Freedom is "to be free IN all conditions..."
It is NOT "to be free FROM any of them!"

"The Integrated Yawning and Stretching Technique" or "AuraPuri"

If you came here to read about The Chakras and the Integrated Yawning & Stretching Technique, please click HERE.
If you came here to follow the exercise videos of The Chakras and the Integrated Yawning & Stretching Technique, please click HERE.
If you came here to read about AuraPuri, an innovative plan for rural/urban development in Khajuraho, India, please click HERE.
To view this website with a new viewing feature please click Classic In that view the site is fully searchable.

Dualism and the seeming Reality of Negativity

Dualism is a mentalized mix of assumptions that is not based on factual, actual relativistic reality (Einsteinian relativity).
Dualism or the absolute belief in opposites is a mentally conceptualized, albeit deeply ingrained idea only in the human mind, but although deeply ingrained, it still is a concept that is in conflict with factual functional reality.
Dualist thinking comes from undue deep suffering and leads to more undue deep suffering.
When we compare reality (a multi-dimensional web of inward and outward relative distinctions) to illusion (its characteristics listed in a conceptual table of absolute opposites) we can see, inspired by Buddhism and Advaita or Non-dualism, that:
  • The positive is reality, consisting of actual functional dynamic relatings in freedom,
  • Negativity (being less than zero) is only seemingly real and actual, consisting of non functional attempts to impede relatings. Negativity is the illusion of bondage to debt and dependence, made to look as though more real than factual functional reality itself.
Bondage to the negativity of debt and subservient dependencies is:
  • desiring what one is seemingly short off,
  • seemingly taking away from people's wholeness through the application of fear and threats.
Bondage to negativity or debt [SIN in Sanskrit, meaning not being (N) that one is (SI)] comes from and leads to the appearance of human suffering. To be under the power of threat and fear is to be in a state of paranoia, illusion or deep suffering... the way the Buddha put it.



~~~

Comment by Chuck:
I like your essay on "Dualism and the seeming Reality of Negativity", But I do not understand your thoughts on Buddhism and Non-Dualism as suffering. To me they seem very foreign from the translations I have read.

Wim:
Problem with the earlier translations from even earlier oral transmissions assumedly coming from the Buddha is that most were done by followers and commentators who did not necessarily fully understand the Buddha's words and meanings as to their radical and often deep reaching portent... (If they would've, they would not have been the kind of followers they were...
OK, that is a rash conclusion... but it HAS to be considered!) The same problem exists with the Christian oral and written transmissions: from in depth scholarship we now know which written words of JC were most likely spoken by him, which written words and expressions were based on what he might have said, which were words were simply put in his mouth, etc.

The Jesus Seminar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar has done very extensive in depth work on that. (It took off from earlier "Red Letter" translations of the gospels.) Something similar to what the Jesus Seminar has done/is doing should be done to words that Buddha is assumed to have said.
Other problems with early Buddhist translations is that margin notes, commentary insertions, spelling errors, page, word and letter inversions, etc. became integrated in the text. (Initially also, punctuation marks and spaces between words were not used.) Then there is the Pali/Sanskrit problem... Pali, because of its more fuzzy spelling and pronunciation, can sometimes be ambiguous in respect to which Sanskrit word might have given rise to the Pali words used in a translation OR the other way around.

Chuck:
What language/dialect did the Buddha speak...?

Wim:
That is hard to say...
Just like in the case of Jesus, we don't really know, but Jesus quite likely spoke Aramaic, probably in a somewhat trendy Hellenistic (Greek speaking) background of Hebrew circles within the Jewish population.
An important aspect to consider about the language the Buddha spoke. He grew up in royal circles in Northern India, now Nepal, where the royal language might not have been the same as the common language of the population at large. (In fact during the early years of his life he was purposely kept away from the common life of the common folk.)

Although it may not be a fair comparison, but it may help to consider that there might have been a similar difference between "Buddha speech" and "People speech" as there is between the "Queen's English and "London Cockney".
So, you are quite right as to your understanding of Dukkha, you are correct in not equating it with "suffering" the way it is usually done.
Somewhere on this website there is a piece I wrote on the etymological roots of the word "dukkha". Also the direct link between "maya" (often incompletely or wrongly translated as 'illusion') and "dukkha" in the sense that life is suffering, that everything is "maya" and that suffering is an integral part of the 'whole shebang' is not what the Buddha could have said and meant. Enlightened people cannot mean that, if they did they would not be enlightened!!!

I have written quite a bit on maya, dharma, moksha, etc. with conclusions quite distinct from what the usual and popularized commentaries offer, and all with strong etymological support.

Chuck:
I have not read many Buddhist scriptures, I admit, but all this talk about "suffering" doesn't fit with my perceptions of what Buddhism or Non-Dualism are all about.

Wim:
You are right, it seems that your take on the meaning of suffering differs from the meaning of suffering that one so often finds in the Hinayana and Mahayana versions of Buddhism. And so is my treatment of the origin and meaning of suffering.
Similarly with my take on illusion, it is radically different than how most in Buddhist or Hindu circles see illusion to be... If I remember well what you have told me previously, you seem to equate illusion and reality somewhat...

Chuck:
Yes, our illusions of what manifests Reality. To have boiling water, magnets, wires and electric currents are all part of the illusion. They don't really exist. Yeah, I know, I can tell my ass the ground doesn't really exist either the next time I slip on the ice and land on it. So the question is; Why do they feel like they exist if they are only an illusion? It's all in the mind.

Wim:
But Chuck, your conclusion that "they are only illusion" might simply not be the case. That conclusion might be what a certain dys-functional aspect of the human mind might want you to be believe, but that cliche "it's all in the mind" is part of a certain dysfunctional aspect of the mind's that leads to its own megalomania and additional dysfunction.

The mind is a wonderful servant, but there are adverse side effects that come with its services.
Let me put it as follows: because a servant can serve the king to keep him alive and well, that servant can come to the conclusion that the king's whole existence depends on him. He can kill the king and therefore think he is really king himself...
In fact, ironically, I just sent this reply to another forum on this very subject of "Dukkha". Dukkha does not mean suffering. I would translate dukkha more as anxiety or apprehension, which has more to do with awareness than suffering.
In a similar way, "maya" does not mean illusion either, so all readings of Buddhist source texts that come to conclusions as to equating illusion with whatever it equates it with are ill founded.

Chuck:
Mind you, I have only read a few Buddhist translation, and I do not remember the names of course, and I am no expert, but I never took Buddhism to be about wallowing in suffering.
The "teachings" I have read have always been more about Enabling, than about suffering, and is what I found attractive and admirable about Buddhist philosophy. To call life suffering is not the Buddhism I understand.

Wim:
So right on!!!

Chuck:
I think the deeper meaning of Anxiety is more to the point. Life is not all about suffering, and if that is really what Buddhism and Non- Dualism are all about, then, as far as I am concerned, they too are "False Prophets". Wim: Luckily Non-Dualism is not about that, Non-Dualism kicks in at the cessation of suffering… Oh no, it is way better than that, Non-Dualism was there (and even remains) in spite of the seemingly convincing overlays of illusion and suffering.

(The 'comments' conversation is from 01 April, 2011)

No comments: