Thank you for confirming the content of the original e-satsang, Valma!
Here's some interesting quotes from the book Saints and Psychopaths by William L. Hamilton:
On a somewhat unrelated note, when attending JS's Amsterdam seminar, I noticed many red flags. In hindsight, these were obvious manipulation techniques. I wonder if other (ex) students of JS recognize these.
These were some of the red flags (paraphrasing JS):
"I like the people from Amsterdam. You are cool. But it's funny how you go from one satsang to the next. It's like you're addicts. One week you go to Rupert, the next week to Mooji, etc."
"Unlike the other teachers, I teach traditional vedanta, which is the superior system for attaining enlightenment. It's important to stick to one true teacher, or you won't get anywhere."
"What I'm telling you is the time-tested truth of Vedanta which has led many thousands of people to enlightenment. You can't argue with it. You can try to argue with me, but there's no point in doing so because I'd defeat you."
Especially interesting in this context is the fact that it isn't even true that James teaches pure, unaltered Vedanta, as even one of his attack-dog students (Sattva) admitted in this thread.
I hope it's clear to everyone that a true teacher wouldn't say such manipulative things as the statements I paraphrased above.
There's a few more things I want to say but I'll do so in a next post.
Here's some interesting quotes from the book Saints and Psychopaths by William L. Hamilton:
Quote
Distinguishing saints from psychopaths
Distinguishing a saint from a psychopath presents a unique problem because they have some common characteristics that seem at first to be identical. Both saints and psychopaths can have the appearance of a beautiful, radiant and attractive being. Both may tell you, "Be here now, forget the past, forget the future; be spontaneous, heed your inner voice, follow your bliss." Both may advise you to not be bound by traditional social values but by higher spiritual values. Both may have messages from God or spiritual teachings tailored just for you. Both may be homeless wanderers. Both may manifest fearless behavior and may risk persecution.
[...]
Although the powers of a saint and a psychopath may seem the same at first, they have different roots. Saints have a calm, clear, empowered state of mind as a result of discipline, meditation, and introspection. Psychopaths can develop paranoid samadhi, which is a concentrated mind, because they have done so many unskillful things such as lying, theft, injury, adultery, substance abuse, etc. Their powers come from having to have a very sensitive awareness to perceive when someone is coming after them. They are also gluttons for attention, and when they have your attention they will start to feed on your spiritual energies like a psychic vampire.
[...]
So how do we tell saints from psychopaths? My teacher, Sayadaw U Pandita, says that he never makes up his mind about peoples enlightenment until he has known them and observed them closely for a year. It is in the nature of saints to respond to sincere requests for help, and guidance. If you sincerely want help they will be there for you.
Amoral or immoral?
In time some very distinguishing differences between saints and psychopaths become apparent. Saints have such a deeply rooted morality from their own direct understanding that by normal social standards they may be amoral. The Buddha clashed with his culture by disparaging rites and rituals and not respecting caste. Christ, too, conflicted with his culture.
Psychopaths, on the other hand, are simply immoral. Their divergence from social standards involves self gratification and disregard for doing harm. At first it may be difficult to discern whether a teacher is amoral or immoral, but in time it may become apparent whether or not he or she adheres to the standards of behavior being taught.
[...]
I use a standard of evaluation I call SAY, MEAN, DO. Saints will say what they mean and will do what they say. Psychopaths will mean something other than what they say and what they do may have little relationship to what they say and mean. For example, psychopaths may say they love you or want to help you, when what they mean is that they want attention or money. What they do in the long run is going to be a disappointment. It takes a while for consistency or inconsistency of SAY, MEAN, DO to come into focus. The more time you take in evaluating this the more accurate your conclusion will be.
On a somewhat unrelated note, when attending JS's Amsterdam seminar, I noticed many red flags. In hindsight, these were obvious manipulation techniques. I wonder if other (ex) students of JS recognize these.
These were some of the red flags (paraphrasing JS):
"I like the people from Amsterdam. You are cool. But it's funny how you go from one satsang to the next. It's like you're addicts. One week you go to Rupert, the next week to Mooji, etc."
"Unlike the other teachers, I teach traditional vedanta, which is the superior system for attaining enlightenment. It's important to stick to one true teacher, or you won't get anywhere."
"What I'm telling you is the time-tested truth of Vedanta which has led many thousands of people to enlightenment. You can't argue with it. You can try to argue with me, but there's no point in doing so because I'd defeat you."
Especially interesting in this context is the fact that it isn't even true that James teaches pure, unaltered Vedanta, as even one of his attack-dog students (Sattva) admitted in this thread.
I hope it's clear to everyone that a true teacher wouldn't say such manipulative things as the statements I paraphrased above.
There's a few more things I want to say but I'll do so in a next post.