rideforever wrote:It's interesting he begins by saying that commenting on texts is so difficult for many reasons, did the sage really say these things ? how are we to interpret them ? and who is interpreting them ?
... and then he goes on for 100 pages doing all these things he is warning about ! Ha !
He is indeed an expert about himself !
Well...actually there's very little of himself in 'his teachings'. That's why I respect him - unlike virtually every Western spiritual teacher, he hasn't tried to create his 'own' teaching, his own brand. There's no need for anyone to try to reinvent the wheel, because this stuff was all already figured out and elucidated beautifully - millennia ago
He's spent 40 years teaching traditional vedanta and he has an incredible understanding of its pretty much impenetrable logic. Because of that, and the fact his teaching isn't about him or some spin he's put on it himself, he's one of the few spiritual teachers out there who I believe are genuinely qualified to teach. He's the real deal, although he doesn't appeal to everyone because he has an edge and is about as far from the cuddly, peace-and-love guru stereotype as you can get.
If you're talking about the 'qualifications' bit, it's amazing how this rubs so many spiritual peeps up the wrong way. I guess it takes some of the romance and mysticism out of people's spiritual notions. Yet if you stop to consider it, it's a real gift. They figured out centuries ago - at least as far back as the time of Shankara - the reason that so few spiritual seekers ever become finders.
I mean, let's face it, the spiritual world has a pretty dismal success rate - if you take 100 spiritual seekers, how many of them will ever 'reach' enlightenment - maybe 4 or 5? The reason some people 'attain' and others don't comes down to whether or not the mind is qualified - and if it's not qualified, you simply work on it and GET qualified. It has nothing with 'deserving'. If someone is driven by passions, has the wrong values, is unable to discriminate or control the senses,is suffering addictions and emotional attachments then they will find it hard/impossible to assimilate the truth that they are pure, limitless, objectless, actionless nondual awareness and thus through that knowledge attain liberation. Doesn't mean they don't deserve to, or can't or shouldn't - just means they need to clean up the decks and work on getting their mind into the appropriately balanced and receptive state. To me this just makes perfect sense.
Schwarz leaves you in the dark.
Well you can only really speak for yourself in this instance. He didn't leave me in the dark - quite the contrary. But you can't expect to just have a quick dip into this teaching, or take some out of context quotes etc and find it illuminating. You can maybe do that with Mooji and Gangaji or whoever else, but they don't teach a system, just off the cuff rumination on the Self.