How to Attain Enlightenment: The Vision of Nonduality (James Swartz)
How to Distort Enlightenment
[My 1-star Amazon review (October 19, 2013) of “How to Attain Enlightenment: The Vision of Nonduality†by James Swartz.]
In the comments following a one-star review of Rupert Spira’s book “The Transparency of Things†(which I also reviewed and gave three stars), a participant in the thread strongly recommended James Swartz’s “How to Attain Enlightenment.†I decided to buy it just to review it, because I knew I wasn’t going to learn anything new from it. I’ve studied and taught Eastern philosophy for forty years, and I enjoy deconstructing dry, lifeless, exclusive-reductive Vedanta texts like this one. Everyone has his guilty pleasures, and one of mine, I must confess, is deriving perverse satisfaction from slicing and dicing texts like this one.
I took copious notes when I read this text, and the challenge for me is to reduce my extensive marginalia to the size of a book review. I could easily write a tome undermining the legion of fallacious arguments in this book, but because there isn’t market for it, I’ll limit myself to a lengthy review.
Swartz displays his reductionist colors in the first sentence of the second chapter when he writes, “Existence is consciousness.†In reality, Existence (or Being) is Consciousness-Energy, or Siva-Shakti, or Cit- Ananada, not just Consciousness, or Cit. But Shakti-ignoring Vedantans, such as Swartz, are intent upon reducing Existence (or Sat) to just Consciousness, or Awareness.
Swartz’s definitions of yoga terms are poor and misleading. For example, he reduces Nirvana to a transitory meditative epiphany, when in reality it is the permanent end of samsara (or becoming). Moreover, he also describes nirvikapla (or formless) samadhi as “the last word in terms of freedom from samsara.†This is wrong: it is sahaj samadhi - permanent natural, effortless abidance in and as Being – which is tantamount to Nirvana (the permanent
end of becoming).
According to Swartz, “Knowledge is object-dependent, not subject-dependent.†He is wrong: knowledge is dependent on both a knower and a known. Swartz tells us two plus two equals four regardless of the subject; but this fact does not translate into knowledge without a subject, or knower, who knows it.
Swartz writes, “Without you the world of appearances does not exist.†Yes it does. The idealistic, primacy-of consciousness philosophy that Swartz pushes, which is endemic in Vedanta and Madhyamika epistemology, is at odds with inferential reasoning. The only way to embrace this kind of anti-reasoning is to deny the validity of your senses and cognitive faculty.
Swartz, properly, informs us that “you cannot actually experience awareness as an objectâ€; yet he contradicts himself in the book. For example, he writes: “There is nothing you can do about it [awareness] except know what it is and look for it.â€
Swartz writes, “The thoughts that cause happiness do not stand in the way of enlightenment because a happy mind is perfectly suited for self inquiry.†This does not correlate with my experience or that of Hinayana Buddhists, who religiously contemplate the body as a piece of rotting, impermanent flesh as a prelude and goad to self-enquiry.
Swartz does not grok spiritual enlightenment. He tells us “Enlightenment does not feel like anything. It is simply the hard and fast knowledge that I am limitless, partless awareness.†This statement contradicts the famous Hindu formula Sat-Chit-Ananda, which informs us that spiritual enlightenment - Being-Consciousness (Sat-Chit) - is inherently and absolutely blissful.
This blissful “Feeling of Being,†described by enlightened Indian yogis, is tantamount to Buddhist Nirvana and mystical Christian Beatitude. Swartz doesn’t understand that en-Light-enment is the literal union of the Bliss Body (Ananda, or Clear-Light Energy) and one’s awareness. Shakti (or Clear-Light Energy), which bestows Blessing/Blissing Power, has no place in Swartz’s static, reductionist Vedanta paradigm.
Swartz denigrates the attainment of enlightenment, going so far as to write: “It should be a cause for embarrassment, not jubilation.†In contrast, great sages like Ramana Maharshi emphasize the value of the company of a Self-realized master, who literally sheds empowering Grace, or Blessing Power, upon his disciples and the world. But Swartz has no concept of how rare and beneficial the presence of a true guru is. Swartz’s claim that “enlightenment has no special status†is just another display of his ignorance.
In his subchapter Enlightenment as Energy, Swartz writes: “A major misconception brought on by the fascination with and craving for experience is the belief that enlightened beings have a special kind of energy and that energy is a sign of enlightenment. But experience confirms and
scripture that the self is free of energy.â€
Contrary to what Swartz writes, the experience of innumerable great sages does NOT confirm that the Self is free of energy. In fact, innumerable scripture state that the Self is Consciousness-Energy (Siva-Shakti), not mere static Consciousness. Moreover, enlightened beings do have a special kind of energy that is a sign of enlightenment. Ramana Maharshi, India’s foremost twentieth-century Jnana yogi and guru, in the text “Sat Darsana Bhashya,†describes enlightenment: “You can feel yourself one with the One that exists: the whole body becomes a mere power a force-current: your life becomes a needle drawn to a huge magnet…†In Sri Ramana Gita, Ramana writes: “The effulgent light of pure awareness, taking hold of a centre, lights up the entire body as the Sun illumines the world. Owing to the diffusion of the light in the body, one experiences the body. That centre of radiation, the sages say, is the Heart.
From the play of the forces in the nadis one infers the flow of the light of awareness. The forces course through the body each hugging its special nadi. The particular nadi through which pure awareness flows is called sushumna. It is also called atma nadi, para nadi, and amrita nadi ...With the churning of the nadis, the Self gets separated from the other nadis and, clinging to the amrita nadi alone, shines forth. When the effulgent light of awareness shines in atma nadi alone, nothing else shines except the Self.†In “Sri Ramana Gita,†Ramana Maharshi, in direct contrast to Swartz, makes it clear that Self-realization is not possible without Shakti. He states: Shakti and vastu, force and substance, are inseparable, are indeed two aspects of one and the same Truth. Onlt without the Shakti vyapara or the movement of the power, the Real substance is not apprehended.â€
Swartz perverts the definition of ‘maya’. He writes, “ignorance of the nature of awareness is called ‘maya’ in Sanskrit.’ In reality, ‘maya’ simply means that which has been measured out (from the Immeasurable). The sankrit term for ignorance is “moha.†Swartz informs us that “the creation that maya brings into being has a peculiar ontological status. It neither exists, nor ceases to exist.†Try telling your buddies that creation neither exists nor doesn’t exist, and you could very quickly find yourself in a loony bin with guys claiming they’re Jesus. Elsewhere in the book, Swartz also informs us that “[the ego] neither exists nor does it not exist.†Try telling that to your psychotherapist, and he’ll also probably have you committed.
Some of the writing in this book is unclear. For example, Swartz writes, “Mind, a counterintuitive term, is the emotional center in the subtle body, the feeling function or “heart.†I have no idea what he’s talking about. Mind is not a counterintuitive term, and he doesn’t make it clear if he’s referring to the physical heart organ, the Anahata Heart Chakra, or the Hridayam (the Heart-felt seat of the Self, located two digits to the right of the center of the chest).
Swartz writes, “In reality there is no karma. It only exists in the mind of individuals.†Ramana Maharsi doesn’t agree. He says,â€If you are destined or chosen to do a particular thing, it will be done.†I practiced astrology professionally for years, and I can tell you that karma is real, and it isn’t limited to the minds if individuals. Karma exists on multiple levels, and even if a yogi becomes Self-realized, residual karma still effects his life, even if he is psychically unaffected by it.
Swartz’s definition of non-dual love is lousy: “Non-dual love is the realization of oneness with the self.†A better definition is: Love is the unobstructed universal Feeling-Blessing Power spontaneously radiating through a Self-realized being.
Swartz makes untenable statements throughout the book. For example, he writes, “Self-realization is not possible without devotion…†Gautama Buddha and many Zen masters became enlightened sans devotion. Devotion is a great aid to Self-realization, but hardly a sine qua non.
To the spiritually unsophisticated, Swartz may appear to be a venerable expert on the subject of Self-realization, but to those in the know he’s far from one. For example, he equates “chitta†(the mind) with the causal body. According to Advaita Vedanta, the causal body is the Anandamaya Kosha (or Bliss Sheath), and in the books I’ve written, I equate this sheath, or covering of the Self, or Soul,, with Hindu Shakti, The Budhist Sambhogakaya, and the Christian Holy Spirit.
Swartz considers himself knowledgeable on diet and pontificates on the subject. But his understanding of the subject is, at best, remedial, and his recommendations fall flat for me. His discourse on the subject revolves around the gunas (sattva, rajas, tamas) and totally ignores Indian Ayurveda, a far more comprehensive dietary system, which scientifically determines which foods are best for an individual, based on his constitution.
Swartz mentions Ramana Maharshi throughout the book and devotes an entire chapter to his teachings. At the start of the chapter, Schwartz makes sure to let us know that the interview (between him and a friend) that constitutes the chapter takes place in Tiruvannamalai, in flat he occupied behind Ramanashram. The implication is that Swartz is an expert on Ramana Maharshi’s teachings. I say he’s far from an expert and lacks a real understanding of them.
First off, Swartz doesn’t grok Ramana Maharshi’s Self-inquiry. He writes: Ramana’a teaching is not Ramana’a teaching. It is called “vichara.†Inquiry, and goes back several years.†I say Ramana’s inquiry is unique. I’ve read over two thousand texts on Eastern spirituality, and no one’s method of Self-inquiry is the same as Ramana’s. Moreover, Swartz himself clearly is incapable of practicing the method, which I’ve practiced for forty years.
Swartz, a less-than- mediocre writer with an inability to clearly and concisely describe spiritual experience, describes the practice thus: “Thus by tracing ‘I’ concepts from the gross to the subtle, we are led to the self, the fundamental ‘I.’
First off, one’s thought are traced from the subtle to the causal, not from the gross to the subtle. The root of the causal body (where the Bliss Sheath intersects one’s soul, the root of one’s psyche) is the Hridayam, the Heart (distinct from the Anahata Chakra). And in accordance with Ramana Maharshi, I say the Self cannot be realized via Self-enquiry unless one's spurious, ego-based ‘I' thoughts are traced to their Source in the Hridayam, the spiritual Heart-center, where they are obviated, or outshone, by the true, transcendental `I,' the radiant Self, whose locus, relative to one's body, is two digits to the right of the center of one's chest. One’s thoughts, the products of one's samskaras (karmic seed tendencies), originate in the spiritual Heart and travel to the brain, where they crystallize as one's mind. A Jnani must practice Self-enquiry and thereby pull the mind into the spiritual Heart, where the false, or ego ‘I' is spontaneously dissolved, and supplanted by the true, or transcendental `I,’ the Self.
Swartz is devoid of a true esoteric dimension. He doesn’t even mention the Hridayam, which literally sucks one’s mind into into itself, and he doesn’t talk about the the Amrita Nadi, the force-current ceaselessly radiating from the Heart-center to the crown (and beyond) in a Self-realized being, one who has cut the Heart-knot.
In the last chapter of the book, Swartz rails against neo-Advaita gurus. He includes J. Krishnamurti, Jean Klein, and Papaji in this category, and I don’t think they belong. Swartz, however, belongs in his own category: pompous pontificators who think they understand en-Light-enment, but don’t. I would like to give this book two stars because it’s not a neo-Advaita text, but when I apply my precise proprietary rating method to it, it only registers .0017 stars. But given that it’s the weekend and I’m in one of my rare chipper moods, I’ll generously round my rating up to a whole star.
[My 1-star Amazon review (October 19, 2013) of “How to Attain Enlightenment: The Vision of Nonduality†by James Swartz.]
In the comments following a one-star review of Rupert Spira’s book “The Transparency of Things†(which I also reviewed and gave three stars), a participant in the thread strongly recommended James Swartz’s “How to Attain Enlightenment.†I decided to buy it just to review it, because I knew I wasn’t going to learn anything new from it. I’ve studied and taught Eastern philosophy for forty years, and I enjoy deconstructing dry, lifeless, exclusive-reductive Vedanta texts like this one. Everyone has his guilty pleasures, and one of mine, I must confess, is deriving perverse satisfaction from slicing and dicing texts like this one.
I took copious notes when I read this text, and the challenge for me is to reduce my extensive marginalia to the size of a book review. I could easily write a tome undermining the legion of fallacious arguments in this book, but because there isn’t market for it, I’ll limit myself to a lengthy review.
Swartz displays his reductionist colors in the first sentence of the second chapter when he writes, “Existence is consciousness.†In reality, Existence (or Being) is Consciousness-Energy, or Siva-Shakti, or Cit- Ananada, not just Consciousness, or Cit. But Shakti-ignoring Vedantans, such as Swartz, are intent upon reducing Existence (or Sat) to just Consciousness, or Awareness.
Swartz’s definitions of yoga terms are poor and misleading. For example, he reduces Nirvana to a transitory meditative epiphany, when in reality it is the permanent end of samsara (or becoming). Moreover, he also describes nirvikapla (or formless) samadhi as “the last word in terms of freedom from samsara.†This is wrong: it is sahaj samadhi - permanent natural, effortless abidance in and as Being – which is tantamount to Nirvana (the permanent
end of becoming).
According to Swartz, “Knowledge is object-dependent, not subject-dependent.†He is wrong: knowledge is dependent on both a knower and a known. Swartz tells us two plus two equals four regardless of the subject; but this fact does not translate into knowledge without a subject, or knower, who knows it.
Swartz writes, “Without you the world of appearances does not exist.†Yes it does. The idealistic, primacy-of consciousness philosophy that Swartz pushes, which is endemic in Vedanta and Madhyamika epistemology, is at odds with inferential reasoning. The only way to embrace this kind of anti-reasoning is to deny the validity of your senses and cognitive faculty.
Swartz, properly, informs us that “you cannot actually experience awareness as an objectâ€; yet he contradicts himself in the book. For example, he writes: “There is nothing you can do about it [awareness] except know what it is and look for it.â€
Swartz writes, “The thoughts that cause happiness do not stand in the way of enlightenment because a happy mind is perfectly suited for self inquiry.†This does not correlate with my experience or that of Hinayana Buddhists, who religiously contemplate the body as a piece of rotting, impermanent flesh as a prelude and goad to self-enquiry.
Swartz does not grok spiritual enlightenment. He tells us “Enlightenment does not feel like anything. It is simply the hard and fast knowledge that I am limitless, partless awareness.†This statement contradicts the famous Hindu formula Sat-Chit-Ananda, which informs us that spiritual enlightenment - Being-Consciousness (Sat-Chit) - is inherently and absolutely blissful.
This blissful “Feeling of Being,†described by enlightened Indian yogis, is tantamount to Buddhist Nirvana and mystical Christian Beatitude. Swartz doesn’t understand that en-Light-enment is the literal union of the Bliss Body (Ananda, or Clear-Light Energy) and one’s awareness. Shakti (or Clear-Light Energy), which bestows Blessing/Blissing Power, has no place in Swartz’s static, reductionist Vedanta paradigm.
Swartz denigrates the attainment of enlightenment, going so far as to write: “It should be a cause for embarrassment, not jubilation.†In contrast, great sages like Ramana Maharshi emphasize the value of the company of a Self-realized master, who literally sheds empowering Grace, or Blessing Power, upon his disciples and the world. But Swartz has no concept of how rare and beneficial the presence of a true guru is. Swartz’s claim that “enlightenment has no special status†is just another display of his ignorance.
In his subchapter Enlightenment as Energy, Swartz writes: “A major misconception brought on by the fascination with and craving for experience is the belief that enlightened beings have a special kind of energy and that energy is a sign of enlightenment. But experience confirms and
scripture that the self is free of energy.â€
Contrary to what Swartz writes, the experience of innumerable great sages does NOT confirm that the Self is free of energy. In fact, innumerable scripture state that the Self is Consciousness-Energy (Siva-Shakti), not mere static Consciousness. Moreover, enlightened beings do have a special kind of energy that is a sign of enlightenment. Ramana Maharshi, India’s foremost twentieth-century Jnana yogi and guru, in the text “Sat Darsana Bhashya,†describes enlightenment: “You can feel yourself one with the One that exists: the whole body becomes a mere power a force-current: your life becomes a needle drawn to a huge magnet…†In Sri Ramana Gita, Ramana writes: “The effulgent light of pure awareness, taking hold of a centre, lights up the entire body as the Sun illumines the world. Owing to the diffusion of the light in the body, one experiences the body. That centre of radiation, the sages say, is the Heart.
From the play of the forces in the nadis one infers the flow of the light of awareness. The forces course through the body each hugging its special nadi. The particular nadi through which pure awareness flows is called sushumna. It is also called atma nadi, para nadi, and amrita nadi ...With the churning of the nadis, the Self gets separated from the other nadis and, clinging to the amrita nadi alone, shines forth. When the effulgent light of awareness shines in atma nadi alone, nothing else shines except the Self.†In “Sri Ramana Gita,†Ramana Maharshi, in direct contrast to Swartz, makes it clear that Self-realization is not possible without Shakti. He states: Shakti and vastu, force and substance, are inseparable, are indeed two aspects of one and the same Truth. Onlt without the Shakti vyapara or the movement of the power, the Real substance is not apprehended.â€
Swartz perverts the definition of ‘maya’. He writes, “ignorance of the nature of awareness is called ‘maya’ in Sanskrit.’ In reality, ‘maya’ simply means that which has been measured out (from the Immeasurable). The sankrit term for ignorance is “moha.†Swartz informs us that “the creation that maya brings into being has a peculiar ontological status. It neither exists, nor ceases to exist.†Try telling your buddies that creation neither exists nor doesn’t exist, and you could very quickly find yourself in a loony bin with guys claiming they’re Jesus. Elsewhere in the book, Swartz also informs us that “[the ego] neither exists nor does it not exist.†Try telling that to your psychotherapist, and he’ll also probably have you committed.
Some of the writing in this book is unclear. For example, Swartz writes, “Mind, a counterintuitive term, is the emotional center in the subtle body, the feeling function or “heart.†I have no idea what he’s talking about. Mind is not a counterintuitive term, and he doesn’t make it clear if he’s referring to the physical heart organ, the Anahata Heart Chakra, or the Hridayam (the Heart-felt seat of the Self, located two digits to the right of the center of the chest).
Swartz writes, “In reality there is no karma. It only exists in the mind of individuals.†Ramana Maharsi doesn’t agree. He says,â€If you are destined or chosen to do a particular thing, it will be done.†I practiced astrology professionally for years, and I can tell you that karma is real, and it isn’t limited to the minds if individuals. Karma exists on multiple levels, and even if a yogi becomes Self-realized, residual karma still effects his life, even if he is psychically unaffected by it.
Swartz’s definition of non-dual love is lousy: “Non-dual love is the realization of oneness with the self.†A better definition is: Love is the unobstructed universal Feeling-Blessing Power spontaneously radiating through a Self-realized being.
Swartz makes untenable statements throughout the book. For example, he writes, “Self-realization is not possible without devotion…†Gautama Buddha and many Zen masters became enlightened sans devotion. Devotion is a great aid to Self-realization, but hardly a sine qua non.
To the spiritually unsophisticated, Swartz may appear to be a venerable expert on the subject of Self-realization, but to those in the know he’s far from one. For example, he equates “chitta†(the mind) with the causal body. According to Advaita Vedanta, the causal body is the Anandamaya Kosha (or Bliss Sheath), and in the books I’ve written, I equate this sheath, or covering of the Self, or Soul,, with Hindu Shakti, The Budhist Sambhogakaya, and the Christian Holy Spirit.
Swartz considers himself knowledgeable on diet and pontificates on the subject. But his understanding of the subject is, at best, remedial, and his recommendations fall flat for me. His discourse on the subject revolves around the gunas (sattva, rajas, tamas) and totally ignores Indian Ayurveda, a far more comprehensive dietary system, which scientifically determines which foods are best for an individual, based on his constitution.
Swartz mentions Ramana Maharshi throughout the book and devotes an entire chapter to his teachings. At the start of the chapter, Schwartz makes sure to let us know that the interview (between him and a friend) that constitutes the chapter takes place in Tiruvannamalai, in flat he occupied behind Ramanashram. The implication is that Swartz is an expert on Ramana Maharshi’s teachings. I say he’s far from an expert and lacks a real understanding of them.
First off, Swartz doesn’t grok Ramana Maharshi’s Self-inquiry. He writes: Ramana’a teaching is not Ramana’a teaching. It is called “vichara.†Inquiry, and goes back several years.†I say Ramana’s inquiry is unique. I’ve read over two thousand texts on Eastern spirituality, and no one’s method of Self-inquiry is the same as Ramana’s. Moreover, Swartz himself clearly is incapable of practicing the method, which I’ve practiced for forty years.
Swartz, a less-than- mediocre writer with an inability to clearly and concisely describe spiritual experience, describes the practice thus: “Thus by tracing ‘I’ concepts from the gross to the subtle, we are led to the self, the fundamental ‘I.’
First off, one’s thought are traced from the subtle to the causal, not from the gross to the subtle. The root of the causal body (where the Bliss Sheath intersects one’s soul, the root of one’s psyche) is the Hridayam, the Heart (distinct from the Anahata Chakra). And in accordance with Ramana Maharshi, I say the Self cannot be realized via Self-enquiry unless one's spurious, ego-based ‘I' thoughts are traced to their Source in the Hridayam, the spiritual Heart-center, where they are obviated, or outshone, by the true, transcendental `I,' the radiant Self, whose locus, relative to one's body, is two digits to the right of the center of one's chest. One’s thoughts, the products of one's samskaras (karmic seed tendencies), originate in the spiritual Heart and travel to the brain, where they crystallize as one's mind. A Jnani must practice Self-enquiry and thereby pull the mind into the spiritual Heart, where the false, or ego ‘I' is spontaneously dissolved, and supplanted by the true, or transcendental `I,’ the Self.
Swartz is devoid of a true esoteric dimension. He doesn’t even mention the Hridayam, which literally sucks one’s mind into into itself, and he doesn’t talk about the the Amrita Nadi, the force-current ceaselessly radiating from the Heart-center to the crown (and beyond) in a Self-realized being, one who has cut the Heart-knot.
In the last chapter of the book, Swartz rails against neo-Advaita gurus. He includes J. Krishnamurti, Jean Klein, and Papaji in this category, and I don’t think they belong. Swartz, however, belongs in his own category: pompous pontificators who think they understand en-Light-enment, but don’t. I would like to give this book two stars because it’s not a neo-Advaita text, but when I apply my precise proprietary rating method to it, it only registers .0017 stars. But given that it’s the weekend and I’m in one of my rare chipper moods, I’ll generously round my rating up to a whole star.
