Guest guest Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 In a message dated 5/13/05 2:37:01 PM, wim_borsboom writes: > > Advaita > > http://www.here-now4u.de/eng/advaita_and_science_.htm > > By Dr. Nitin Trasi > > http://personal.vsnl.com/ntrasi/ > > " 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. " > > .................. > What follows is my critical commentary on Dr. Trasi's " Basic Tenets of > Advaita " above... expect some surprising turns and twists. > .................. > > 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, 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 waht you will be reading here is a bit drastic, but > forgive me if I am too fiery and short on compassion, but I know, I am > onto something. > > 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. " > > 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.... " > > 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. " > > 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. " > > 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. 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. " > > Who or what 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)? > > 'S o m e b o d y' who threatens to e.g. " 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... As I have been on the receiving as well > as on the threatening side! > > The following is a bit heavy and I am almost tempted not to write it, > but I shall. > > Brahman (later deified) was tempted to sacrifice his son. > (I remember some of that, 'akashic records'.) > 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, stopped just in time.) > One of my brothers was about to kill me. > (I remember that, had to do with mercy and grace.) > > I was about to the same to others. > when I was in a states of delusion: > > n o t h i n g w a s r e a l > a l l w a s a d r e a m > i t d i d n o t m a t t e r > a s m a t t e r d i d n o t m a t t e r > > Following are more quotes from Trasi and my deliberations on them > (based on what I wrote directly above). Granted, my quotes quotes may > be a bit out of context, but not too much I think. I want to be fair, > but maybe I am somewhat unfair, 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 so close to that myself, > the temptation in my own '40 days in the desert' once. > > Trasi: > " 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. > > 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. " > > 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. " > > 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. " > > 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 some angels looking > over my shoulders. (-: or were they ancestors trying to help me undo > my flawed doings? :-) > > ¡¾v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\ > > Someone commented: > > " Fascinating, all that¡Ä " > > That somebody wants to wade through the above means a lot to me. > > About 7.5 hours later now, after I wote the above, 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, > 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. > > ¡¾v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\ > > And now I am totally... > Wim > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.