."
The writer was referring to verse 113 of "Thus Spake Ramana," a booklet published by Sri Ramanasram, which goes:
Quote
Ramana Maharshi
The undifferentiated Consciousness of Pure Being is the Heart or Hridayam, which you really are as signified by the word itself, (Hrit + Ayam = Heart am I). From the Heart arises the ‘I-am-ness as the primary datum of one’s experience. By itself it is suddha sattva in character. It is in this suddha sattva svarupa (that is uncontaminated by rajas and tamas) that the ‘I’ appears to subsist in the Jnani.
It seems clear that the "teachings" of James Swartz totally focus on mind, thought, the mental. Based on my research regarding and communications with Swartz this is because Swartz has never experienced an Awakening, and because he is not in contact with his "heart" (some have claimed he has none),
Therefore, as a result, Swartz does his best to totally discount "experience" and "heart." (This, despite Sri Ramana Maharshi's pointed assertions to the contrary.)
Kind "Viewer," what is your perspective on this?
Re: James Swartz—What is the Truth?
Posted by:
Rama Vasistha
()
Date: December 14, 2020 11:53AM
(Sections with ">" are written by "earthquake"/Rob Harrison
> It may seem
> that the teacher is teaching from their own view,
> and yes, the teacher must have understanding of
> the subject matter, but the teacher should never
> use their own ideas about anything. And this is
> because in order to be a teacher, one has to have
> first submitted their ego to the Vedanta pramana
> (means of knowledge) and this is done at the very
> beginning of sadhana.
Where in the Upanishads or any other Vedanta scripture does it mention sending nude photos of yourself to students as part of the teaching methodology?
>I always stick very close to
> both my guru and paramguru (guru of my guru)
Your guru keeps changing though. It seems that James Swartz and his wife were your gurus, but we know how they feel about you.
You later claimed Swami Turya Chaitanya to be your guru, but he publicly renounced you as a teacher.
Then you claimed Swami Tadatmananda to be your guru, but his only connection to you is that he has answered a few of your questions.
Now you seem to be claiming yet another person to be your guru. I wonder how long it will be until he or she renounces you.
> legitimately can teach from their perspective, ego
> comes into it. There is no ‘I’ or ‘my’ for jnani
> (enlightened person).
So, you're not a jnani then.
> There has been a fair bit wrote about me lately in
> Shiningworld. And it is all negative.
Gee, I wonder why. Maybe it has to do with the amount of people going to them and asking about your criminal behaviour.
> They will use whatever personal
> information they have or can get, whether it is
> true or not to try to destroy you.
They've actually publicly stated that they want to help you.
> I’ve told my own students that if they can catch
> me out on one factual lie, to view me as a liar
> full stop.
So, you're a liar then. Full stop.
>If anyone wants to see the proof
> he’s a liar, contact me and I will screen shot the
> emails from his and my own contact.
You're a big fan of screenshots, trying to cover your ass. I don't think you'd like it if your students took screenshots of your bare ass that you've sent them though. Not only could you be physically exposed, but there is plenty out there to expose you as a crook.
> I know I haven’t broken
> the law.
Stealing money is generally against the law, as is sending unwanted nude photos of yourself, particularly to vulnerable people. Maybe Northern Ireland has strange laws, but generally that's the law in most places.
> Swartz did
> tell me that he is reporting me to Facebook,
> Youtube, etc, and to the police. Though nothing
> has happened to me.
Be thankful that James doesn't waste too much time on you. Then again, maybe it would be good for you if he did.
> I want to share something else. It’s that it’s
> been claimed that a Swami has likened me to a
> demon. I find that very hard to believe that any
> Swami would say that about a person and their
> karma. To even write that shows a severe lack of
> understanding of karma. It isn't the traditional
> view of Vedanta (of a teachers' perspective) to
> say this about someone. Especially if only one
> side of facts would be known. Even if both side’s
> were known Swami generally would not see it such
> one sided. This is because Vedanta offers constant
> contentment, that only comes about by Samatvam,
> equal vision. The free person is free to go into
> an event, and also free to just as quickly go out
> of it.
And yet a swami said that. Hm...
> the ancient Rishis were
> sometimes quite bad people. They would do things,
> and then apologise after.
I can see how that appeals to you.
> Though a valid
> teacher will have the clear ability to admit when
> a mistake is made.
By this definition, you are not a valid teacher.
> In fact, the Vedanta teacher isn’t really meant to
> get involved with someone’s personal life
"isn't really", but sometimes it's OK to make sexual advances on them?
Re: James Swartz—What is the Truth?
Posted by:
earthquake
()
Date: December 14, 2020 02:07PM
It's really appreciated that you've bumped this topic up to the top again. Everytime you people come on here with your foolish posts you bring this topic to the forum's top, and also help to perpetuate the search engine saturation.
What are earth are you asking this for, are you deranged?
Once again, you don't know what you're talking about in regard to Vedanta. It's the Shiningworld position that a person doesn't change Gurus. They teach that to try to hold onto people. However, in actual Vedanta it is not only normal it is encouraged to have different guru's.
Swami Dayananda had three gurus, and Swami Chinmaynanada had more that one. In regard to Swami Dayananda, respect is gave to all three of his Gurus. One only has to look at some shrines/photos to see Swami Dayananda's three gurus' above him. In fact, gratitude is gave to Swami Dayananada and his three gurus.
You fail here.
It's not appropriate for you to use specific Swami's names to try to cause issues. Swami will not appreciate that. Even though I can do one better than replying directly with words here, I won't directly respond to what you've said. If you even remotely identify with that lineage you're not to be doing what you just have. Maintain respect to these people by not publicly naming such names in something that is not to do with them.
And anyhow, what business is it of your's if it's decided I have 50 gurus? By my above example of Swami Dayananda, if a great like him can have three, I can have twenty-three if it's appropriate.
I'm sorry, you fail on that also.
Don't be so silly. Even jnani would very rarely claim to be jnani. You need to really be taught properly.
All you need to know is that i've been told in writing numerous times I can teach unsupervised. And that the permission was reiterated as recent as a few weeks ago, right from the top in India.
From the basic flaws you show when you write to me here, it's clear you don't even have a fundamental understanding of Vedanta. You're too interested in ignoring my own lineage, and thinking you know better. You simply do not know better than my lineage. To portray that you do if so stupid. It's best you stick to your own spiritual practice.
I admit, its' certainly not getting the coverage that this topic is. Certain keywords for James Swartz & Shiningworld saturate first page google listings for example.
And I think you're overstating the reach of what was said about me. You like to exaggerate dont you? Like Swartz...
...For example, my self defence 'combating crime' blog was featured in one of their satsangs. Do you know how many clicked on it from Shiningworld? Seventeen people. Hardly an earth shattering amount. I'd say that pales in comparison to the activity on this topic. I know that every time I post here myself, the view counts goes into triple figures alone. Not to mind any other notable posting here.
Do you not understand that members here and other viewing this topic are critical thinkers? That Swartz has outed himself, and keeps doing so, to show how nasty and materialistic he is. They've been trying to gaslight me, that is all.
Okay, first it was my 'schlong' as was published in Shiningworld, now it's my bare ass. Anything else? As this is the first time (to my mind) the bare ass thing has been said.
I haven't sent student photos of my ass, or of anything else to students. Ask the student to complain to me directly. To my memory not one student has ever said that about me.
No money has been stole. In fact, as I wrote before, I spoke to police about one loan, and they did give me advice.
Anyhow, I see it's now sending photos to vulnerable people. I don't know who you could be alluding do. I'm thinking you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Why haven't you done something about this? It's been left to me to contact the police. I kept the screenshots of the online report. What I did was tell the local police everything what's been said about me online. I spoke candidly to them. They rang me back four times that day. And took email details of someone I was complaining about.
The police contacted me a couple of Fridays ago by telephone. They've had weeks to look into what I was meant to have done and they weren't interested in this idea of me sending unsolicited photos. They only asked me was I still being harassed. I told them things have quietened down, at that point. And that was that also. I had asked them to check Facebook servers initially, to prove what I'm saying. I can only say, that the police dont' want to speak to me.
So we have one student of mine who began flaming me. He is ignoring the permission I have to teach right from the top, even though he still is in contact with other teachers in my lineage. He said he was going to the police about me. James Swarts said he was going to the police about me. And I actually went to the police and told them everything that was being said about me. Yet, im still here. Nothing has happened to me on Facebook or Youtube. I'm sorry, im pretty sure that between the three of us, if I was guilty of something the police would have done something.
You people are only interested in trolling.
The truth is, that the only effect all of this has had on me was extremely positive.
Oh, did he now? That's strange, as 'demons' isn't really an accurate way to term, if one is in Vedanta.
Private message me the Swami's name and I shall contact him directly to speak to him about this. Thank you.
And what would you know about it? Do you understand Vedanta at all? You're so blinded by your ego here, you can't see it when Vedanta is being shown to you. Here's another, do you know the contrast between Lord Rama & Lord Krishna? Go find out for yourself what this means.
My lineage says a person is free to not recognise me as a teacher if they want. Yet I am a teacher in my lineage nonetheless. You don't validate me as a teacher, no matter what your ego thinks. Again, do you not understand how Vedanta works? You've no actual valid authority in saying this. It's a fool saying it.
You tell me. Your master, James Swartz, has been making advances to his student, Isabella, for years.
Quote
Rama Vasistha
>
> Where in the Upanishads or any other Vedanta
> scripture does it mention sending nude photos of
> yourself to students as part of the teaching
> methodology?
What are earth are you asking this for, are you deranged?
Quote
Rama Vasistha
>
> Your guru keeps changing though.
Once again, you don't know what you're talking about in regard to Vedanta. It's the Shiningworld position that a person doesn't change Gurus. They teach that to try to hold onto people. However, in actual Vedanta it is not only normal it is encouraged to have different guru's.
Swami Dayananda had three gurus, and Swami Chinmaynanada had more that one. In regard to Swami Dayananda, respect is gave to all three of his Gurus. One only has to look at some shrines/photos to see Swami Dayananda's three gurus' above him. In fact, gratitude is gave to Swami Dayananada and his three gurus.
You fail here.
Quote
Rama Vasistha
It seems that
> James Swartz and his wife were your gurus, but we
> know how they feel about you.
> You later claimed Swami Turya Chaitanya to be your
> guru, but he publicly renounced you as a teacher.
> Then you claimed Swami Tadatmananda to be your
> guru, but his only connection to you is that he
> has answered a few of your questions.
> Now you seem to be claiming yet another person to
> be your guru. I wonder how long it will be until
> he or she renounces you.
It's not appropriate for you to use specific Swami's names to try to cause issues. Swami will not appreciate that. Even though I can do one better than replying directly with words here, I won't directly respond to what you've said. If you even remotely identify with that lineage you're not to be doing what you just have. Maintain respect to these people by not publicly naming such names in something that is not to do with them.
And anyhow, what business is it of your's if it's decided I have 50 gurus? By my above example of Swami Dayananda, if a great like him can have three, I can have twenty-three if it's appropriate.
I'm sorry, you fail on that also.
Quote
Rama Vasistha
>
> > legitimately can teach from their perspective,
> ego
> > comes into it. There is no ‘I’ or ‘my’ for
> jnani
> > (enlightened person).
>
> So, you're not a jnani then.
Don't be so silly. Even jnani would very rarely claim to be jnani. You need to really be taught properly.
All you need to know is that i've been told in writing numerous times I can teach unsupervised. And that the permission was reiterated as recent as a few weeks ago, right from the top in India.
From the basic flaws you show when you write to me here, it's clear you don't even have a fundamental understanding of Vedanta. You're too interested in ignoring my own lineage, and thinking you know better. You simply do not know better than my lineage. To portray that you do if so stupid. It's best you stick to your own spiritual practice.
Quote
Rama Vasistha
>
>
> > There has been a fair bit wrote about me lately
> in
> > Shiningworld. And it is all negative.
>
> Gee, I wonder why. Maybe it has to do with the
> amount of people going to them and asking about
> your criminal behaviour.
I admit, its' certainly not getting the coverage that this topic is. Certain keywords for James Swartz & Shiningworld saturate first page google listings for example.
And I think you're overstating the reach of what was said about me. You like to exaggerate dont you? Like Swartz...
...For example, my self defence 'combating crime' blog was featured in one of their satsangs. Do you know how many clicked on it from Shiningworld? Seventeen people. Hardly an earth shattering amount. I'd say that pales in comparison to the activity on this topic. I know that every time I post here myself, the view counts goes into triple figures alone. Not to mind any other notable posting here.
Quote
Rama Vasistha
>
>
> > They will use whatever personal
> > information they have or can get, whether it is
> > true or not to try to destroy you.
>
> They've actually publicly stated that they want to
> help you.
Do you not understand that members here and other viewing this topic are critical thinkers? That Swartz has outed himself, and keeps doing so, to show how nasty and materialistic he is. They've been trying to gaslight me, that is all.
Quote
Rama Vasistha
>
> >If anyone wants to see the proof
> > he’s a liar, contact me and I will screen shot
> the
> > emails from his and my own contact.
>
> You're a big fan of screenshots, trying to cover
> your ass. I don't think you'd like it if your
> students took screenshots of your bare ass that
> you've sent them though. Not only could you be
> physically exposed, but there is plenty out there
> to expose you as a crook.
Okay, first it was my 'schlong' as was published in Shiningworld, now it's my bare ass. Anything else? As this is the first time (to my mind) the bare ass thing has been said.
I haven't sent student photos of my ass, or of anything else to students. Ask the student to complain to me directly. To my memory not one student has ever said that about me.
Quote
Rama Vasistha
>
> > I know I haven’t broken
> > the law.
>
> Stealing money is generally against the law, as is
> sending unwanted nude photos of yourself,
> particularly to vulnerable people. Maybe Northern
> Ireland has strange laws, but generally that's the
> law in most places.
No money has been stole. In fact, as I wrote before, I spoke to police about one loan, and they did give me advice.
Anyhow, I see it's now sending photos to vulnerable people. I don't know who you could be alluding do. I'm thinking you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Why haven't you done something about this? It's been left to me to contact the police. I kept the screenshots of the online report. What I did was tell the local police everything what's been said about me online. I spoke candidly to them. They rang me back four times that day. And took email details of someone I was complaining about.
The police contacted me a couple of Fridays ago by telephone. They've had weeks to look into what I was meant to have done and they weren't interested in this idea of me sending unsolicited photos. They only asked me was I still being harassed. I told them things have quietened down, at that point. And that was that also. I had asked them to check Facebook servers initially, to prove what I'm saying. I can only say, that the police dont' want to speak to me.
So we have one student of mine who began flaming me. He is ignoring the permission I have to teach right from the top, even though he still is in contact with other teachers in my lineage. He said he was going to the police about me. James Swarts said he was going to the police about me. And I actually went to the police and told them everything that was being said about me. Yet, im still here. Nothing has happened to me on Facebook or Youtube. I'm sorry, im pretty sure that between the three of us, if I was guilty of something the police would have done something.
You people are only interested in trolling.
Quote
Rama Vasistha
>
> > Swartz did
> > tell me that he is reporting me to Facebook,
> > Youtube, etc, and to the police. Though nothing
> > has happened to me.
>
> Be thankful that James doesn't waste too much time
> on you. Then again, maybe it would be good for
> you if he did.
The truth is, that the only effect all of this has had on me was extremely positive.
Quote
Rama Vasistha
>
>
> > I want to share something else. It’s that it’s
> > been claimed that a Swami has likened me to a
> > demon. I find that very hard to believe that
> any
> > Swami would say that about a person and their
> > karma. To even write that shows a severe lack
> of
> > understanding of karma. It isn't the
> traditional
> > view of Vedanta (of a teachers' perspective) to
> > say this about someone. Especially if only one
> > side of facts would be known. Even if both
> side’s
> > were known Swami generally would not see it
> such
> > one sided. This is because Vedanta offers
> constant
> > contentment, that only comes about by Samatvam,
> > equal vision. The free person is free to go
> into
> > an event, and also free to just as quickly go
> out
> > of it.
>
> And yet a swami said that. Hm...
Oh, did he now? That's strange, as 'demons' isn't really an accurate way to term, if one is in Vedanta.
Private message me the Swami's name and I shall contact him directly to speak to him about this. Thank you.
Quote
Rama Vasistha
>
>
> > the ancient Rishis were
> > sometimes quite bad people. They would do
> things,
> > and then apologise after.
>
> I can see how that appeals to you.
And what would you know about it? Do you understand Vedanta at all? You're so blinded by your ego here, you can't see it when Vedanta is being shown to you. Here's another, do you know the contrast between Lord Rama & Lord Krishna? Go find out for yourself what this means.
Quote
Rama Vasistha
>
>
> > Though a valid
> > teacher will have the clear ability to admit
> when
> > a mistake is made.
>
> By this definition, you are not a valid teacher.
My lineage says a person is free to not recognise me as a teacher if they want. Yet I am a teacher in my lineage nonetheless. You don't validate me as a teacher, no matter what your ego thinks. Again, do you not understand how Vedanta works? You've no actual valid authority in saying this. It's a fool saying it.
Quote
Rama Vasistha
>
> > In fact, the Vedanta teacher isn’t really meant
> to
> > get involved with someone’s personal life
>
> "isn't really", but sometimes it's OK to make
> sexual advances on them?
You tell me. Your master, James Swartz, has been making advances to his student, Isabella, for years.
Re: James Swartz—What is the Truth?
Posted by:
Rama Vasistha
()
Date: December 14, 2020 03:11PM
(Sections with ">" are written by "earthquake"/Rob Harrison)
> It's really appreciated that you've bumped this
> topic up to the top again. Everytime you people
> come on here with your foolish posts you bring
> this topic to the forum's top, and also help to
> perpetuate the search engine saturation.
Yes, it's appreciated by me too. It's interesting that you call my posts "foolish". I guess if pointing out lies is "foolish", then I have been foolish. However, what does concern me though is how many more people you will scam.
>
>
> What are earth are you asking this for, are you
> deranged?
No, I'm not deranged. Are you trying to gaslight me like you have with other people? (To gaslight means to manipulate (someone) by psychological means into doubting their own sanity. You were going on about how a teacher should act. I question your actions as a teacher. It's as simple as that.
> Once again, you don't know what you're talking
> about in regard to Vedanta. It's the Shiningworld
> position that a person doesn't change Gurus. They
> teach that to try to hold onto people. However, in
> actual Vedanta it is not only normal it is
> encouraged to have different guru's.
I did NOT say there was anything wrong with having several gurus. I was simply pointing out that when you talk about your guru, people don't know who you are talking about. We don't know your latest guru, and your past gurus have denounced you.
> It's not appropriate for you to use specific
> Swami's names to try to cause issues.
You claim to like facts. I gave facts. If I just wrote "some guru" then how could anyone verify anything? I haven't said anything negative about those swamis.
> Don't be so silly. Even jnani would very rarely
> claim to be jnani.
I never said otherwise.
> You need to really be taught
> properly.
"Properly" would mean not by you, a criminal who steals money and makes sexual advances on his students.
> All you need to know is that i've been told in
> writing numerous times I can teach unsupervised.
Wow. Good for you.
> it's clear you don't even have a fundamental
> understanding of Vedanta.
Sorry, but you're not one to judge, Robert.
> You simply do not know better than my
> lineage.
I never said I did. Again, you're putting words in my mouth.
> I know that every time I
> post here myself, the view counts goes into triple
> figures alone. Not to mind any other notable
> posting here.
You're really obsessed with attention. You're also very quick at finding anything that anyone dare say negative about you.
> Do you not understand that members here and other
> viewing this topic are critical thinkers? That
> Swartz has outed himself, and keeps doing so, to
> show how nasty and materialistic he is. They've
> been trying to gaslight me, that is all.
I don't think you understand the definition of "gaslight", or think it magically doesn't apply to yourself, just others. I posted the definition above. I would hope that there are critical thinkers here. The more critical, the better.
> Okay, first it was my 'schlong' as was published
> in Shiningworld, now it's my bare ass. Anything
> else? As this is the first time (to my mind) the
> bare ass thing has been said.
You're playing with words. You have posted naked photos of yourself to "your students". This is an established fact. You are fond of all of your screenshots that you think will save you from disgrace, but what if other people showed screenshots of the things you've sent to them? I don't think you would like that very much.
> I haven't sent student photos of my ass, or of
> anything else to students.
You're lying, Robert/Rob/Dwayne/Earthquake/Whatever name you like to use.
> Ask the student to
> complain to me directly. To my memory not one
> student has ever said that about me.
Again, that's a lie. I also find it interesting that you ask students to complain to you directly (they have), yet you think that when someone has a major allegation against someone, it's OK if they don't complain directly to them.
> No money has been stole. In fact, as I wrote
> before, I spoke to police about one loan, and they
> did give me advice.
Why would the police be talking to you about a loan? I don't know if you're just trying to fool others, or if you're in denial, but you have "borrowed" money from several people (including your students) over the past couple of years that you said you would pay back, but never did.
> Anyhow, I see it's now sending photos to
> vulnerable people. I don't know who you could be
> alluding do. I'm thinking you don't have a clue
> what you're talking about.
I think you know what you've sent (or were you inebriated at the time?). Anyway, people have raised these issues with you. Don't pretend otherwise.
> You people are only interested in trolling.
My biggest concern is saving others from your manipulation, and making sure they aren't misled regarding Vedanta.
> The truth is, that the only effect all of this
> s has had on me was extremely positive.
Good. That's what it's all about.
> Oh, did he now? That's strange, as 'demons' isn't
> really an accurate way to term, if one is in
> Vedanta.
>
> Private message me the Swami's name and I shall
> contact him directly to speak to him about this.
> Thank you.
I thought you said it was best to keep specific swamis out of this?
> And what would you know about it? Do you
> understand Vedanta at all? You're so blinded by
> your ego here, you can't see it when Vedanta is
> being shown to you.
Is that how a Vedanta teacher speaks? I know you like to brag about your Vedanta knowledge sometimes, but that's a little unbecoming.
> My lineage says a person is free to not recognise
> me as a teacher if they want. Yet I am a teacher
> in my lineage nonetheless. You don't validate me
> as a teacher, no matter what your ego thinks.
> Again, do you not understand how Vedanta works?
> You've no actual valid authority in saying this.
> It's a fool saying it.
It doesn't take a fool to point out lies.
> You tell me. Your master, James Swartz, has been
> making advances to his student, Isabella, for
> years.
Good for him. Now they're married. What's your point? I'm pretty sure he wasn't willing to disrupt his teaching every couple of months for the latest woman he was trying to get involved with and move to a different continent for. I'm pretty sure he wasn't sending nude photos of himself to her, particularly if she wasn't interested. James is happily married, but you're just always on the lookout for a woman, unless you've magically changed your ways in the past few months.
Anyway, I hope more people with critical thinking skills come here to read these exchanges.
> It's really appreciated that you've bumped this
> topic up to the top again. Everytime you people
> come on here with your foolish posts you bring
> this topic to the forum's top, and also help to
> perpetuate the search engine saturation.
Yes, it's appreciated by me too. It's interesting that you call my posts "foolish". I guess if pointing out lies is "foolish", then I have been foolish. However, what does concern me though is how many more people you will scam.
>
>Quote
Rama Vasistha
> >
> > Where in the Upanishads or any other Vedanta
> > scripture does it mention sending nude photos
> of
> > yourself to students as part of the teaching
> > methodology?
>
> What are earth are you asking this for, are you
> deranged?
No, I'm not deranged. Are you trying to gaslight me like you have with other people? (To gaslight means to manipulate (someone) by psychological means into doubting their own sanity. You were going on about how a teacher should act. I question your actions as a teacher. It's as simple as that.
> Once again, you don't know what you're talking
> about in regard to Vedanta. It's the Shiningworld
> position that a person doesn't change Gurus. They
> teach that to try to hold onto people. However, in
> actual Vedanta it is not only normal it is
> encouraged to have different guru's.
I did NOT say there was anything wrong with having several gurus. I was simply pointing out that when you talk about your guru, people don't know who you are talking about. We don't know your latest guru, and your past gurus have denounced you.
> It's not appropriate for you to use specific
> Swami's names to try to cause issues.
You claim to like facts. I gave facts. If I just wrote "some guru" then how could anyone verify anything? I haven't said anything negative about those swamis.
> Don't be so silly. Even jnani would very rarely
> claim to be jnani.
I never said otherwise.
> You need to really be taught
> properly.
"Properly" would mean not by you, a criminal who steals money and makes sexual advances on his students.
> All you need to know is that i've been told in
> writing numerous times I can teach unsupervised.
Wow. Good for you.
> it's clear you don't even have a fundamental
> understanding of Vedanta.
Sorry, but you're not one to judge, Robert.
> You simply do not know better than my
> lineage.
I never said I did. Again, you're putting words in my mouth.
> I know that every time I
> post here myself, the view counts goes into triple
> figures alone. Not to mind any other notable
> posting here.
You're really obsessed with attention. You're also very quick at finding anything that anyone dare say negative about you.
> Do you not understand that members here and other
> viewing this topic are critical thinkers? That
> Swartz has outed himself, and keeps doing so, to
> show how nasty and materialistic he is. They've
> been trying to gaslight me, that is all.
I don't think you understand the definition of "gaslight", or think it magically doesn't apply to yourself, just others. I posted the definition above. I would hope that there are critical thinkers here. The more critical, the better.
> Okay, first it was my 'schlong' as was published
> in Shiningworld, now it's my bare ass. Anything
> else? As this is the first time (to my mind) the
> bare ass thing has been said.
You're playing with words. You have posted naked photos of yourself to "your students". This is an established fact. You are fond of all of your screenshots that you think will save you from disgrace, but what if other people showed screenshots of the things you've sent to them? I don't think you would like that very much.
> I haven't sent student photos of my ass, or of
> anything else to students.
You're lying, Robert/Rob/Dwayne/Earthquake/Whatever name you like to use.
> Ask the student to
> complain to me directly. To my memory not one
> student has ever said that about me.
Again, that's a lie. I also find it interesting that you ask students to complain to you directly (they have), yet you think that when someone has a major allegation against someone, it's OK if they don't complain directly to them.
> No money has been stole. In fact, as I wrote
> before, I spoke to police about one loan, and they
> did give me advice.
Why would the police be talking to you about a loan? I don't know if you're just trying to fool others, or if you're in denial, but you have "borrowed" money from several people (including your students) over the past couple of years that you said you would pay back, but never did.
> Anyhow, I see it's now sending photos to
> vulnerable people. I don't know who you could be
> alluding do. I'm thinking you don't have a clue
> what you're talking about.
I think you know what you've sent (or were you inebriated at the time?). Anyway, people have raised these issues with you. Don't pretend otherwise.
> You people are only interested in trolling.
My biggest concern is saving others from your manipulation, and making sure they aren't misled regarding Vedanta.
> The truth is, that the only effect all of this
> s has had on me was extremely positive.
Good. That's what it's all about.
> Oh, did he now? That's strange, as 'demons' isn't
> really an accurate way to term, if one is in
> Vedanta.
>
> Private message me the Swami's name and I shall
> contact him directly to speak to him about this.
> Thank you.
I thought you said it was best to keep specific swamis out of this?
> And what would you know about it? Do you
> understand Vedanta at all? You're so blinded by
> your ego here, you can't see it when Vedanta is
> being shown to you.
Is that how a Vedanta teacher speaks? I know you like to brag about your Vedanta knowledge sometimes, but that's a little unbecoming.
> My lineage says a person is free to not recognise
> me as a teacher if they want. Yet I am a teacher
> in my lineage nonetheless. You don't validate me
> as a teacher, no matter what your ego thinks.
> Again, do you not understand how Vedanta works?
> You've no actual valid authority in saying this.
> It's a fool saying it.
It doesn't take a fool to point out lies.
> You tell me. Your master, James Swartz, has been
> making advances to his student, Isabella, for
> years.
Good for him. Now they're married. What's your point? I'm pretty sure he wasn't willing to disrupt his teaching every couple of months for the latest woman he was trying to get involved with and move to a different continent for. I'm pretty sure he wasn't sending nude photos of himself to her, particularly if she wasn't interested. James is happily married, but you're just always on the lookout for a woman, unless you've magically changed your ways in the past few months.
Anyway, I hope more people with critical thinking skills come here to read these exchanges.
Re: James Swartz—What is the Truth?
Posted by:
earthquake
()
Date: December 14, 2020 04:27PM
Quote
Rama Vasistha
>
>
>
> > Once again, you don't know what you're talking
> > about in regard to Vedanta. It's the
> Shiningworld
> > position that a person doesn't change Gurus.
> They
> > teach that to try to hold onto people. However,
> in
> > actual Vedanta it is not only normal it is
> > encouraged to have different guru's.
>
> I did NOT say there was anything wrong with having
> several gurus. I was simply pointing out that
> when you talk about your guru, people don't know
> who you are talking about. We don't know your
> latest guru, and your past gurus have denounced
> you.
What you actually opened the comment with is: 'Your Guru's keep changing'. To which i'm showing you, so what....
The lineage is common knowledge, and you know I'm on Facebook, why don't you simply use your intellect? And, besides a difference of opinion with one previous Swami at the start, three other Swami have subsequently gave me permission in writing. So, you've just told a lie. And I can prove it in email screenshot.
You fail again.
Quote
Rama Vasistha
>
>
> > It's not appropriate for you to use specific
> > Swami's names to try to cause issues.
>
> You claim to like facts. I gave facts. If I just
> wrote "some guru" then how could anyone verify
> anything? I haven't said anything negative about
> those swamis.
You're not to publicly speak about Swami in such a thing as this, as they are not involved in anything here.
In regards to verifying anything, what needs to be verified? I'm publishing video material using my lineages name on social media, and youtube. I'm publishing video material in which I am alongside Swami in the lineage. And i'm publishing material in which Swami are identifying their classes as being with my platforms.
Also, unless we're in the twilight zone, you'll see that I've already replied in context on here about assertions I am using a lineage's name falsely on Facebook. And, that i've responded by saying that i've permission from the very top in India.
All this information has been shared for sooo long now. The answers are evident.
You go do the detective work in all that, Sherlock.
You fail again.
>
Quote
Rama Vasistha
>
> > Don't be so silly. Even jnani would very rarely
> > claim to be jnani.
>
> I never said otherwise.
>
> > You need to really be taught
> > properly.
>
> "Properly" would mean not by you, a criminal who
> steals money and makes sexual advances on his
> students.
Again, what students? I've not been made aware of one thing a student has said about me in that regard.
Quote
Rama Vasistha
>
>
> > it's clear you don't even have a fundamental
> > understanding of Vedanta.
>
> Sorry, but you're not one to judge, Robert.
Again, you're wrong. A teacher in the lineage is able to say. It's not about judgement, it's about observation when Vedanta is spoke about.
Quote
Rama Vasistha
>
>
> > You simply do not know better than my
> > lineage.
>
> I never said I did. Again, you're putting words
> in my mouth.
Maybe rein your ego in some then. Since the lineage know what they're doing, the fact I've permission to teach settles it.
Quote
Rama Vasistha
>
>
> > I know that every time I
> > post here myself, the view counts goes into
> triple
> > figures alone. Not to mind any other notable
> > posting here.
>
> You're really obsessed with attention. You're
> also very quick at finding anything that anyone
> dare say negative about you.
That's rich. I teach quietly, and keep a very small student base. My social media platforms are also very small. In fact, after talks with my lineage over the weekend, I took out over 500 members in one platform. Hardly a sign of someone wanting attention.
Quote
Rama Vasistha
>
> > Okay, first it was my 'schlong' as was
> published
> > in Shiningworld, now it's my bare ass. Anything
> > else? As this is the first time (to my mind)
> the
> > bare ass thing has been said.
>
> You're playing with words. You have posted naked
> photos of yourself to "your students". This is an
> established fact. You are fond of all of your
> screenshots that you think will save you from
> disgrace, but what if other people showed
> screenshots of the things you've sent to them? I
> don't think you would like that very much.
No, its not a play on words, you beginning to include things that are new. This is important to highlight, and not simply gloss over. I've said repeatedly, that i've never sent naked photos to any student.
Quote
Rama Vasistha
>
> > I haven't sent student photos of my ass, or of
> > anything else to students.
>
> You're lying,
> Robert/Rob/Dwayne/Earthquake/Whatever name you
> like to use.
Well I've went to the police about this matter. A guilty person wouldn't of done that. I can prove I did. What have you done? Besides anonymously trolling?
Quote
Rama Vasistha
>
> > Ask the student to
> > complain to me directly. To my memory not one
> > student has ever said that about me.
>
> Again, that's a lie. I also find it interesting
> that you ask students to complain to you directly
> (they have), yet you think that when someone has a
> major allegation against someone, it's OK if they
> don't complain directly to them.
Again, no student has complained to me directly about this.
I myself complained directly to someone who said something about me, and this person was never my student. So the whole premise of what you have been all saying has foundations in lies and hyperbole.
My online report to the police was about what this person had said, and Shiningworld, etc were added to the report. The personrefused to go to the police themselves. It is this report about this person, that i've kept.
I think at the least I should have been reported to Facebook. I'm asking that myself and my groups be reported to Facebook. The police is better, but I would settle for screenshots showing that I was reported on Facebook. And let it take it's course.
Quote
Rama Vasistha
>
> > No money has been stole. In fact, as I wrote
> > before, I spoke to police about one loan, and
> they
> > did give me advice.
>
> Why would the police be talking to you about a
> loan? I don't know if you're just trying to fool
> others, or if you're in denial, but you have
> "borrowed" money from several people (including
> your students) over the past couple of years that
> you said you would pay back, but never did.
The police have been talking to me because of what I just wrote above. Have you not been reading what's been said? This has been explained in depth here. I explained the full situation of what has been said about me. You understand what 'full situation' means?
Borrowing money is not stealing. It is stealing if there is no intention to pay back. But like I wrote here two months ago, I lost my job and have been relying on locals for help. This is as recent as last week. I can screenshot two months of interactions of me asking for local help also. So there is no stealing. This was agreed by the policeman I spoke to.
you fail again. You're beginning to be nonsensical.
Quote
Rama Vasistha
>
> > You people are only interested in trolling.
>
> My biggest concern is saving others from your
> manipulation, and making sure they aren't misled
> regarding Vedanta.
You see, there you go again. My role as a Vedanta teacher has got nothing to do with you. Since my own lineage says I can teach, there will be no-one being 'misled'. If I am permitted to teach in the lineage, there is no concerns. I am qualified to teach in my lineage, because i've permission. That is that.
The only concerns is you implying you know better, in your trolling.
Quote
Rama Vasistha
>
> > Oh, did he now? That's strange, as 'demons'
> isn't
> > really an accurate way to term, if one is in
> > Vedanta.
> >
> > Private message me the Swami's name and I shall
> > contact him directly to speak to him about
> this.
> > Thank you.
>
> I thought you said it was best to keep specific
> swamis out of this?
It's not 'best' it's a necessity, and I said to not publicly name drop them here.
If you are telling the truth just private message me the Swami's name, I shall take it from there. If you can publicly name them, you can certainly do it in private. Don't try to wriggle out of it, you'll just show you're lieing again.
>
Quote
Rama Vasistha
> > And what would you know about it? Do you
> > understand Vedanta at all? You're so blinded by
> > your ego here, you can't see it when Vedanta is
> > being shown to you.
>
> Is that how a Vedanta teacher speaks? I know you
> like to brag about your Vedanta knowledge
> sometimes, but that's a little unbecoming.
Yes, a teacher is free to speak as they want, in context. There are many respected teachers that are on record for saying much more direct in regard to speaking about Vedanta under certain context. Nice try.
Quote
Rama Vasistha
>
> > You tell me. Your master, James Swartz, has
> been
> > making advances to his student, Isabella, for
> > years.
>
> Good for him. Now they're married. What's your
> point?
Context is the point. Context is the answer to your original question, slick. So, go back and see how context is the answer. ;)
Re: James Swartz—What is the Truth?
Posted by:
Dis-illusioned
()
Date: December 14, 2020 07:55PM
This Rama Vasistha person sounds to be James himself.
I can’t think of one other person who would take this up, or have this much interest in the whole drama.
Why disguise who one is, in this way, I wonder (by speaking in the third person.)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2020 08:07PM by Dis-illusioned.
I can’t think of one other person who would take this up, or have this much interest in the whole drama.
Why disguise who one is, in this way, I wonder (by speaking in the third person.)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2020 08:07PM by Dis-illusioned.
Re: James Swartz—What is the Truth?
Posted by:
Traveler99
()
Date: December 15, 2020 07:03AM
from your manipulation,
and making sure they aren't misled regarding Vedanta."
This quote---
It was Heather about James Swartz,
wasn't it?"
The words above were almost exactly what Heather said about the false teacher, and, according to her, drugging rapist of at least one underage girl, James Swartz.
It is almost the height of irony that James Swartz himself, writing as Rama Vasistha (yes, Dis-Illusioned is certainly correct in the post above), would pretend to echo Heather's words about James Swartz himself by aiming them at another (at Earthquake).
Note--the allusions in this post refer to the posts directly above between Earthquake (EQ) and James Swartz writing as Rama Vasistha (RV), about which Dis-Illusioned has already commented.
Swartz, as RV, writes to EQ that Swartz and his wife have "actually publicly stated that they want to help you."
(as was shown in his correspondence quoted in "Guru? The Story of Heather").
His warmth and gentle understanding were truly touching.
Except, well, in the same messages he promised to take me to court for libel and slander and gave grim hints about what his people would do to me if and when they found out who I really was. (Now, after the publication of the "Heather" book, written by a friend of mine with my 100% cooperation, and the years of this forum, which I started, I doubt his loving friendship is available any longer. Especially with over 45,000 views and 527 posts, and growing, on this forum, somehow I think that perhaps his warm feelings for me are fully gone... On this matter, one friend said, "Swartz is scared to death of Heather, but Trav, he really hates your guts." I would add that EQ is now somewhere on this "Feared and Despised by Swartz" continuum, also.)
Also while attacking EQ in the posts above the disguised Swartz as RV brings up the matter of "how many gurus."
How many? You move forward until you find the correct one. That's how it's always been. A good guru can tell if a person is "right" for him or her or not. Some have been known to say, "That's not a question for me. You should be with (that teacher), not me," and to in a positive way to send the person onward. (For that matter, many of the great gurus of India attended the satsang of many teachers before finding the "final" one, and Buddha himself deliberately sought out every great master of his era in his quest to find the full Truth. Does Squirts say these persons were wrong to do so?)
Swartz, of course, only wants people to have "one teacher," and for that one to be him. Teach your students its not properly spiritual to change teachers, and they're more likely to stick around, right?
As to the allusions to "Gaslighting" above, even a cursory reading of the Heather book and of this Forum will reveal Swartz to be an All-Star Member of the League of Gaslighters. For him to accuse EQ of gaslighting is like Trump accusing Obama of having golfed too often. Really...???
Similarly, for Swartz as RV in these posts to accuse EQ of sexual impropriety... Good gods, who has been worse than Swartz? Jeffrey Epstein, yes. Donald Trump, in some ways, except he didn't drug underage girls to get them into bed. Bill Cosby? Drugs yes, and more in number, apparently, but at least they weren't underage. Weinstein?
Even if every thing Swartz/ RV has written trying to demean EQ is true (which is highly questionable, as if anything that can be twisted, distorted, or exaggerated Swartz will do it)... As I was saying, even if all Swartz/ RV says about EQ is factual, EQ still comes out hugely above Swartz.
EQ honestly faces each accusation. Even if he did send questionable pix, who would not prefer that to being drugged and raped?
EQ, maybe, admitted with these pix, "Hey, I'm a lustful guy and I find you attractive." Swartz, according to Heather, pretended to be her guru and substitute dad and she ended up drugged, raped, and brainwashed.
Who wouldn't choose the honestly horny man over the lying, drugging pedophiliac rapist?
In concluding this post, there is also a reference in the recent EQ/RV posts about "Rishis apologize." Yes, if EQ did mess up, I'm sure he would admit it and apologize, as did the Rishis in olden times who had behaved inappropriately. In comparison, Swartz, especially regarding Heather (and even after virtually confessing), has never apologized, and doubtless never will.
I'm not saying EQ is a Rishi, but he's closer to being one than Janes Swartz ever has been, and ever likely will be.
Re: James Swartz—What is the Truth?
Posted by:
Dis-illusioned
()
Date: December 15, 2020 07:45AM
Traveler99 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>"My biggest concern is
> saving others
> from your manipulation,
> and making sure they aren't misled regarding
> Vedanta."
>
> This quote---
> It was Heather about James Swartz,
> wasn't it?"
>
> The words above were almost exactly what Heather
> said about the false teacher, and, according to
> her, drugging rapist of at least one underage
> girl, James Swartz.
>
> It is almost the height of irony that James Swartz
> himself, writing as Rama Vasistha (yes,
> Dis-Illusioned is certainly correct in the post
> above), would pretend to echo Heather's words
> about James Swartz himself by aiming them at
> another (at Earthquake).
>
> Note--the allusions in this post refer to the
> posts directly above between Earthquake (EQ) and
> James Swartz writing as Rama Vasistha (RV), about
> which Dis-Illusioned has already commented.
>
> Swartz, as RV, writes to EQ that Swartz and his
> wife have "actually publicly stated that they
> want to help you."
>
>Hey, EQ. That offer is worth a ton.
> Really. For sure. Good as gold.
>I know well, because James Swartz made
> similar offers to me a few times
> (as was shown in his correspondence quoted in
> "Guru? The Story of
> Heather").
>Swartz told me he loved me, he wanted to
> help me, and that he wanted to be my
> friend.
> His warmth and gentle understanding were truly
> touching.
> Except, well, in the same messages he promised to
> take me to court for libel and slander and gave
> grim hints about what his people would do to me if
> and when they found out who I really was. (Now,
> after the publication of the "Heather" book,
> written by a friend of mine with my 100%
> cooperation, and the years of this forum, which I
> started, I doubt his loving friendship is
> available any longer. Especially with over 45,000
> views and 527 posts, and growing, on this forum,
> somehow I think that perhaps his warm feelings for
> me are fully gone... On this matter, one friend
> said, "Swartz is scared to death of Heather, but
> Trav, he really hates your guts." I would add that
> EQ is now somewhere on this "Feared and Despised
> by Swartz" continuum, also.)
>
> Also while attacking EQ in the posts above the
> disguised Swartz as RV brings up the matter of
> "how many gurus."
>
> How many? You move forward until you find the
> correct one. That's how it's always been. A good
> guru can tell if a person is "right" for him or
> her or not. Some have been known to say, "That's
> not a question for me. You should be with (that
> teacher), not me," and to in a positive way to
> send the person onward. (For that matter, many of
> the great gurus of India attended the satsang of
> many teachers before finding the "final" one, and
> Buddha himself deliberately sought out every great
> master of his era in his quest to find the full
> Truth. Does Squirts say these persons were wrong
> to do so?)
>
> Swartz, of course, only wants people to have "one
> teacher," and for that one to be him. Teach your
> students its not properly spiritual to change
> teachers, and they're more likely to stick around,
> right?
>
> As to the allusions to "Gaslighting" above, even a
> cursory reading of the Heather book and of
> this Forum will reveal Swartz to be an All-Star
> Member of the League of Gaslighters. For him to
> accuse EQ of gaslighting is like Trump accusing
> Obama of having golfed too often. Really...???
>
> Similarly, for Swartz as RV in these posts to
> accuse EQ of sexual impropriety... Good gods, who
> has been worse than Swartz? Jeffrey Epstein, yes.
> Donald Trump, in some ways, except he didn't drug
> underage girls to get them into bed. Bill Cosby?
> Drugs yes, and more in number, apparently, but at
> least they weren't underage. Weinstein?
>
> Even if every thing Swartz/ RV has written trying
> to demean EQ is true (which is highly
> questionable, as if anything that can be twisted,
> distorted, or exaggerated Swartz will do it)...
> As I was saying, even if all Swartz/ RV says about
> EQ is factual, EQ still comes out hugely above
> Swartz.
>
> EQ honestly faces each accusation. Even if he did
> send questionable pix, who would not prefer that
> to being drugged and raped?
> EQ, maybe, admitted with these pix, "Hey, I'm a
> lustful guy and I find you attractive." Swartz,
> according to Heather, pretended to be her guru and
> substitute dad and she ended up drugged, raped,
> and brainwashed.
>
> Who wouldn't choose the honestly horny man over
> the lying, drugging pedophiliac rapist?
>
> In concluding this post, there is also a reference
> in the recent EQ/RV posts about "Rishis
> apologize." Yes, if EQ did mess up, I'm sure
> he would admit it and apologize, as did the Rishis
> in olden times who had behaved inappropriately. In
> comparison, Swartz, especially regarding Heather
> (and even after virtually confessing), has never
> apologized, and doubtless never will.
>
> I'm not saying EQ is a Rishi, but he's closer to
> being one than Janes Swartz ever has been, and
> ever likely will be.
Touché!!!!!
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> saving others
> from your manipulation,
> and making sure they aren't misled regarding
> Vedanta."
>
> This quote---
> It was Heather about James Swartz,
> wasn't it?"
>
> The words above were almost exactly what Heather
> said about the false teacher, and, according to
> her, drugging rapist of at least one underage
> girl, James Swartz.
>
> It is almost the height of irony that James Swartz
> himself, writing as Rama Vasistha (yes,
> Dis-Illusioned is certainly correct in the post
> above), would pretend to echo Heather's words
> about James Swartz himself by aiming them at
> another (at Earthquake).
>
> Note--the allusions in this post refer to the
> posts directly above between Earthquake (EQ) and
> James Swartz writing as Rama Vasistha (RV), about
> which Dis-Illusioned has already commented.
>
> Swartz, as RV, writes to EQ that Swartz and his
> wife have "actually publicly stated that they
> want to help you."
>
>
> Really. For sure. Good as gold.
>
> similar offers to me a few times
> (as was shown in his correspondence quoted in
> "Guru? The Story of
> Heather").
>
> help me, and that he wanted to be my
> friend.
> His warmth and gentle understanding were truly
> touching.
> Except, well, in the same messages he promised to
> take me to court for libel and slander and gave
> grim hints about what his people would do to me if
> and when they found out who I really was. (Now,
> after the publication of the "Heather" book,
> written by a friend of mine with my 100%
> cooperation, and the years of this forum, which I
> started, I doubt his loving friendship is
> available any longer. Especially with over 45,000
> views and 527 posts, and growing, on this forum,
> somehow I think that perhaps his warm feelings for
> me are fully gone... On this matter, one friend
> said, "Swartz is scared to death of Heather, but
> Trav, he really hates your guts." I would add that
> EQ is now somewhere on this "Feared and Despised
> by Swartz" continuum, also.)
>
> Also while attacking EQ in the posts above the
> disguised Swartz as RV brings up the matter of
> "how many gurus."
>
> How many? You move forward until you find the
> correct one. That's how it's always been. A good
> guru can tell if a person is "right" for him or
> her or not. Some have been known to say, "That's
> not a question for me. You should be with (that
> teacher), not me," and to in a positive way to
> send the person onward. (For that matter, many of
> the great gurus of India attended the satsang of
> many teachers before finding the "final" one, and
> Buddha himself deliberately sought out every great
> master of his era in his quest to find the full
> Truth. Does Squirts say these persons were wrong
> to do so?)
>
> Swartz, of course, only wants people to have "one
> teacher," and for that one to be him. Teach your
> students its not properly spiritual to change
> teachers, and they're more likely to stick around,
> right?
>
> As to the allusions to "Gaslighting" above, even a
> cursory reading of the Heather book and of
> this Forum will reveal Swartz to be an All-Star
> Member of the League of Gaslighters. For him to
> accuse EQ of gaslighting is like Trump accusing
> Obama of having golfed too often. Really...???
>
> Similarly, for Swartz as RV in these posts to
> accuse EQ of sexual impropriety... Good gods, who
> has been worse than Swartz? Jeffrey Epstein, yes.
> Donald Trump, in some ways, except he didn't drug
> underage girls to get them into bed. Bill Cosby?
> Drugs yes, and more in number, apparently, but at
> least they weren't underage. Weinstein?
>
> Even if every thing Swartz/ RV has written trying
> to demean EQ is true (which is highly
> questionable, as if anything that can be twisted,
> distorted, or exaggerated Swartz will do it)...
> As I was saying, even if all Swartz/ RV says about
> EQ is factual, EQ still comes out hugely above
> Swartz.
>
> EQ honestly faces each accusation. Even if he did
> send questionable pix, who would not prefer that
> to being drugged and raped?
> EQ, maybe, admitted with these pix, "Hey, I'm a
> lustful guy and I find you attractive." Swartz,
> according to Heather, pretended to be her guru and
> substitute dad and she ended up drugged, raped,
> and brainwashed.
>
> Who wouldn't choose the honestly horny man over
> the lying, drugging pedophiliac rapist?
>
> In concluding this post, there is also a reference
> in the recent EQ/RV posts about "Rishis
> apologize." Yes, if EQ did mess up, I'm sure
> he would admit it and apologize, as did the Rishis
> in olden times who had behaved inappropriately. In
> comparison, Swartz, especially regarding Heather
> (and even after virtually confessing), has never
> apologized, and doubtless never will.
>
> I'm not saying EQ is a Rishi, but he's closer to
> being one than Janes Swartz ever has been, and
> ever likely will be.
Touché!!!!!
Re: James Swartz—What is the Truth?
Posted by:
earthquake
()
Date: December 15, 2020 05:35PM
I think its time to stop talking shit. I said I reported these matters to the police and I can prove it. You people are not willing to go to any authorities whatsoever. I can prove I've went to the police, and noone is bothering their ass to even ask for the proof I claim to have. Frankly you are all silly.
I've said publicly lies have been told about me, and I can prove it. Yet noone has even contacted me for my verbatim proof. Yes you are idiots. You are. Why on earth are you not contacting me about my police reports and everything else?
Did you read that? I offer proof to all you trolls and not one person cares to see it. Why have none of you took up my offer of proof to scrutinise it?
Why are you not private messaging me who the so called Swami who said that about me also? You keep taking hot air.
Time and time again you are.showing you are all idiots.
I'm being clear and precise. I have not sent any unsolicited nude photos to a student. So go and prove what I have just said is a lie...
Have you even thought for one moment why when I spoke candidly to the police and that it is obvious I am not in trouble?
If I can go to the police I am sure you people can also hurry and do it. Just do it right now. If you are telling the truth do it now. I done it weeks ago, so what is the hold up?
For anyone at all that has an.opinion of this without even contacting me for the evidence I offer you all, well you are assholes. At the very least people should be looking at all the evidence. The reason why this isnt happening is cause there was a written piece said about me that started this that I can right now prove is lies by screenshots. I've read it. And what was said is lies I'm happy to show this line by.line publicly in screenshots. You people have jumped on the bandwagon without due diligence. Factually, what is being said about me is not true. I can prove it I 10 minutes of anyone just bothers to ask me. I've just made a claim so contact me directly and prove me wrong.
I've nothing else to say, this has become surreal.
I've said publicly lies have been told about me, and I can prove it. Yet noone has even contacted me for my verbatim proof. Yes you are idiots. You are. Why on earth are you not contacting me about my police reports and everything else?
Did you read that? I offer proof to all you trolls and not one person cares to see it. Why have none of you took up my offer of proof to scrutinise it?
Why are you not private messaging me who the so called Swami who said that about me also? You keep taking hot air.
Time and time again you are.showing you are all idiots.
I'm being clear and precise. I have not sent any unsolicited nude photos to a student. So go and prove what I have just said is a lie...
Have you even thought for one moment why when I spoke candidly to the police and that it is obvious I am not in trouble?
If I can go to the police I am sure you people can also hurry and do it. Just do it right now. If you are telling the truth do it now. I done it weeks ago, so what is the hold up?
For anyone at all that has an.opinion of this without even contacting me for the evidence I offer you all, well you are assholes. At the very least people should be looking at all the evidence. The reason why this isnt happening is cause there was a written piece said about me that started this that I can right now prove is lies by screenshots. I've read it. And what was said is lies I'm happy to show this line by.line publicly in screenshots. You people have jumped on the bandwagon without due diligence. Factually, what is being said about me is not true. I can prove it I 10 minutes of anyone just bothers to ask me. I've just made a claim so contact me directly and prove me wrong.
I've nothing else to say, this has become surreal.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.