Dr. Trasi's "Basic Tenets of Advaita" Point 4:

[Guest guest]

Hi all,

 

http://www.here-now4u.de/eng/advaita_and_science_.htm

http://personal.vsnl.com/ntrasi/

 

If what Dr. Trasi writes has to do with the science

and enlightenment, I would expect a sharper

scientific mind and more illumination.

 

|-------------------------------|

| If these articles were about something trivial |

| I would ignore them. |

| But we are talking here about |

| physicality, reality, existence, soul, god, you, I. |

| We can hardly afford to be careless |

| with the use of words. |

|-------------------------------|

 

THE CONCLUSION OF THIS POST IS A BIT DRASTIC.

MAYBE SOLSTICE IS HITTING ME EARLY,

OR SOME BURST OF SOLAR FLARES

IS BOTHERING ME A BIT TOO MUCH.

 

FORGIVE ME IF I AM TOO FIERY AND

SHORT ON COMPASSION

 

I am onto something.

 

"I am not paranoid" I said to my pursuer.

"Yes you are, I am not really after you."

----------

 

So here goes:

Point 4 as quoted from Dr. Trasi's "Basic Tenets of Advaita":

>>> '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. <<<

 

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, 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.

>>>>. '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.... <<<<

 

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?

>>>'We', as the separate individual entities that we unquestioningly take

ourselves to be, are also not different from Brahman or the Source. <<<

 

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.

>>>...our own separate individual consciousness, IS AN ILLUSION caused by

our defective way of thinking. This delusory power of our thinking is termed

maya. <<<<

 

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 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... and 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, with what intensity and

where we shed light upon it.

E=Maya= M.C squared.

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.

>>>...is an illusion caused by our defective way of thinking. This delusory

power of our thinking is termed maya. <<<

 

Who causes our "...defective way of thinking. This delusory power of our

thinking..."?

NOT MAYA

Who causes delusion, or illusion (if you want to use the flawed meaning of

the word)?

Somebody who threatens to "kick the living daylight out of you" if you do

not succumb to their abuse and violations, divulge those or blow the

whistle.

 

How do I know?

Because it happened to me.

 

The following is a bit heavy and I am almost tempted not to send it, but I

shall.

 

Brahman (later deified) was tempted to sacrifice his son.

(I remember some of that, 'akashik'ly.)

Abraham was about to sacrifice his son Isaac.

(He was told to, luckily he got stopped.)

My father was about to burn me.

(I remember that, he was beside himself, got stopped just in time)

My brother was about to kill me.

(I remember that, had to do with mercy and grace.)

 

I was ALMOST about to do this others.

when I was in a states of delusion

nothing was real

all was a dream

it did not matter

as matter did not matter

-------------------------------

The following are quotes from Trasi and my deliberations The quotes are

somewhat out of context, but not too much. I want to be fair.

Maybe I am somewhat unfair, but I will try it anyway. I need to work this

out.

I know I am onto something, I want to understand psychopathic and

sociopathic behaviour, I was too close to that, the temptation in my 40 days

of desert.

 

Quotes:

>>> God is not a person - 'God' in Advaita refers to this same impersonal,

indefinable force. <<<

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.

>>>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<<<

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.

>>>Now we can understand why the scriptures repeatedly state that the

Reality cannot be known. <<<

Can this also mean that some ancient writers did not want us to know the

extent of our (filled with fear) realities, that befell us when we

experienced being violated, doomed or 'killed' (I remember one hanging). We

are supposed to forget who the violator really is.

>>>As there is no separate soul, there can be no question of either free

will or of rebirth<<<

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.

 

Thanksgivings Day.

Love, Wim

[Guest guest]

Hi Greg,

 

You wrote:

> Fascinating post, I wanted to follow it.

 

That somebody wants to wade through such a post means a lot to me.

> But from the style of the markings I was confused,

> having trouble distinguishing which was Nitin's

> writing and which was yours.

 

Nitin Trasi's words are between the >>>....<<<<<, and when I use his words

inside my text they are between "......"

(Except for: "I am not paranoid" I said to my pursuer. "Yes you are, I am

not really after you."

and "kick the living daylight out of you." Those are mine.)

 

About 7.5 hours later now, I still think there is something important to

what I wrote.

 

You know

the morning after

when reality strikes

often with a rude awakening

we sometimes realize

that whatever we were into

before we finally fell asleep

was some kind of fixation...

a chimera...

 

not this morning

 

I remember in one of my early posts to the K list a few years ago, that I

mentioned that the concept of maya, the world as illusion, the way it is

usually defined in some eastern philosophies is a pathology symptomatic of a

psychological dysfunction originally caused by a life threatening violation

of a victim's integrity.

 

Love,

Wim

[Guest guest]

Hi Wim,

 

Fascinating post, I wanted to follow it. But from the style of the

markings I was confused, having trouble distinguishing which was Nitin's

writing and which was yours.

 

Love,

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

, "Wim Borsboom" <aurasphere@h...>

wrote:

> Hi Greg,

> I remember in one of my early posts to the K list a few years ago,

that I

> mentioned that the concept of maya, the world as illusion, the way

it is

> usually defined in some eastern philosophies is a pathology

symptomatic of a

> psychological dysfunction originally caused by a life threatening

violation

> of a victim's integrity.

>

> Love,

> Wim

 

Wim I really appreciate that someone is putting this out there. I

tend to agree with you (if I could just understand exactly what you

mean;-). To me it's maybe that self negation (which has been

conditioned into us by religion as self judgement), can continue after

emptiness is realised, thus continuing the play of duality ( with

Self, ~ by judging any aspect of Self as not It). I'd like to hear

your conclusions about whether some sort of ego is needed to maintain

human form. People talk about death of the ego. What does occur? Do

boundaries coexist with no boundaries even after enlightenment to

allow the Being to be in form?

 

Wim also said:

>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 we are talking here about |

reality, existence, God, you, me, I. |

We can hardly afford to be messy |

with the use of words. |

 

|-------------------------------|

 

I really appreciate that you are declaring this. Never stop.

 

Quotes from Nitin:

>>> 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.

 

Nitin:

>>>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.

 

Col:

Well spoken. Some say that many use emptiness is formless,

realisation, to stay half way. Some say that totality can only be

Known by embodying Self & seeing Self within all forms (matter too).

Look at the beauty of Mother earth. This is why we come here imo. To

experience the beauty of duality/unity all one. Form is none other

than formless being. It's beautifull.

 

Nitin:

>>>Now we can understand why the scriptures repeatedly state that the

Reality cannot be known. <<<

 

Wim:

Can this also mean that some ancient writers did not want us to know

the extent of our (filled with fear) realities, that befell us when we

experienced being violated, doomed or 'killed' (I remember one

hanging). We are supposed to forget who the violator really is.

 

Nitin:

>>>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?

 

Col:

Duality Self negation Self judgement. First we judge the self. Then we

judge the Self haha! Oh my God! lols

 

I will share what my friend sent to me just recently as it relates ..

 

This was shared on another list from the Vivekananda Center which

shares a lot of great stuff.

 

'Song of the Ever free

Avadhuta Gita

 

Chapter 7 verse 2

 

The signs of Avadhuta may or may not be visible.

Although he is beyond right and wrong, he is absolutely honest.

His real nature is perfect, pure and spotless.

How is it possible for such an illumined soul to

become involved in arguments and disputations?

 

 

Commentary: this verse reminds me of the avadhuta

of our times : Sri Ramana Maharshi.'

 

My friend Frank Maiello replied as below. (Frank has a little body

discomfort due to the cold weather so didn't want to stir a huge

debate on other lists, but has said it is fine to post this here.)

 

Frank:

 

"i was about to comment on today's avadhuta gita excerpt (re "How

is it possible for such an illumined soul to become involved in

arguments and disputations?"), but dont have the wherewithall

to handle the responses and questions that'll inevitably follow.

i.e. the classic belief is the jnani or siddha or avadhuta

(whatever name given) is some perfect manifest personality.

no such animal *ever* existed anywhere anytime! not jesus,

buddha, sankara, ramana. none! they all had human flaws in

some form or another. (the explanation for this isn't an easy

one.) thing is, and what's most important, is we all have to stop

the slayer-of-the-Real ego-Mind judgment machine! so few of us

catch the speed of this searing insight...thus the bewilderment

in the Chaos Lagoon continues.. in the end, and from there in

hindsight, it all doesn't and never did matter anyway! and so

we can laugh and laugh right freaking now!! :-)) "

 

Frank:

 

"it can further be observed:

 

advaitam resolves the fact that it is

this world, this Lord, and [the] implied

perceiver of this world and this Lord,

that are truly all one and the same Self.

 

OM tat sat OM "

 

:-)

 

Nice to share,

 

love,

 

Colette

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/21/00 3:57:10 PM Mountain Standard Time,

kvy9 writes:

 

<< As for the "unawakened", conditioning accumulates with age, it follows

that the "removal" of 1. can be very painful from say, age 40 on, whereas for

a youth, the same process can be experienced as a great joy. >>

 

Isn't this exactly what the aging process itself can do, I mean, for those of

us fortunate enough to live so long and stay reasonably healthy?! Part of

the grieving that goes on with age is not only the loss of the "past" self,

but the increasing realization of the future of the world without oneself in

it. An ego deflater for sure! But study after study shows that people

become happier with age and I suspect the disempowerment of the ego is a big

part of this. Holly

[Guest guest]

On 11/21/00 at 7:21 PM colette wrote:

 

[...]

ºWim I really appreciate that someone is putting this out there. I

ºtend to agree with you (if I could just understand exactly what you

ºmean;-). To me it's maybe that self negation (which has been

ºconditioned into us by religion as self judgement), can continue after

ºemptiness is realised, thus continuing the play of duality ( with

ºSelf, ~ by judging any aspect of Self as not It). I'd like to hear

ºyour conclusions about whether some sort of ego is needed to maintain

ºhuman form. People talk about death of the ego. What does occur? Do

ºboundaries coexist with no boundaries even after enlightenment to

ºallow the Being to be in form?

[...]

If anything, there is no clarity as to what "self" pertains. Perhaps it is

useful to postulate a few things so that at least one knows what is being

discussed.

 

Two major distinctions of "self" can be made:

1. the sense of "I", without which there is no sense of "you" or

"doer" either.

2. that which functions in a creature as to respond to stimuli (perceptions).

 

THE issue of all "practiced" religions, yogas and systems of meditation is to

"remove" 1., leaving what could be called natural responsiveness. From that

perspective, such a natural responsiveness could be called "self" also. The

complete "removal" of 2. means physical death but quite some responsiveness can

be "removed" without impairing biological functionality whereas social

functionality will only improve.

 

Terms like "ego death" are a sad product of society. As for the "unawakened",

conditioning accumulates with age, it follows that the "removal" of 1. can be

very painful from say, age 40 on, whereas for a youth, the same process can be

experienced as a great joy.

 

And to conclude, without the sense of "I", the issue of duality/nonduality has

become moot - the analogy of a deep sea fish, having recognized there is only

water and having realized its essence and that of all sentient creatures is

water. The fascination of essential sameness although no two things can be

equal.

 

Love,

Jan

[Guest guest]

On 11/21/00 at 8:51 PM Hbarrett47 wrote:

 

ºIn a message dated 11/21/00 3:57:10 PM Mountain Standard Time,

ºkvy9 writes:

º

º<< As for the "unawakened", conditioning accumulates with age, it follows

ºthat the "removal" of 1. can be very painful from say, age 40 on, whereas for

ºa youth, the same process can be experienced as a great joy. >>

º

ºIsn't this exactly what the aging process itself can do, I mean, for those of

ºus fortunate enough to live so long and stay reasonably healthy?! Part of

ºthe grieving that goes on with age is not only the loss of the "past" self,

ºbut the increasing realization of the future of the world without oneself in

ºit. An ego deflater for sure! But study after study shows that people

ºbecome happier with age and I suspect the disempowerment of the ego is a big

ºpart of this. Holly

 

The aging by itself can bring insight, this in turn can bring detachment, but

the energy to "burn out" the root cause of affliction is decreasing with age as

well. Becoming aware of this can be a pain by itself, leading to thought

patterns, with a beginning like "if only I had..." and instead of becoming free

from desire, desire for "another round" is born. Enlightenment doesn't depend on

any condition, it is a matter of recognition that can occur when dying, but

erasing the countless impressions from the subconscious is a matter of energy.

The issue about reincarnation is that these impressions will (seemingly) start

to live a life of their own, creating the Bardo scenery or its equivalent so

that enlightenment will be forgotten (again) in the arising turmoil of the mind.

In other words, "the thread is likely to continue", no matter the name given to

it.

 

Love,

Jan

[Guest guest]

, "jb" <kvy9@l...> wrote:

> On 11/21/00 at 7:21 PM colette@b... wrote:

>

> [...]

> ºWim I really appreciate that someone is putting this out there. I

> ºtend to agree with you (if I could just understand exactly what you

> ºmean;-). To me it's maybe that self negation (which has been

> ºconditioned into us by religion as self judgement), can continue

after

> ºemptiness is realised, thus continuing the play of duality ( with

> ºSelf, ~ by judging any aspect of Self as not It). I'd like to hear

> ºyour conclusions about whether some sort of ego is needed to

maintain

> ºhuman form. People talk about death of the ego. What does occur? Do

> ºboundaries coexist with no boundaries even after enlightenment to

> ºallow the Being to be in form?

> [...]

> If anything, there is no clarity as to what "self" pertains. Perhaps

it is useful to postulate a few things so that at least one knows what

is being discussed.

>

> Two major distinctions of "self" can be made:

> 1. the sense of "I", without which there is no sense of "you" or

"doer" either.

> 2. that which functions in a creature as to respond to stimuli

(perceptions).

>

> THE issue of all "practiced" religions, yogas and systems of

meditation is to "remove" 1., leaving what could be called natural

responsiveness.

 

Hi Jan. How do you account for people using the phrase I Am?

 

What does Ramana's I I refer to?

 

Just wondering,

 

Col

 

>

> And to conclude, without the sense of "I", the issue of

duality/nonduality has become moot

>

> Love,

> Jan

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/21/00 7:23:10 PM Mountain Standard Time,

kvy9 writes:

 

<< Enlightenment doesn't depend on any condition, it is a matter of

recognition that can occur when dying, but erasing the countless impressions

from the subconscious is a matter of energy. >>

 

Thanks for clarifying this for me, Jan. I've heard about deathbed

enlightenments and wondered what would be the consequences. I don't think my

mother had one, but a couple hours before she died her body got amazingly hot

to the touch. I've always been curious about what was going on. Her death

was so peaceful I felt like it pulled me, too, into the abyss of love for

awhile. Love, Holly

[Guest guest]

Hey Win,

 

Sending you Nitin's e-mail address offline. Maybe you can send your

comments to him?

 

Love,

 

--Greg

 

At 09:30 AM 11/21/00 -0800, Wim Borsboom wrote:

>>>>

Hi Greg,

 

You wrote:

> Fascinating post, I wanted to follow it.

 

That somebody wants to wade through such a post means a lot to me.

> But from the style of the markings I was confused,

> having trouble distinguishing which was Nitin's

> writing and which was yours.

 

Nitin Trasi's words are between the >>>....<<<<<, and when I use his words

inside my text they are between "......"

(Except for: "I am not paranoid" I said to my pursuer. "Yes you are, I am

not really after you."

and "kick the living daylight out of you." Those are mine.)

 

About 7.5 hours later now, I still think there is something important to

what I wrote.

[Guest guest]

Sorry, I meant *Wim* !! -Greg

 

At 11:01 AM 11/22/00, Gregory Goode wrote:

>>>>

Hey Win,

 

Sending you Nitin's e-mail address offline. Maybe you can send your

comments to him?

 

Love,

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

On 11/22/00 at 7:19 AM colette wrote:

 

[...]

ºHi Jan. How do you account for people using the phrase I Am?

 

Well, I hope they are not just reciting a text (LOL) but that *I AM* is is their

rock-solid experience.

 

º

ºWhat does Ramana's I I refer to?

 

ºJust wondering,

º

ºCol

 

It refers to the fact that when the "small I" is surrendered, which will happen

by itself in the course of Self-enquiry, one becomes aware of an overwhelming

Presence that (at that stage) is likely to be interpreted as "big I". It will

almost compel writing of soul-inspiring, devotional works but most of the time

one will be "blissed out", unable to perform more than the most basic duties.

 

Love,

Jan

[Guest guest]

, "jb" <kvy9@l...> wrote:

>

> On 11/22/00 at 7:19 AM colette@b... wrote:

>

> [...]

> ºHi Jan. How do you account for people using the phrase I Am?

>

> Well, I hope they are not just reciting a text (LOL) but that *I AM*

is is their rock-solid experience.

>

> º

> ºWhat does Ramana's I I refer to?

>

> ºJust wondering,

> º

> ºCol

>

> It refers to the fact that when the "small I" is surrendered, which

will happen by itself in the course of Self-enquiry, one becomes aware

of an overwhelming Presence that (at that stage) is likely to be

interpreted as "big I". It will almost compel writing of

soul-inspiring, devotional works but most of the time one will be

"blissed out", unable to perform more than the most basic duties.

>

> Love,

> Jan

 

Hi Jan. I just wanted to ask you then about the other I.

 

I hear people talking about "death of I" death of ego etc then this

term I I.

 

Thanks for sharing,

 

love,

 

Colette

[Guest guest]

On 11/22/00 at 9:51 AM Hbarrett47 wrote:

 

ºIn a message dated 11/21/00 7:23:10 PM Mountain Standard Time,

ºkvy9 writes:

º

º<< Enlightenment doesn't depend on any condition, it is a matter of

ºrecognition that can occur when dying, but erasing the countless impressions

ºfrom the subconscious is a matter of energy. >>

º

ºThanks for clarifying this for me, Jan. I've heard about deathbed

ºenlightenments and wondered what would be the consequences. I don't think my

ºmother had one, but a couple hours before she died her body got amazingly hot

ºto the touch. I've always been curious about what was going on. Her death

ºwas so peaceful I felt like it pulled me, too, into the abyss of love for

ºawhile. Love, Holly

 

In principle it would be possible to realize the real nature from a lucid dream

as well and lucid dreams have a similarity with some NDE's. I even think

deathbed enlightenment is predictable: the only requirement is surrender, giving

up fear. Feel it, but don't run, don't fight, don't hide. Then the turmoil of

the mind subsides, leaving "clear light". Surrender "uncovers" love and where is

love can't be fear. This should be a common experience for everyone; love

"invested" in "others" invariably is "invested" in oneself. So one's

dreams do

have a predictive significance: if in dreams there is surrender, the "wrathful

deities" appearing at death cannot veil "clear light".

 

Love,

Jan

[Guest guest]

On 11/22/00 at 7:23 PM colette wrote:

 

[...]

ºHi Jan. I just wanted to ask you then about the other I.

º

ºI hear people talking about "death of I" death of ego etc then this

ºterm I I.

º

ºThanks for sharing,

º

ºlove,

º

ºColette

 

There is something else that cannot be repeated enough: the interpretation of

"ego-death" is very unlikely to happen when engaged in a (social) network of

"caring and

sharing" like for instance a satsanga. Although the "feeling" will be the same,

the interpretation will be different. The interpretation as "ego-death" is a

formidable block by itself - it is the very opposite of "dissolving in Love".

 

Love,

Jan