v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v
Michael:
Bliss is great! I certainly enjoy mine
and deny none theirs, but it is still
attachment... just as surely as some are attached to their suffering.
Wim:
Oh oh, careful now!
Bliss is actually realized through detachment: by dropping oneself into
whatever is really and presently happening.
When one unconditionally surrenders oneself to what reality presents in actuality, one detaches oneself from any expectations about what the current conditions are expected, supposed or wished to be.
So the way you point at the problematic relationship between
attachment and bliss... there is actually no problem!
And as you are mentioning "suffering"..., bliss is only seemingly the opposite of suffering:
it seems so to a mind that is steeped in conceptual thinking and indoctrinated with dualistic beliefs and
assumptions.
Dualism considers illusion as the opposite of reality, but actually illusion is the seeming absence of reality.
Michael:
It sounds as if you are referring to
a bliss that is beyond subject/object,
Maybe I just mean happiness instead of bliss.
Wim:
Sure, do some research, but... not too much. There is really no need to under-rate or devalue your own current happiness and bliss.
Also, do not worry too much about the "subject/object" problem. Thinking in those terms is overly conceptual and extremely dualistic, almost by definition.
In addition, analyzing the "subject/object" problem does not make the assumed problem go away. In fact, analysis can easily prolong any perceived or assumed problems.
Hmmm...
Let's say, for example, that you consider love to be a problem in your life, you may already have noticed that analyzing the problem did not make you love easier or sooner or better, rather you may have concluded that the reasons why you might have a problem with love in your life are reasonable and even acceptable or at least excusable.
This type of analysis (i.e. mental analysis of problems that are caused by flawed mentalized concepts) is most often nothing more than a strategy to procrastinate real work on and effective resolution of problems.
It may very well be that this type of analyzing prevents the process of letting go of attachments. Come to think of it, analysis may very well be a product of attachment, doing the act of detaching only conceptually but never in actuality.
About your current experiences of happiness or bliss, see if you can more fully appreciate any kind of bliss or happiness that you presently enjoy.
The more often you are happy (however short or little), the more you will notice that the illusion of subject-object dichotomy dissolves.
Even though it seems that happiness is condition driven... it actually is not. Even so-called 'consumption driven happiness' has its place. Underrating any form of happiness is simply judgmental. We don't really know what causes happiness, whatever we say about it is conceptualizing.
There is no reason to be happy... one doesn't need a reason to be happy !
Discover that happiness initially is your recovery from dualism in any shape or form.
Dualism
stems from a kind of mental astigmatism, a mental double-take that is caused by
a difficulty to apply a singular focus - something like
a philosophical/psychological squint.
Happiness is enjoying oneness, it auto-focuses while one zooms in and out from grander views to minute details and vice versa.
Dualities are just
opposing
conceptual ideas or figments, we do not really experience them, you may want to check
that out. You might experience spirit or body realities but you never
experience the duality of spirit and body. Only post-reflection (after-thought) and berating judgmental
attitudes by self and others
makes people self-conscious of these opposing conceptual reflections.
Enjoy your happiness, any kind of happiness, wind up the
feeling, give your chakra energies an extra whirl. Happiness is an experience
of energy, one is allowed to be creative with it, like extending foreplay, like
extending orgasm to such an extent that no 'kockedoodledo' is not
needed anymore (except of course for procreative purposes).
v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v
A commentary on
Dr. Nitin Trasi's "Basic Tenets of Advaita"
as found on
http://www.here-now4u.de/eng/advaita_and_science_.htm
http://personal.vsnl.com/ntrasi/
Trasi:
"Advaita is the Hindu or Vedantic name for the
doctrine of monism. Advaita can be literally translated as adualism or
non-dualism, but is generally referred to as monism. It is not the same as
monotheism, which is the belief that there is only one God, as contrasted with
polytheism which believes in many gods. Advaita is not even the same as
pan-theism, 'all things are God'. The basic principle of Advaita is that there
ARE no 'things' - there is only God. In other words, all that exists, is God -
'things' are mere appearances.
The basic tenets of Advaita could be stated
very briefly as follows :
1. There is One basic underlying Reality or
Source of the entire manifestation, which is variously called Brahman, Nirguna
(attributeless) Brahman, Consciousness (Prajna) or just 'THAT' (Tat).
2. Unlike the common perception of God, in
reality God is not a person - 'God' in Advaita refers to this same impersonal,
indefinable force. This force cannot be accurately described in words, and so
any description must be accepted with that caveat.
3. The Nirguna Brahman has not CREATED the
manifestation of this phenomenal universe, it has BECOME the manifestation, and
that too, ONLY IN APPEARANCE. In this becoming, the essential nature of Brahman
remains unchanged, as Brahman is, by its very nature, changeless, this becoming
is only an APPARENT becoming. The example given is that of a screen - Brahman -
and the pictures projected on it - the manifestation.
4. 'We', as the separate individual entities
that we unquestioningly take ourselves to be, are also not different from
Brahman or the Source. Our sense of being separate psychological entities each
with our own separate individual consciousness, IS AN ILLUSION caused by our
defective way of thinking. This delusory power of our thinking is termed maya.
We are not even a part of Brahman in the sense of being a small part of a bigger whole. We ARE Brahman by another name."
Critical
commentary on the above article.
Wim:
If what Dr. Trasi writes has to do with “science and enlightenment”, I would expect a sharper scientific mind and more illumination.
If the articles on Dr. Nitsin Trasi’s website
were about something trivial
we could ignore them,
but he is talking about
Physicality, Reality, Existence, Soul, God, You, I...
and that in a rather careless manner.
Given the subject, how can he be so be careless
with his use of words and concepts.
Trasi:
" 'We', as the separate individual entities that we
unquestioningly take
ourselves to be, are also not different from Brahman or the Source. Our
sense of being separate psychological entities each with our own separate
individual consciousness, IS AN ILLUSION caused by our defective way of
thinking. This delusory power of our thinking is termed maya."
Wim:
There definitely could be something 'strange' produced by a
defect that our thinking may have picked up. But instead of investigating what
the nature of the defect is, and what may have caused that defect, Dr. Trasi discusses
what the alleged defect produces. He is then very messy in defining the results
of the defect with a choice of seemingly similar words of which the meanings
are very different indeed: 'illusion' and 'delusory'.
The whole paragraph is actually very messy.
Trasi:
"... 'We', as the separate individual entities that we
unquestioningly take
ourselves to be, are also not different from Brahman or the Source. Our
sense of being separate psychological entities each with our own separate
individual consciousness...."
Wim:
First he mentions: "separate individual entities."
Then he uses the expression: "separate psychological entities." Well
what is it? "Separate individual entities" may well refer to
physical, unsplittable entities, indivisible ones, individuals, human bodies.
The other expression "separate psychological entities" could refer to
psychological personality-disorder concepts. A "separate psychological
entity" is definitely not the same as a "separate individual entity"
in the proper sense of the words. Psychologically an individual can definitely
be split into different personalities but not into different individuals. We
would lose our life if we were to split our individuality, would we not?
Trasi:
"... 'We', as the separate individual entities that we
unquestioningly take
ourselves to be, are also not different from Brahman or the Source."
Wim:
In this context, Brahman cannot be an individual entity,
indivisible. If that were so, "the separate individual entities that we
unquestioningly take ourselves to be," can not be "not
different" from Brahman, even if we do *exist* in some psychological form
of separation whether from defective thinking or not. If Brahman is "the
Source" then that source like 'a river', may produce many different
streams in its delta. It may all be water and one source, all under one name
e.g. the Meh Kong and its delta, but there is no doubt about the different
geographic locations of the streams.
Trasi:
"... our own separate individual consciousness, IS AN ILLUSION caused by our defective way of thinking. This delusory power of our thinking is termed maya."
Wim:
Illusions are not delusory, illusions
are not delusions.
Now this difference in meaning between
these words would not matter too much if the
topic was trivial. But again we are talking here about
Reality, Existence, God, You, Me, I
We can hardly afford to be messy
with the use of words.
·
Illusion has an illuminating connotation. It is actually something
positively energetic that our brain can do with light... Our thoughts and
thought-forms absorb, reflect and/or project that light. Illumination can shed
light. Even if it is illusive in the usual flawed sense of the word, it can
still produce insight on and about "maya".
Maya is that which is 'measurable' when, as, how, where and with
what intensity we shed light upon it.
E=Maya= M.C2.
This is science,
This is experience,
This 'makes' sense.
·
Delusion has a shady, de-luminating connotation. It takes light
away, it leaves one in the dark. It creates separation, excommunication, we
exclude deluded people, we shut them away and up.
Delusion affects our brain affectivity and our thinking
negatively. Aha!!!! It is the cause of defective thinking.
Delusion undernourishes the brain, it creates unclarity, doubt,
suffering, mental defects.
Trasi:
"... an illusion caused by our defective way of thinking.
This delusory power of our thinking is termed maya."
W
Who or what causes our Trasi's "defective way of thinking. This delusory power of our thinking..."?
How can that be maya?
Is maya not actually the result of defective thinking?!
How then can it cause it?!
If it is not maya, who (not what!) is it then who causes delusion or illusion?
Could it be somebody (now possibly forgotten or
gone scott-free) who at some point in one's life threatened to, say, "kick the living
daylight out of you," if you did not succumb to his or her abuse and violating
manipulations, even disabling you to blow the whistle on him or her?.
The following is a bit heavy and I am almost
tempted not to show it.
Brahman (later deified) almost
sacrificed his son Vishnu.
Abraham was urged to sacrifice his son Isaac.
My father at some point felt compelled to burn me.
One of my brothers almost killed me - to do with mercy and grace... the "say
uncle" type.
And thus...
I was about to the same to others
as what was at one point done to me
when I was in similar states of delusion
when
nothing was real
when
all appeared as though a dream
when nothing mattered
when matter... did not matter
Following are more quotes from Nitin Trasi and my deliberations on
them. Granted, the quotes may
be somewhat out of context, but not too much.
I need to work this out as I know I am
onto something, I want to understand psychopathic and sociopathic behaviour,
as I was so close to that myself, like JC's 40 day temptation in the desert'.
Trasi:
"God is not a person - 'God' in Advaita refers
to this same impersonal, indefinable force."
Wim:
Could this mean, that such a God could hide behind
impersonality, so as not to be known as the 'killer' of the individual soul or
the physical being.
Reminds me of Yahweh in Eden who was introducing death into Adam
and Eve's life.
Trasi:
"This force cannot be accurately described in words, and so
any
description must be accepted with that caveat. In fact 'we' are mere
apparitions, illusions, which arise in the body-minds during the process
of
seeing."
Wim:
This seems like what could go through the mind of a psychopathic
killer who is deluded and tries to desensitize his guilt to justify his actions
as not having physical consequences in reality.
Trasi:
"Now we can understand why the scriptures repeatedly state
that the
Reality cannot be known."
Wim:
Could this also mean that some ancient writers did not want us
to know the full extent of our realities (filled with fear as they were), that
befell us when we experienced being violated, doomed or killed ? (I remember
one hanging). We were urged and supposed to forget who the violator really was.
Trasi:
"As there is no separate soul, there can be no question of
either free
will or of rebirth."
Wim:
A psychopath or sociopath could think this as well to clear some
kind of conscience.
Why do advaita type of philosophies attempt to deny physical
existence, what is behind all this?
I remember my deluded states, good thing I had these angels
(ancestors) looking over my shoulders.
v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v
Peter:
"Fascinating, all that…"
Wim:
Wow, Peter, you actually waded through that section above?
When I woke up the next morning after I wrote the above commentary, I expected that upon rereading I would have to eat my words.
You know,
the morning after,
when reality strikes,
-
often with a rude awakening -
we often realize,
that whatever we were into the night before,
before we finally tired ourselves out,
that it was some kind of fixation,
a chimera...
Not this morning!
I remember in one of my early writings to people interested in Kundalini in 1998, that I mentioned that the concept of maya, the world as illusion, the way it is usually defined in some eastern philosophies, that that is a pathology symptomatic of a psychological dysfunction originally caused by a life threatening violation of a victim's integrity. I’m becoming more convinced of that.
v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v