What do you think?
Rate this book
How to Attain Enlightenment: The Vision of Nonduality
This complete guide to enlightenment presents the wisdom of the ancient science of self-inquiry, a time-tested means for achieving spiritual freedom. The author convincingly refutes the popular view that enlightenment is a unique state of consciousness and debunks a host of other myths. In his straightforward style he reveals proven methods for purifying the mind, and takes the reader from the beginning to the end of the spiritual path, patiently unfolding the logic of self-inquiry.
- GenresSpirituality
317 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2009
71 people are currently reading
119 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
March 14, 2013
Overall, I found this to be a very valuable and insightful discussion on nonduality, Vedanta, enlightenment etc. It was clear, concise, fun, and interesting to read. There is some excellent discussion on what enlightenment is NOT (e.g. no thought theory, magic powers theories etc.) I don't need to go into the good points any further, since there is an abundance of 5 star reviews on this book (some with a little over enthusiasm at hammering anyone who doesn't rate it 5 stars).
This said, there are some generalizations, and dare I say incorrect assertions. But again these are specks on the surface of a largely clear and excellent work. The author uses the term 'self-inquiry' throughout the whole book to mean many things, sometimes the teachings of Advaita or Vedanta, sometimes jnana yoga, and sometimes exercises into psychological inquiry. This is a little confusing for beginners. In fact, the author's slant for the whole book is on actual intellectual knowledge, and that this correct knowledge can set one free when used via intellectual inquiry, along with overcoming mind tendencies. There is a fairly large assumption throughout that readers actually have the power to live consciously, righteously, or follow dharma, and perform karma or devotional yoga. If not, then they fall into the "not ready" or "need more preparation" category.
The assertion that nonduality has played no part in Christianity, Islam or Judaism is wrong, as anyone from the mystical schools in these religions would prove. Likewise, there is no monopoly on nonduality held by Hinduism. Buddhism is rarely mentioned in the whole book, except to say it is a 'variant of Hinduism'. There seems to be some sort of assertion that India is a spiritual powerhouse and that the spiritual and social systems (read the chapter on Marriage where contractual type marriage in India is set up as an ideal where both parties see the marriage as a 'means to an end', and for "self-realization"-- which would be a very minor number in reality) are superior to elsewhere, notwithstanding India has its own share of spiritual and social maladies. The whole traditional idea of life stages, ie. student, householder, seeker, renunciate, is ideal and cute, though hardly practical today, even if someone was even lucky enough live into retirement and could "start" on their spiritual journey.
The chapter on diet and energies is informative, though generalised- not everyone who eats meats or fats is obese, tamasic and ready for hospital (check out paleo eating, or the way humans ate before rice and beans were farmed for the masses). This is to be expected though, since it gels with the whole "wise Vedic culture vs bad West" concept common in Eastern spiritual circles.
The ideas on karma yoga, devotional yoga and knowledge yoga are excellent, and the meditation practice given is good. Yet it is just one way. Also, the advice on meditation being only easy for those lucky enough to have a "contemplative temperament" or having attained one through "righteous living" (else abandon meditation and go try action yoga) is incorrect. Everyone can benefit from meditation or mind training, it just takes practice like any other skill.
The chapter on Ramana Maharshi is interesting reading, and worth reading for anyone interested in his teachings. However, the author seems to discuss what Ramana didn't teach and how Ramana didn't teach Neo-Advaita, which is fair enough.. but sidesteps a huge area that Ramana DID teach, which was self-investigation and self-observation through self-inquiry (yet another different definition to the one the author has used through the whole book). Excellent books on this area of practice have been written by Michael James, David Godman and others.
Overally this is a valuable read on enlightenment (alas there are no magic methods or "how to" steps here (how could there be?), despite what some reviews are saying).. and should be taken as a friendly discussion by an experienced author who has his own set of ideas and history.
This said, there are some generalizations, and dare I say incorrect assertions. But again these are specks on the surface of a largely clear and excellent work. The author uses the term 'self-inquiry' throughout the whole book to mean many things, sometimes the teachings of Advaita or Vedanta, sometimes jnana yoga, and sometimes exercises into psychological inquiry. This is a little confusing for beginners. In fact, the author's slant for the whole book is on actual intellectual knowledge, and that this correct knowledge can set one free when used via intellectual inquiry, along with overcoming mind tendencies. There is a fairly large assumption throughout that readers actually have the power to live consciously, righteously, or follow dharma, and perform karma or devotional yoga. If not, then they fall into the "not ready" or "need more preparation" category.
The assertion that nonduality has played no part in Christianity, Islam or Judaism is wrong, as anyone from the mystical schools in these religions would prove. Likewise, there is no monopoly on nonduality held by Hinduism. Buddhism is rarely mentioned in the whole book, except to say it is a 'variant of Hinduism'. There seems to be some sort of assertion that India is a spiritual powerhouse and that the spiritual and social systems (read the chapter on Marriage where contractual type marriage in India is set up as an ideal where both parties see the marriage as a 'means to an end', and for "self-realization"-- which would be a very minor number in reality) are superior to elsewhere, notwithstanding India has its own share of spiritual and social maladies. The whole traditional idea of life stages, ie. student, householder, seeker, renunciate, is ideal and cute, though hardly practical today, even if someone was even lucky enough live into retirement and could "start" on their spiritual journey.
The chapter on diet and energies is informative, though generalised- not everyone who eats meats or fats is obese, tamasic and ready for hospital (check out paleo eating, or the way humans ate before rice and beans were farmed for the masses). This is to be expected though, since it gels with the whole "wise Vedic culture vs bad West" concept common in Eastern spiritual circles.
The ideas on karma yoga, devotional yoga and knowledge yoga are excellent, and the meditation practice given is good. Yet it is just one way. Also, the advice on meditation being only easy for those lucky enough to have a "contemplative temperament" or having attained one through "righteous living" (else abandon meditation and go try action yoga) is incorrect. Everyone can benefit from meditation or mind training, it just takes practice like any other skill.
The chapter on Ramana Maharshi is interesting reading, and worth reading for anyone interested in his teachings. However, the author seems to discuss what Ramana didn't teach and how Ramana didn't teach Neo-Advaita, which is fair enough.. but sidesteps a huge area that Ramana DID teach, which was self-investigation and self-observation through self-inquiry (yet another different definition to the one the author has used through the whole book). Excellent books on this area of practice have been written by Michael James, David Godman and others.
Overally this is a valuable read on enlightenment (alas there are no magic methods or "how to" steps here (how could there be?), despite what some reviews are saying).. and should be taken as a friendly discussion by an experienced author who has his own set of ideas and history.
August 16, 2019
Despite the shonky-sounding title, this book reflects a serious intent in that Swartz has evidently studied his subject—Advaita Vedanta—in some depth over more than four decades and knows how to communicate it in a lively and engaging way. This book competently presents an introductory guide to the spiritual approach of self-enquiry in plain English. Nevertheless, it's hard to escape the impression that the title was chosen to exploit the naive in order to garner commercial success. But the reason I downgraded my rating on this book is because of the confused, outdated and downright harmful advice on diet.
Since when are animal products like chicken and fish flesh "sattvic"? (This term signifies that the food concerned is the mode of goodness and non-violence, promoting a clear, harmonious and truthful mind and physical vitality, according to a yogic classification). That's preposterous and violates the “ahimsa” that the author stresses is necessary for dharma. I'm certain that his former teachers—the late, prominent Swamis Chinmayananda and Dayananda—would not endorse such an idea, which conflicts with the standard, so-called "pure vegetarian," or lacto-vegetarian diet prescribed by traditional Hindu gurus. Of course, that diet, which includes dairy, is not ahimsic either since it involves animal exploitation no less serious than that involved in meat. But given that Swartz allies himself with a very "traditional" approach to Advaita Vedanta, it's mystifying as to how he can be seriously trying to claim that eating white meat is "sattvic," an idea that would be roundly rejected by the tradition he claims to represent. It speaks loudly of distorting the traditional dietary approach—itself seriously flawed—to conform to his own predilections.
Additionally, the notion that it's necessary to combine, for example, beans and grains at the same meal, to get complete protein on a vegetarian (or vegan) diet was debunked years ago by the very writer who mistakenly promoted that idea in the first place—Frances Moore Lappé, in 'Diet for a Small Planet', in 1971! If Swartz is going to comment on diet from a health perspective, he needs to ensure his knowledge is current, and not nearly 50 years out of date. Either that, or leave it out and stick to what he knows. What he should avoid doing is misrepresenting a diet that excludes animal products as more difficult and complicated than it is. And as someone who has had coronary bypass surgery to unblock the atherosclerotic plaque in his arteries following a heart attack, he ought not to be advocating the kind of high animal fat and protein diet that led to that unfortunate situation. Getting enough protein on a vegan diet is a non-issue and requires neither special combining of foods nor the addition of any kind of animal products. Perpetuating an obsession with protein in 2019 reflects that Swartz has failed to do his homework and is just repeating outworn myths.
All of this is quite apart from the fact that Swartz’s failure to make clear that veganism is the only diet that’s consistent with ahimsa is simply irresponsible and misleading. How can killing innocent animals who don’t want to die, and whose products we don’t need to be healthy, be in any way consistent with non-violence? And this very much includes lacto and lacto-ovo-vegetarianism, which involves exploitation and killing of animals. It’s really high time self-professed spiritual teachers ceased their hypocrisy on this matter of consuming animal products while preaching about “ahimsa.” In an age when so many are going vegan, including those who have no pretensions to enlightenment, they are not fooling anyone who is half awake or half aware. They are simply advertising their own inconsistency and moral failure. They're promoting the harmful idea that spiritual enlightenment is compatible with inflicting gratuitous violence on the vulnerable. What an insidious idea!
To make matters worse, I've seen Swartz nonchalantly talking in videos about his favourite hobby of "fishing," i.e. killing innocent sentient beings for fun. This, while he tells us that "ahimsa is the highest form of dharma." Swartz seems oblivious to the screaming hypocrisy of his animal-killing pastimes. It's not that personally killing animals is morally worse than what most of us (who aren't vegan) do, that is, pay someone else to do our dirty work for us. But it does signify a disturbing psychological disposition involving a gross lack of empathy. Apparently, as a "fishing" enthusiast, he derives satisfaction from personally skewering the sensitive facial tissues of fish with sharp hooks, and then watching them wretchedly struggling, writhing and gasping while their lives ebb away. All for the leisure and sport of the "ahimsic" Mr. Swartz.
It is quite evident that, as comprehensive as Swartz's theoretical knowledge of Advaita Vedanta is (as can be seen in his body of work generally), and as lucid as his teaching of it often is, he has failed so far to integrate it into his life—an indispensable criterion for true understanding and for acting as a conduit of this ancient teaching method. No one who tortures and kills animals for fun, and who blithely advises spiritual seekers that they can consume animal products not only with impunity, but "sattvically", should be presuming to write a book on how to become enlightened. Instead, they would do better to confront and remedy their own inadequate internalisation of the truths they propound before they set about trying to teach others.
Swartz, in claiming to be able to teach others "how to attain enlightenment" is telling us that he believes that he, himself, is enlightened. In fact, Swartz is a prime example of how a spiritual teacher can impress or seduce with in-depth knowledge and apparent profound insight while not actually living in a manner that any genuine assimilation of such knowledge or insight would mandate. Swartz ought to heed his own advice that spiritual teachers need to "walk the talk" and that "enlightenment has no meaning apart from how you live." Victimising the vulnerable, just because we enjoy it, and just because we can, is as far from enlightenment as it gets. Swartz asks, "What use is enlightenment if it amounts to nothing more than a license for the ego to indulge its cravings?" Indeed. This includes cravings of the palate for the flesh and and secretions of those who were sentient beings, and who didn't want to suffer and die in order to titillate the palates of egos like Swartz. All of this certainly bears out that it's a good idea to look carefully at what teachers do, and and not just at what they say, before hooking up with them.
This glaring ethical blind spot—killing animals and otherwise engaging in animal exploitation while preaching "ahimsa"—leaves me wondering what other contradictions one might find in the behaviour of Swartz if one were to investigate. I can't help but suspect it would be the usual fare of false gurus centering around sex, money and power. A lack of basic empathy for the most innocent and vulnerable does not bode well for any kind of real compassion or justice in dealing with others. Or rather, with "others," since the vision of Advaita Vedanta that Swartz espouses is based in non-duality in which, at the *ultimate* level, there are no others, but only Brahman, or the one Self—in practical terms, seeing others as oneself, which implies treating them as oneself. This vision, if it's authentic, necessarily must translate to genuine non-violence towards all sentient beings. And that means going vegan, and nothing less, as a basic, first step.
While animal exploitation has always been morally wrong, we can make some allowance for those in the past who had no opportunity to be exposed to the moral logic of animal rights veganism; who were not challenged to question their own speciesism. No such allowance can be made for contemporary teachers such as Swartz and so many others on the current advaita scene, and the spiritual scene generally. In the internet age, with the population of thriving vegans exploding, anyone with normal cognitive ability would have to be living under a rock, or be willfully ignorant, to be unaware that it's entirely unnecessary to consume animal products in order to be healthy, and that this fact renders their consumption contrary to fundamental justice, and hence basic morality. Basic morality is considered a prerequisite by Advaita Vedanta, and indeed all the major schools of Hinduism, for embarking on the spiritual path. Animal exploitation is completely indefensible according to any interpretation of ahimsa or basic morality. That fact is irrefutable regardless of whatever reputation anyone has a supposed spiritual luminary (take note, Dalai Lama).
James Swartz is, despite these contradictions, and perhaps perversely, an adept communicator of the principles of Advaita Vedanta, reflecting a good intellectual grasp of the area. Considering that all he is doing, by his own admission, is passing on an ancient, proven method of self-enquiry which is highly effective in the presence of certain qualifications or prerequisites, it's possible that a genuinely qualified seeker may benefit from this book. This qualification very specifically includes embracing nonviolence sincerely. Nonviolence makes no sense in the absence of a willingness to go vegan. It's delusional to think we can advance ourselves spiritually while preying on the defenceless.
Contrary to popular misconception, and in contradistinction to conventional religion, transformative non-dual spirituality is not primarily about morality; it's not about becoming a better, more moral person, as a way to get to heaven. It's about attaining liberation from suffering by dis-identifying with the apparently limited, ego-bound person, and realising our true identity as the limitless Self, or pure awareness, which includes but transcends the person. The point is, it's impossible to fulfil this aim without the foundation of basic morality—non-stealing, non-killing, non-lying, non-sexual exploitation, etc. This makes complete sense since in a context of interdependence, we can't separate what we do to others from our own welfare. And even though dharma, or a moral life, is not the ultimate goal, any authentic realisation of our fundamental oneness with all other sentient beings will be reflected in treating others as oneself. If someone claims to be enlightened but is knowingly harming others, regardless of species, race, gender, or other morally irrelevant criteria, then we can safely conclude that the claim is a false one. And again, it matters not if someone has "His Holiness" or other honorific in front of their name.
So those who have the relevant qualifications (which include but go beyond those mentioned here), who can see past the author's moral confusion, could conceivably find real value in the Advaita Vedanta approach to self-enquiry as presented in this book. Unfortunately, for the rest, that is, the majority, this book is only going to mire them more deeply in the "moral schizophrenia" (as animal rights theorist Gary Francione calls it) that is at odds with spiritual clarity. Whatever else they take away from it, they'll be reassured that they can continue on as they are, unnecessarily exploiting animals, all with the imprimatur of someone who is supposedly "enlightened." In this Swartz, and *all* spiritual teachers who are non-vegan, are doing a huge disservice to their audience, and an unfathomable disservice to the billions of animals who are suffering and dying because of our non-veganism. This conduces to endarkenment, not enlightenment.
Whether or not you decide to read this book, I suggest giving Swartz a wide berth as a spiritual teacher and as someone who can talk with any authority on enlightenment. If he ever decides to clean up his act in terms of his actual practice, then I might be willing to take him seriously as a teacher of something that's conducive to enlightenment.
(Contrary to what is shown here, I have not read this book twice).
Since when are animal products like chicken and fish flesh "sattvic"? (This term signifies that the food concerned is the mode of goodness and non-violence, promoting a clear, harmonious and truthful mind and physical vitality, according to a yogic classification). That's preposterous and violates the “ahimsa” that the author stresses is necessary for dharma. I'm certain that his former teachers—the late, prominent Swamis Chinmayananda and Dayananda—would not endorse such an idea, which conflicts with the standard, so-called "pure vegetarian," or lacto-vegetarian diet prescribed by traditional Hindu gurus. Of course, that diet, which includes dairy, is not ahimsic either since it involves animal exploitation no less serious than that involved in meat. But given that Swartz allies himself with a very "traditional" approach to Advaita Vedanta, it's mystifying as to how he can be seriously trying to claim that eating white meat is "sattvic," an idea that would be roundly rejected by the tradition he claims to represent. It speaks loudly of distorting the traditional dietary approach—itself seriously flawed—to conform to his own predilections.
Additionally, the notion that it's necessary to combine, for example, beans and grains at the same meal, to get complete protein on a vegetarian (or vegan) diet was debunked years ago by the very writer who mistakenly promoted that idea in the first place—Frances Moore Lappé, in 'Diet for a Small Planet', in 1971! If Swartz is going to comment on diet from a health perspective, he needs to ensure his knowledge is current, and not nearly 50 years out of date. Either that, or leave it out and stick to what he knows. What he should avoid doing is misrepresenting a diet that excludes animal products as more difficult and complicated than it is. And as someone who has had coronary bypass surgery to unblock the atherosclerotic plaque in his arteries following a heart attack, he ought not to be advocating the kind of high animal fat and protein diet that led to that unfortunate situation. Getting enough protein on a vegan diet is a non-issue and requires neither special combining of foods nor the addition of any kind of animal products. Perpetuating an obsession with protein in 2019 reflects that Swartz has failed to do his homework and is just repeating outworn myths.
All of this is quite apart from the fact that Swartz’s failure to make clear that veganism is the only diet that’s consistent with ahimsa is simply irresponsible and misleading. How can killing innocent animals who don’t want to die, and whose products we don’t need to be healthy, be in any way consistent with non-violence? And this very much includes lacto and lacto-ovo-vegetarianism, which involves exploitation and killing of animals. It’s really high time self-professed spiritual teachers ceased their hypocrisy on this matter of consuming animal products while preaching about “ahimsa.” In an age when so many are going vegan, including those who have no pretensions to enlightenment, they are not fooling anyone who is half awake or half aware. They are simply advertising their own inconsistency and moral failure. They're promoting the harmful idea that spiritual enlightenment is compatible with inflicting gratuitous violence on the vulnerable. What an insidious idea!
To make matters worse, I've seen Swartz nonchalantly talking in videos about his favourite hobby of "fishing," i.e. killing innocent sentient beings for fun. This, while he tells us that "ahimsa is the highest form of dharma." Swartz seems oblivious to the screaming hypocrisy of his animal-killing pastimes. It's not that personally killing animals is morally worse than what most of us (who aren't vegan) do, that is, pay someone else to do our dirty work for us. But it does signify a disturbing psychological disposition involving a gross lack of empathy. Apparently, as a "fishing" enthusiast, he derives satisfaction from personally skewering the sensitive facial tissues of fish with sharp hooks, and then watching them wretchedly struggling, writhing and gasping while their lives ebb away. All for the leisure and sport of the "ahimsic" Mr. Swartz.
It is quite evident that, as comprehensive as Swartz's theoretical knowledge of Advaita Vedanta is (as can be seen in his body of work generally), and as lucid as his teaching of it often is, he has failed so far to integrate it into his life—an indispensable criterion for true understanding and for acting as a conduit of this ancient teaching method. No one who tortures and kills animals for fun, and who blithely advises spiritual seekers that they can consume animal products not only with impunity, but "sattvically", should be presuming to write a book on how to become enlightened. Instead, they would do better to confront and remedy their own inadequate internalisation of the truths they propound before they set about trying to teach others.
Swartz, in claiming to be able to teach others "how to attain enlightenment" is telling us that he believes that he, himself, is enlightened. In fact, Swartz is a prime example of how a spiritual teacher can impress or seduce with in-depth knowledge and apparent profound insight while not actually living in a manner that any genuine assimilation of such knowledge or insight would mandate. Swartz ought to heed his own advice that spiritual teachers need to "walk the talk" and that "enlightenment has no meaning apart from how you live." Victimising the vulnerable, just because we enjoy it, and just because we can, is as far from enlightenment as it gets. Swartz asks, "What use is enlightenment if it amounts to nothing more than a license for the ego to indulge its cravings?" Indeed. This includes cravings of the palate for the flesh and and secretions of those who were sentient beings, and who didn't want to suffer and die in order to titillate the palates of egos like Swartz. All of this certainly bears out that it's a good idea to look carefully at what teachers do, and and not just at what they say, before hooking up with them.
This glaring ethical blind spot—killing animals and otherwise engaging in animal exploitation while preaching "ahimsa"—leaves me wondering what other contradictions one might find in the behaviour of Swartz if one were to investigate. I can't help but suspect it would be the usual fare of false gurus centering around sex, money and power. A lack of basic empathy for the most innocent and vulnerable does not bode well for any kind of real compassion or justice in dealing with others. Or rather, with "others," since the vision of Advaita Vedanta that Swartz espouses is based in non-duality in which, at the *ultimate* level, there are no others, but only Brahman, or the one Self—in practical terms, seeing others as oneself, which implies treating them as oneself. This vision, if it's authentic, necessarily must translate to genuine non-violence towards all sentient beings. And that means going vegan, and nothing less, as a basic, first step.
While animal exploitation has always been morally wrong, we can make some allowance for those in the past who had no opportunity to be exposed to the moral logic of animal rights veganism; who were not challenged to question their own speciesism. No such allowance can be made for contemporary teachers such as Swartz and so many others on the current advaita scene, and the spiritual scene generally. In the internet age, with the population of thriving vegans exploding, anyone with normal cognitive ability would have to be living under a rock, or be willfully ignorant, to be unaware that it's entirely unnecessary to consume animal products in order to be healthy, and that this fact renders their consumption contrary to fundamental justice, and hence basic morality. Basic morality is considered a prerequisite by Advaita Vedanta, and indeed all the major schools of Hinduism, for embarking on the spiritual path. Animal exploitation is completely indefensible according to any interpretation of ahimsa or basic morality. That fact is irrefutable regardless of whatever reputation anyone has a supposed spiritual luminary (take note, Dalai Lama).
James Swartz is, despite these contradictions, and perhaps perversely, an adept communicator of the principles of Advaita Vedanta, reflecting a good intellectual grasp of the area. Considering that all he is doing, by his own admission, is passing on an ancient, proven method of self-enquiry which is highly effective in the presence of certain qualifications or prerequisites, it's possible that a genuinely qualified seeker may benefit from this book. This qualification very specifically includes embracing nonviolence sincerely. Nonviolence makes no sense in the absence of a willingness to go vegan. It's delusional to think we can advance ourselves spiritually while preying on the defenceless.
Contrary to popular misconception, and in contradistinction to conventional religion, transformative non-dual spirituality is not primarily about morality; it's not about becoming a better, more moral person, as a way to get to heaven. It's about attaining liberation from suffering by dis-identifying with the apparently limited, ego-bound person, and realising our true identity as the limitless Self, or pure awareness, which includes but transcends the person. The point is, it's impossible to fulfil this aim without the foundation of basic morality—non-stealing, non-killing, non-lying, non-sexual exploitation, etc. This makes complete sense since in a context of interdependence, we can't separate what we do to others from our own welfare. And even though dharma, or a moral life, is not the ultimate goal, any authentic realisation of our fundamental oneness with all other sentient beings will be reflected in treating others as oneself. If someone claims to be enlightened but is knowingly harming others, regardless of species, race, gender, or other morally irrelevant criteria, then we can safely conclude that the claim is a false one. And again, it matters not if someone has "His Holiness" or other honorific in front of their name.
So those who have the relevant qualifications (which include but go beyond those mentioned here), who can see past the author's moral confusion, could conceivably find real value in the Advaita Vedanta approach to self-enquiry as presented in this book. Unfortunately, for the rest, that is, the majority, this book is only going to mire them more deeply in the "moral schizophrenia" (as animal rights theorist Gary Francione calls it) that is at odds with spiritual clarity. Whatever else they take away from it, they'll be reassured that they can continue on as they are, unnecessarily exploiting animals, all with the imprimatur of someone who is supposedly "enlightened." In this Swartz, and *all* spiritual teachers who are non-vegan, are doing a huge disservice to their audience, and an unfathomable disservice to the billions of animals who are suffering and dying because of our non-veganism. This conduces to endarkenment, not enlightenment.
Whether or not you decide to read this book, I suggest giving Swartz a wide berth as a spiritual teacher and as someone who can talk with any authority on enlightenment. If he ever decides to clean up his act in terms of his actual practice, then I might be willing to take him seriously as a teacher of something that's conducive to enlightenment.
(Contrary to what is shown here, I have not read this book twice).
August 24, 2013
Good introduction to Advaita Vedanta & non-dual philosophy.
July 10, 2017
Lost me when he started giving Hindu diet advice
October 21, 2016
I suspect that this book is full of five star information but like the friend who recommended it to me said, I will probably have to read it two or three times to get the full benefit. So what's the problem? I trapple with the basics, Schwartz is debating with other branches of Vedanta (like Neo-Advita) which is the best path to enlightenment. He also tends to start explaining something and then refer to later in the book where he will follow up his teaching.
If you're new to this concept - which is how I would describe myself despite having read two or three other books on this subject - I would recommend 'The Mystery Experience' by Tim Freke which will take you gently by the hand.
Unfortunately 'How to attain enlightenment' is a bit like dropping in on a post-graduate seminar when you are still taking your GCSE in a topic. However, I will return to this book one day. (I did have a quick browse about eighteen years ago and was defeated by the first few pages, so I am making progress.) hink it's partly me. Vedanta, the ancient science of self-enquiry, is difficult to get your head round. The basic idea is that we are not, as we think, separate individuals but one connected consciousness (forgive me if I'm not summarised the idea correctly). However, while I'm still trying to g
If you're new to this concept - which is how I would describe myself despite having read two or three other books on this subject - I would recommend 'The Mystery Experience' by Tim Freke which will take you gently by the hand.
Unfortunately 'How to attain enlightenment' is a bit like dropping in on a post-graduate seminar when you are still taking your GCSE in a topic. However, I will return to this book one day. (I did have a quick browse about eighteen years ago and was defeated by the first few pages, so I am making progress.) hink it's partly me. Vedanta, the ancient science of self-enquiry, is difficult to get your head round. The basic idea is that we are not, as we think, separate individuals but one connected consciousness (forgive me if I'm not summarised the idea correctly). However, while I'm still trying to g
November 13, 2014
This is a very profound book and has provided me many new perspectives. I will re-read it because the idea density is so high! It offers many tools for improving self-awareness. He writes in an efficient manner that gets quickly to the message. I'm so glad to have encountered this on my nascent spiritual journey.
August 8, 2013
Brings clarity to a not so clear area - enlightenment. A how to guide to enlightenment and states the many pitfalls many fall into when chasing enlightenment. Highly recommended.
November 13, 2013
Relatively clear elaboration on Advaita Vedanta Hinduism tradition, but all in all critical, misogynistic, ridiculously traditional and not my cup of tea.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews