Negativity came to some sort of a disrepute in the spiritual circles, thanks to the positivity being hyped up \u2013 and it\u2019s not only in the 1990s, because I know that Yogananda, who preceded this trend by decades, gave his contribution. So, let me explain why negativity is a legitimate and useful thing.<\/p>\n
First of all, Vedanta insists on it \u2013 \u201cneti, neti<\/i>\u201d means \u201cnot this, not that\u201d, and it\u2019s one of the primary ways of discarding non-brahman<\/i> entities from the mind. Also, Vedanta defines things negatively \u2013 brahman is \u201cacintya<\/i>\u201d and \u201cnirguna<\/i>\u201d. Acintya<\/i> means \u201cinconceivable\u201d or \u201cunimaginable\u201d, and nirguna<\/i> means \u201cattribute-less\u201d or \u201cdevoid of worldly qualities\u201d. Those are all negative designations.<\/p>\n
Buddhism, also, approaches things negatively, by deconstructing attachments and spiritual constructs, not even bothering to say that something will eventually arise that can\u2019t be deconstructed \u2013 essentially, your job is to assume that everything you encounter is a compound structure that can be dissolved, and if there is a positive underlying principle, such as nirvana<\/i>, that will be revealed in due course without any attempt on your behalf to visualize the goal.<\/p>\n
So, the most intellectually and spiritually authoritative religious systems of the East couldn\u2019t care less about positivity, and in fact promote negativity in a very obvious way. We know that Christianity couldn\u2019t care less about the concepts such as \u201cpositive\u201d or \u201cnegative\u201d, and instead focuses on spiritually and morally relevant terms such as \u201cgood\u201d and \u201cevil\u201d, or \u201ctruth\u201d and \u201cfalsehood\u201d. There\u2019s no concept of a \u201cnegative person\u201d in Christianity \u2013 a person is either good or evil. If someone\u2019s words are unpleasant to you, the question is whether he\u2019s right or wrong. If he\u2019s right and his words are unpleasant to you, saying he\u2019s \u201cnegative\u201d doesn\u2019t allow you to dismiss him out of hand, and instead it is quite obvious that you\u2019re the problem.<\/p>\n
So, if Christianity doesn\u2019t recognize those designations as valid, if Buddhism and Vedanta use negativity as one of the primary instruments of detachment, deconstruction and discernment (all three words being negative, by the way), where did all the idolatry of positivity and contempt of negativity come from?<\/p>\n
The answer is obvious \u2013 not from the ancient, traditional sources. It\u2019s all New Age nonsense. By all means, you can believe in that stuff, just don\u2019t try to convince people that it\u2019s the spiritual main stream and something self-evident, because it\u2019s not. In fact, it stands in opposition to all the religious philosophies I find compelling and impressive.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Negativity came to some sort of a disrepute in the spiritual circles, thanks to the positivity being hyped up \u2013 and it\u2019s not only in the 1990s, because I know that Yogananda, who preceded this trend by decades, gave his … Continue reading