A student compiles a few of Ira Schepetin’s Advaita Vedanta teachings, which conflict with traditional views on the Self and Maya. Here’s a critique and analysis of Ira’s perspective. I personally see Ira as the Self – as is everyone – but when a person takes on the responsibility to explain nonduality he or she should have complete theoretical and practical knowledge of the topic.
Marcel: “Ira negates the “being established in the Self” teaching which in my understanding is negating the meaning of nididhyasana. According to him the conventional teaching is that after getting the knowledge you have to keep repeating it to avoid old Vasanas overpowering it.”
James: Only if a person is highly qualified, meaning he or she has done the meditation, karma yoga, etc. before Self realization is his statement true, but most people get the idea “I am the Self” first and then, to actualize it in daily life, they need to requalify by following the 5 stages of Vedanta sadhana.
Here are some contradictions by Ira Schepetin, gathered by Marcel:
1. Ira Schepetin: “The moment you get the knowledge about the Self there is nobody left to practice anything.“
James: Wrong. Who gets the knowledge? Obviously, it is somebody. That person doesn’t disappear. It is for that person, the existent born entity, that the knowledge is intended. Also he is only talking about indirect knowledge. Indirect knowledge is precisely intended for the apparent self.
2. Ira Schepetin: “The moment you see that truth, you’ll be that truth.“
James: You are the truth before, during and after you see it. We might ask Ira: Who sees that Truth? The answer should be: The Truth – under the spell of ignorance – sees the Truth.
3. Ira Schepetin: “Does the wise man see the world just like the ignorant person?”
James: The wise perceives the world just as an ignorant person does, but he or she “sees” the world as a dream. It exists, but it’s not real. He sees Maya, but is not fooled by it. Maya remains and produces the perception of the world but avidya – a person’s ignorance – remains.
4. Ira Schepetin: “The wise man doesn’t see the Maya.”
James: The question is what Ira mean by “see”. If he means the perception of duality both the wise and the ordinary person perceive Maya. Maya is just the perception of life as duality.
If seeing means knowing, then the wise person does not see Maya. He or she sees only the Self – existence shining as consciousness. If duality is perceived he or she knows that it is not real.
5. Ira Schepetin: “Knowing that duality is a dream, doesn’t help you. Only in deep sleep a man is free from duality, not in a dream.“
James: So, only when a person is not present is there nonduality? If so, Ira is seriously ignorant. So, to experience nonduality you have to sleep forever?
6. Ira Schepetin: “Thinking is a problem, having beliefs is a problem, having a mind is a problem.”
James: Not if thinking, beliefs and opinions and the mind are known to be apparently real (mithya).
7. Ira Schepetin: “The wise man has no mind, he is pure consciousness.“
James: He is pure consciousness when the mind is present. If he cannot have a mind as pure consciousness, he is limited by his inability to think. Scripture makes it clear that the Self, with or without a mind, is limitless. A wise person knows I am the Self as the Self… and as a person.
8. Ira Schepetin: “The ignorance goes, the Maya goes. If you know anything, you have a mind and if you have a mind, you are still ignorant.“
James: This is definitely for whoever is pretending to know something about the nature of reality. It’s a great misfortune that Ira confuses ignorance with knowledge and seems to enjoy spreading these erroneous notions of enlightenment worldwide.
Marcel: I’m quite confused now.
James: Definitely. You should not waste your time trying to collect knowledge from all these different sources. If you think Ira is a proper guru, go with Ira and see how well it works. If you listen to traditional Vedanta – a la Swami Dayananda etc.– then you can see how confused the Neo-Advaitins are. Their knowledge is poorly remembered knowledge, it is not direct knowledge. Direct knowledge is logically consistent on all levels. It can be assimilated by anybody qualified person who has been properly taught and is dedicated to actualizing the knowledge in his or her daily life.
Marcel: Sundari’s beautiful Two Awarenesses Satsang made it again perfectly clear that we accept duality as provisional solution for understanding non-duality.”
James: That’s good.
Marcel: “I did some research on Ira Schepetin and he seems to be a Shankara purist, but he spent also some time with Swami Dayananda, so he should be aware of that crutch we use transitionally. Or did I get his teaching completely wrong?”
James: You are completely wrong that he is a Shankara purist, Marcel. Anybody can get some or many of the teachings right, but moksha is complete knowledge, it is not tainted by ignorance. He interprets scripture according to his ignorance, but that doesn’t mean he knows what the scripture is saying.
Marcel: “Would love to hear your wisdom on that.”
James: This is not wisdom, Marcel, it is just common sense.
