Click here to go to the next issue
Highlights Home Page | Receive the Nonduality Highlights each day
How to submit material to the Highlights
#3748 -
The Nonduality Highlights - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NDhighlights
An Interview with
James Swartz
Conducted by
Paula Marvelly
James Swartz was born in
Q. In your talk at the
Science and Nonduality Conference, you said that the words ‘Advaita’
and ‘Vedanta’ don’t really go together. So could
you define precisely what they mean?
Advaita means nondual. It’s
an adjective that describes consciousness. It is not the name of
a particular
Vedanta means the
knowledge that ends the search for knowledge. This knowledge is
enshrined at the end of each of the four Vedas. Once you have
this knowledge you don’t need to know anything else ever
again. It refers to knowledge of yourself as awareness. It does
not mean that you know every fact in existence.
Vedanta is a pranana
– a means of knowledge. Because knowledge doesn’t
happen on its own, it requires a means. The Self is not going to
be known by the ordinary means that we have – by our senses,
mind and intellect – because they need objects. But the Self
is not available for objectification.
So, the means at our
disposal is unsuitable and therefore Vedanta has evolved. It
removes ignorance about the nature of the Self. It destroys the
beliefs and opinions and ideas that you have about yourself that
stand in the way of appreciating who you truly are.
Q. Ramana Maharshi likens
knowledge to a stick that stirs the funeral pyre and once the
Self is understood, you throw the stick in as well.
Yes, that’s right.
Vedanta is a throw-away. Once the self is known for what it is,
you do not need to know it again. You cannot forget it because
the Self is always present. It is not an object to be remembered,
like an experience. You can forget something that is not present,
but once you know the Self you cannot forget it because it is
you. Try to forget you. It is impossible.
Q. So the apparent self
embarks upon a spiritual journey, uses the knowledge to reach a
point of understanding and then it’s over.
That’s right. The
mantra that people are chanting everyday is, I am small, I am
inadequate, I am incomplete, I am separate. It is a steady drone
in the back of their minds all the time. This is how they think
and this is the point of view from which they are thinking.
Those thoughts need to be
neutralised because they are not in harmony with the nature of
reality. This method of teaching is called pratipaksha bhavana
which means applying the opposite thought. It’s called
enquiry but you are not asking a question like who am I? You are
seeing what kind of thought is in your mind...the thought behind
your thoughts and neutralizing it with the truth. The same
thought is always in the mind - there’s something wrong with
me, I am missing something, something is lacking, I need
something. It is not true. You don’t need anything. Nothing
is missing.
Shankara calls it the
jnanabyasa, which means the application or the practice of
knowledge, and it requires a certain degree of faith. It is why
faith and devotion are qualifications for enlightenment. Even
though I don’t feel that I am whole and complete, I have to
fake it till I make it! I have to pretend that I am what I am. It
sounds ridiculous, but it works.
Q. Assume a virtue if I
have it not …
Yes. I have to assume
that this is true; then I have to operate from that assumption
and see if reality does or doesn’t confirm the truth.
Because when I start thinking like this, when I start seeing
myself in this way, I suddenly see a transformation in my life,
things start to turn around, and I get this confirmation over and
over again from my experiences, from the people around me.
Q. Why is it there this
inherent paradox that only a few embark upon the path to Self
knowledge? It’s ludicrous!
Yes, it is ludicrous from
the point of view of the intellect, but it’s not really a
legitimate question because the one who is asking it is a product
of self ignorance. It’s like flashlight bulb saying, 'I’d
like to know what electricity is, why am I shining, and where is
my light coming from?' It can’t know because it is a gross
transformation of a subtler energy and a gross thing cannot
understand something subtler.
‘How’ ignorance
works, we can say – that is a legitimate question. But there’s
no actual ‘why’ to this because the one who wants the
answer is incapable of understanding that he or she is awareness.
When you see that you are
awareness, the idea of asking ‘why’ doesn’t come
up. ‘How’ is relevant because it is a process we can
describe and indicate. It is subject to analysis and
investigation.
But there’s no
‘why’. It is just the nature of the Absolute.
Q. There’s diversity
in the unity. That’s the paradox.
Yeah, in maya, everything
is a paradox – it’s a zero-sum game. It’s all set
up to frustrate you completely.
Q. In a way, it’s
like very advanced mathematics – the paradox is an exquisite
arrangement.
Absolutely. It’s
totally conscious, it’s total purposeful, it’s
aesthetic and it’s humorous. How can something that doesn’t
have a problem, imagine that it has a problem, create a whole
universe in order to solve its own problem and get out of it
again… Ha!
Q. But it’s the
jivas (individuals) that have the problems because of their
self-ignorance?
There are no jivas apart
from awareness, so awareness under the spell of apparent
ignorance imagines that it has a problem. The ignorance is
apparent and the knowledge is also apparent. The knowledge of
Vedanta is an apparent knowledge because it operates only in maya
and it’s only useful until it’s solved its problem. And
then we throw in the stick, we throw the knowledge away. I don’t
need the knowledge because it has already neutralised the
ignorance.
You are giving the jiva
some kind of independent existence.
Q. But to say that
awareness has a problem to me is like saying Brahman has a
problem. But Brahman doesn’t have a problem because Brahman
just is.
Yes, but if there is a
problem, then only Brahman could have that problem because there
is only Brahman and so what kind of a problem is it? It’s
not a real problem, it’s only an apparent problem.
In other words, the
problem is all mithya (apparent), it is not satya (real).
When Brahman
(consciousness) associates with maya (Ignorance) it seems to
become a jiva, an individual. Pancadashi and other texts are very
clear about this. The jiva, the individual, is Brahman or
consciousness with a gross, subtle and causal body, i.e.,
ignorance. And that’s what makes Brahman seem to be an
individual, when in fact it is not an individual.
This is a linguistic
problem, two different words referring to the same thing. You can’t
have a problem if there is only Brahman. If there is a jiva, it
would have to be Brahman. Jiva would have to be another word for
Brahman. But if jiva is different from Brahman you have a
problem. It contradicts non-duality.
So Vedanta says it is an
apparent problem that belongs to Ignorance and can be removed by
enquiry. If it’s a real problem, then we’ve got a
situation where Brahman who is limitless and jiva who is limited
have the same degree of reality. How would we determine which is
real? When Ignorance enters the picture one thing seems to be two
different things.
Q. This brings me to Neo
Advaita… As I understand it, Neo Advaita says I don’t
exist, all is One, there is no separate self. This is opposed to
traditional Advaita Vedanta teachings that say there is an
apparent self, all is apparent diversity, there is an apparent
separate self. Neo Advaita seems to miss that paradoxical
subtlety. So I just wonder how it is that Neo Advaita is
flourishing so much?
Well, it’s not
exactly opposed because the traditional texts also say that there
is no separate self. But what this means is not understood
properly by this raft of so-called enlightened people who teach
Neo-Advaita. People want an easy path and this seems to be a very
easy way to solve the problem. But it does not solve the problem.
Neo Advaita doesn’t have a way out of the apparent reality
apart from its mindless denials. It has no guru, no teaching, no
teacher – even though these guys are functioning as
teachers, who are disseminating ignorance. There’s no way
you can get from where you are to Brahman. There’s no path
for them.
Vedanta is a complete
path and provisionally accepts you as an individual and then it
gradually, slowly, works you out of the problem of limitation,
showing you as you go along what the Self is, what ignorance is.
Enlightenment in Vedanta
is called atma-anatma viveka and it means discrimination between
the Self and the apparent self.
So, I need to get that
very clear – what the ‘not self’ is and what I can
do in this relative apparent reality to get the kind of mind that’s
capable of appreciating the fact that I am non-dual awareness.
There’s no way the
Neos can get their minds prepared for enlightenment, so they just
have to believe that they don’t exist on the basis of faith.
Q. So Neo Advaita is a
faith?
Yes, it’s pure
religion. These guys are the latest religious snake oil salesmen.
And these people want to believe and belief is easy, until you
start thinking. Once you start thinking, it screws up your
beliefs.
The bloom is off the
Neo-Advaita rose. I am getting a lot of people who realize how
hollow it is and are coming back to the traditional teachings.
Q. So the understanding
that there is only Brahman only comes when the mind is ripe to
understand it. What Neo Advaita teachers are doing is taking
people straight off the street and giving them the final teaching
in a MacDonald’s happy meal, when in fact they’re not
prepared.
Absolutely, instant
enlightenment, yes! ‘I’m not really here, I’m just
playing in the maya, nothing is really real, that’s why I am
robbing you and cheating you and telling you all sorts of
stories!’
In Vedanta, we have a
concept called adhikara which means qualification. The way that
these qualifications were arrived at was by looking at
enlightened people, because all enlightened people basically have
the same kind of nature and qualities in their minds -
discrimination, dispassion, clarity of mind, devotion,
forbearance, and so forth and so on. If you do not have these
qualities, enligtenment will not be within your reach. Once you
have developed them, then you are ready to be taught.
In Vedanta, you don’t
get the teaching until you are qualified. For the people who are
not qualified, who can’t get it, we teach them karma yoga
and bhakti yoga, the three guna yoga, etc., which are subsets of
Vedanta, and we also teach them how to use their minds properly
and how to meditate until their minds become clear.
If you look at the
Bhagavad Gita for example, the chapters up until chapter six are
basically about karma yoga, although in the second chapter the
Self is also presented.
Arjuna doesn’t get
the Self teaching because he’s not qualified; he’s
rajasic, an extrovert. So he needs karma yoga. Once he has
understood karma yoga, he is ready for more, for meditation and
self knowledge.
You cannot just walk in
off the street and 'get it' as they advertise. They call it
satsanga (keeping the company of truth) but it’s all about
the sanga and not about the sat, although they talk a lot about
it. It’s talk about it, it's not the Self talking. It’s
all a feel good thing. They get high on the group energy and
perhaps some herbs. It produces a a lovely kind of intoxicating
feeling, which they imagine is spiritual. It's a nice social
event, you get your long attenuated hugs with the other people
who are there, perhaps you get the phone number of a cute girl or
guy and well, it's so cool…
Q. You said earlier in
your talk today at the SAND Conference that Vedanta is the one
and only system that provides everything you need for knowledge.
What about the mystical paths, for example Sufism, Gnosticism,
the Kabalah – are they just as profound?
I don’t think I
said, ‘only.’ Vedanta is not profound and it’s not
mystical. It’s purely common sense, logic and reason, direct
experience and investigation. The thing about Vedanta is that it
has a complete cosmology, a psychology, there’s a complete
description of the Self, plus there are methods that you can use
to transform your mind to make it meditation-worthy, to make it
qualified for knowledge.
I don’t see that in
other traditions. I see they only have bits and pieces of it
Q. So you’re saying
Vedanta is the complete toolbox for Self-knowledge.
Yes. It’s called
Brahma Vidya, which has several meanings, but one of them is the
science of Brahman.
Q. So it is something
that you can trust.
Absolutely. And it’s
been confirmed over and over again and it’s never changed.
These teachings have never changed and these methods have never
changed. They remain true to the tradition forever because it is
the truth and it works.
Q. Some people, I find,
who are interested in non-duality, even in traditional teachings
themselves, will say that any kind of teaching regarding the
order of the creation, the nature of the mind, is somehow
unimportant; in light of the fact that the apparent knowledge
must be sublated or dissolved or let go in order to understand
that everything is Brahman, what is the point ultimately in
devoting so much time to such knowledge?
It’s true from the
Self’s point of view, from awareness’s point of view,
that there is no creation. It’s called ajatawada,
non-creationism. Everything is the Self and the unborn. Therefore
there is no creation.
But who understands it
that way? Who actually gets that?
But if people who find
themselves here in the creation, as jivas, as individuals with
lives, bodies, minds and problems and want to grow toward that
understanding, they first need to understand their milieu, the
environment in which they find themselves and see how they relate
to it.
And Ishvara or God is a
name for the rules and laws and forces that are operating in the
field and the one who operates these laws. The field of existence
and the knower of the field is consciousness.
Q. The jnani knows that
Brahman is samsara and samsara is Brahman, satyam is mithya and
mithya is satyam.
Right. But this
highlights the problem with Neo Advaita. They intellectually
understand that all is Brahman and yet they dismiss the field of
existence before they even know in what sense it is Brahman. So
they continue to behave exactly like the fools they were before
they they got the knowledge of Brahman. So you’ve got to
ask, what kind of knowledge of Brahman is it?
You know, the proof of
the pudding is in the eating. It’s how you live, it doesn’t
matter what you say. You know whether a desire or a fear is
motivating you. If you know it’s all Brahman, and that you’re
Brahman, you’re not motivated by desires and fears –
you stand apart from them.
The only way you can
really tell with those people is not what they say, but how they
live.
The tradition teaches
what mithya is, and the tradition teaches what satya is. You don’t
need to do anything about it, you just need to know what they
are. Once you are clear about mithya and satya, then you won’t
confuse them. Freedom is knowing which is which. Things will
continue as they always have. The world is not going to suddenly
merge in consciousness never to be seen again. Nor are you going
to end up floating around in some blissful transcendental sky,
free of everything.
Q. What comes to mind is
Shankara’s three statements…
Brahma satyam. Jagan
mithya. Jiva brahmaivah naparah.
Brahman alone is real.
The world is an apparent reality. The individual and awareness
are one. Or, the individual is limitless awareness.
Brahma is the truth,
awareness is what’s real, what is true, what is always here
and always present. Jagat, the world, is apparent. It looks real
– it’s a very convincing dream and Ishvara has created
a really cool dream that easily fools you. You can easily mistake
it for reality, but it is only an apparent reality. You need to
investigate and contemplate the meaning of these words, and then
you can see though it.
Q. And what do you come
to, arrive at? What is the answer to the ultimate question, who
am I?
You arrive at the
understanding that nothing is missing in you. That you are not
lacking in any way, you see?
All this seeking is based
upon the idea that something is missing.
Q. That ache that never
seems to go away?
Exactly. And what you
discover is that ache, that longing, that searching is not valid.
You see that nothing is missing.
As Swami Dayananda says,
you are whole and complete – purna is the word in the Vedas.
And therefore, my getting
and keeping are no longer relevant to me. I am not hanging onto
anything, and I’m not trying to obtain anything. However it
is, is fine with me.
I feel adequate to deal
with whatever is happening because I am awareness and awareness
can handle anything. Nothing can affect me and I know this for
certain. Not because I am a person who knows that I am awareness,
but because I am awareness.
If it’s a person who
knows that they are awareness, that’s a little different
situation. You could call that self realization, or something.
But there is still someone there who has a conviction that they
are awareness.
But at a certain point,
that conviction dissolves into the hard and fast understanding
that I am awareness and then there’s no more discussion
about it at all. And then it’s just I AM.
Q. I know Ramana Maharshi
talks about two very distinct points – there’s an
initial point where there is ‘self realization’ but the
vasanas are still active; then there’s another point where
the vasanas have burnt out and there is only I AM.
Absolutely. And you no
longer assume the point of view of a jiva or an individual. The
tension has gone.
One of the great gods in
And why doesn’t it
have a string on it? Because there’s no tension in it! He’s
totally free of tension and that’s the meaning of that
symbol. The tension is borne of the belief that I am limited and
incomplete and I’m in relationship to this world and I’ve
got to negotiate my way through, avoiding this and gaining that,
which basically wears you out and doesn’t provide you with
any real peace.
How to Attain
Enlightenment: The Vision of Nonduality
by James Swartz
(Sentient Publications, 2010)
Buy Amazon.US
or Amazon.UK
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1591810949/thespiritupat-21
This interview appeared
on
http://www.advaita.org.uk/SAND/JamesSwartzSAND.htm