Illusion

[Guest guest]

This is the best explaination on Illusio I have come across.

 

The problem with us is that we think there's a world outside us and that

we're living in that world. But it is not the case. You are not in the world;

the

world is in you. Haven't you realized--even though when you open your eyes in

the morning the world appears, and when you go to sleep at night it

disappears--that when you are asleep you are still existing? And that it is the

same

person who exists in sleep who also exists in the waking state? Therefore, if

during the night the world seems to disappear, and if who you really are

continues to exist when the world no longer seems to, it can only mean that you,

the

person you imagine yourself to be in the morning, are an illusion!

Or like this. If you look in the mirror, you see only one face, correct? You

do not have the impression that you are seeing two faces, one in the mirror

and one outside the mirror. You're entirely engrossed in your reflection, which

you take to be yourself, and in that moment you're disassociated from your own

true face, which you cannot see. But if you have a bloodstain on your face

due to shaving, and if the blood appears on your reflection, you do not touch

the reflection, you touch your face, correct? Similarly, the Atman [self]

reflects the entire world through the mirror of knowledge. The problem is that

the

"I" comes in between and touches the reflection of the real, and you get caught

up with it. It is just as if you were trying to wipe the bloodstain off of

the reflection in the mirror. ...

That is what is called an illusion, and the world is purely an illusion. You

must understand that you reflect your own world, you see your own world. But

this is simply the problem that occurs when we are not interested in our other

states of existence, when we are concerned only with our waking state, and not

with our deep sleep state and our dream state. We exist in all three of these

states, but we are only concerned with one. Such is the misery of man. But

the moment one witnesses all three states of existence, then he will understand

that the world is nothing but a pure illusion.

 

There are no human beings. One has got to clearly understand that. You are a

spiritual being having a human experience. Don't consider yourself to be a

human being wanting spiritual experience. That's also an illusion.

Now, these people talk about "escape from the world," but what's the point?

Haven't they understood that the world is an illusion? So what? If it's an

illusion, then what is there to renounce? How can you renounce an illusion?

Stupidity! Absolute nonsense! Illusion? What's the problem? This illusion is

there

for you to rejoice in. Imagine yourself or anybody trying to escape--where is

he going to go? Even if he goes to a cave, he'll have thousands and thousands

of thoughts rushing into his mind. He'll never escape.

If you go to a museum, you may see a huge painting there depicting, let's

say, an old woman, a tattered old lady in rags and absolutely skin and bones

with

hardly a morsel of food on her plate, and a skinny-looking baby lying beside

her, and a large dying dog. There may be a few cattle also starving by the

side, the trees are dried up, the land is dry and everything appears so, so

sickening there. But a man will stand in front of that picture and say, "What a

masterpiece!" ...

And there may also be a bleeding man with a broken leg, and still this fellow

says, "What a masterpiece!" He will never say, "Oh! I feel so sorry for this

lady, let me go get some pizza and feed her. This man is bleeding, let me take

him to the hospital. This dog is dying, let me take it to the ASPCA." No--he

says, "It's a masterpiece!"

Similarly, God has painted this entire panoramic, continuously changing

picture that is never constant but is continuously going on and on. He has never

finished his masterpiece, but all the time he's within everybody enjoying and

rejoicing in it because it's purely a painting. It is the fact that you want to

get yourself involved in this painting and take it to be real that is the

problem which causes so much misery for one and all. ...

So there is nothing to be renounced and nothing to be done. Just be yourself

and find out who you are. That is the end of every problem in life. You know,

there are no problems in life--the only problem is thinking. Life is not a

problem; life is a mystery. Life is a song. Life is a dance. Through this

mystery

lives this song, lives this dance. Enjoy the cosmic dance of Shiva! That is

Advaita for you! The moment you become the song, the moment you become the

dance, the moment you become the fluidity in water, the hardness in the rock,

the

fragrance of the flower, the moment you become the blossoming of the flower,

you are Advaita. But suppose you see a beautiful flower, and feeling a sudden

sense of beauty inside yourself you say, "What a beautiful flower!" What has

happened there? ...

The moment you utter a word, things have stopped and you have dipped into

your past. Literally, we are leading a dead life made up only of images from the

past and nothing of the life in front of us as it's blossoming in its glory.

We miss it. We're always in the past. We are shaking hands with a dead corpse

in every minute. We think we are living life, but we are not. The beauty in the

flower is God, you see? God is not a person; God is a presence. God is the

godliness that is present only in this moment NOW--not in the past, not in the

future. The moment you are in the mind, it isn't Advaita. But the moment you're

in the moment-to-moment, that is Advaita.

 

There's nothing called "good" and "bad." That's all purely your mental

concepts. It's only because you think you're a human being and God is elsewhere

that

you think you should be accountable to God. You think God is a magistrate?

You think God is a Peeping Tom? You think God is a dictator waiting to punish

you? And you say "God is everywhere." If God is everywhere, who are you, then?

It is because you think you are a human being wanting spiritual experiences

that you get caught in the concepts of good and bad and evil and up and down

and sideways and backwards and inside and outside. But nothing like that exists

even if you are not realized. If you think you've got to be accountable to

God, who are you, then? You are separate from God? That means God is not

everywhere. Forget it! Never say the statement, "God is everywhere." The moment

you

say "God is everywhere," you do not exist. Of course you do not exist. God is

everywhere. You've forgotten your true nature, and because you've forgotten your

true nature, you say you've got to be accountable to God. But the moment you

know God, you're not there, so who are you going to account to?

Now, a Self-realized one who has transcended the mind is not accountable.

Why? Because he is God. How can God be accountable to himself? There's nothing

called sin, there's nothing called greed--how can these things exist in a

painting? One fellow goes to a museum and says, "This painting is not good. That

painting is very good." Whereas you think he is wrong: this one is good, that

one

is bad. Which is it? It's your own concept, your own attitude, your own

mental color.

You have forgotten your true nature. And you only have to remember your true

nature--that's all there is to be done. But the way to do that is not by

trying to remember it all the time, because that is, again, just another mental

thought. No, you can only know your true nature by negating all that you think

you are, and the moment you negate everything that you think you are, or that

you've been told you are, then you'll end up with who you really are. And the

moment you end up knowing who you are you will come into a state where you will

never say a word. ...

The moment you have negated everything completely, you will come into a state

where you will never speak about it, never say that you are realized, or

this, that or the other thing. If a bulb is lighted, does it talk about

darkness?

When the sun shines, does it know its own brilliance? When the flower

blossoms, does it know its own fragrance? Can the tongue know its own taste? Can

an

eye see itself? ... It's like that. ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste vvs@a.

 

Can you please tell us who is the author of this illusion?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

_______________

 

 

advaitin, vvs@a... wrote:

>

> This is the best explaination on Illusio I have come across.

>

> The problem with us is ..................

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Nair,

>Namaste vvs@a.

>Can you please tell us who is the author of this illusion?

>PraNAms.

>

>Madathil Nair

>

>advaitin, vvs@a... wrote:

>>

>> This is the best explaination on Illusio I have come across.

>>

> > The problem with us is ..................

 

 

 

Through the magic of Google, I found the author of that article:

 

Dr. Vijai Shankar

 

http://www.yogachicago.com/mar01/interview.shtml

 

I typed in the first sentence to the search engine, and lo and behold!

 

Maybe Google is the last great thing made in America, and it probably

had a lot of Indians working on it. Everything else we consume seems

to be made in another country. How long can this house of cards last?

 

By the way, the integrity of Dr. Vijai Shankar has been severely

challenged by some people on the web who say they have dealt with

him. You can follow a thread on Nonduality Salon that contains this

message:

 

NondualitySalon/message/73942

 

I have no opinion. I am just telling you that these messages are there.

 

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Thanks Benji for your efforts.

 

It was just out of curiosity I asked the question. I don't want to

go into the contents for obvious reasons.

 

Google really is a wonder. Don't ever think that it was made in

another country. It belongs to the world. Let us be universal, true

to the words of wisdom we speak and enjoy the 'house of cards' as it

lasts.

 

Regards.

 

Madathil Nair

_________________________________

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

>

>

> Through the magic of Google, I found the author of that article:

>

> Dr. Vijai Shankar

>

> http://www.yogachicago.com/mar01/interview.shtml

>

> I typed in the first sentence to the search engine, and lo and

behold!

>

> Maybe Google is the last great thing made in America, and it

probably

> had a lot of Indians working on it. Everything else we consume

seems

> to be made in another country. How long can this house of cards

last?

>

> By the way, the integrity of Dr. Vijai Shankar has been severely

> challenged by some people on the web who say they have dealt with

> him. You can follow a thread on Nonduality Salon that contains

this

> message:

>

> NondualitySalon/message/73942

>

> I have no opinion. I am just telling you that these messages are

there.

>

> Benjamin

[Guest guest]

I liked the story and comments by vvs - the style sounded very reminiscent

of Osho to me. I was happy with most of the content but (as those who have

read my posts in the past will have guessed) I baulked at the following:

 

"Similarly, God has painted this entire panoramic, continuously changing

picture that is never constant but is continuously going on and on. He has

never

finished his masterpiece, but all the time he's within everybody enjoying

and

rejoicing in it because it's purely a painting."

 

I'm afraid that any explanation or metaphor that invokes God fails to get

the message across for me. You see, in my vyAvahAra, there is no God,

although you can call IT whatever you like in paramArtha. I accept the

doctrine of ajAtivAda (no-creation) so that, in reality, I do not believe

that any painting or whatever ever took place. (Obviously I don't remember

doing it either!) Apart from that, and related God-like aspects, good post!

 

Thanks also to Nairji for comments on my last objections - agree with all

that was said here.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

--- Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

>

> "Similarly, God has painted this entire panoramic, continuously

> changing

> picture that is never constant but is continuously going on and on. He

> has

> never

> finished his masterpiece, but all the time he's within everybody

> enjoying

> and

> rejoicing in it because it's purely a painting."

>

> I'm afraid that any explanation or metaphor that invokes God fails to

> get

> the message across for me. You see, in my vyAvahAra, there is no God,

> although you can call IT whatever you like in paramArtha.

 

Dennis - it is the other way around. In vyavahaara only we need God -

in paramaarthika there is neither creation nor God. Ajaata vaada is only

from the point of paaramaarthika. In vyavahaara we have to bring in some

factor or some explanation for the its apparent existence. (ajaata vaada

itself is jaata or born to explain vyavahaara that is seen!)

 

God is only a notion or a factor that is brought in to account for the

creation that is seen in vyavahaara.

 

There cannot be any accepted rules for notions - painting is as good

notion as any other notions one presents - In fact that illustration is

not original either. It was done by Vidhyaranya in Panchadasi, if I

remember corectly.

 

Finding fault with one notional proposition is as bad as the notions

themselves! Vedanta provides one explanation (in fact close to 80

theories of creation depending on the text or puraana you take) as long

as one does not take them as factual. They are only to take the mind

slowly beyond the vyavahaara.

 

At paaramaarthika level there is only one truth or reality that which

is one without a second. Any description of that falls flat.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Sadananda,

 

You misunderstood me somewhere along the line, I think.

 

I said: "You see, in my vyAvahAra, there is no God, although you can call IT

whatever you like in paramArtha".

 

You said: "Dennis - it is the other way around. In vyavahaara only we need

God -

in paramaarthika there is neither creation nor God. Ajaata vaada is only

from the point of paaramaarthika. In vyavahaara we have to bring in some

factor or some explanation for the its apparent existence. (ajaata vaada

itself is jaata or born to explain vyavahaara that is seen!)

 

God is only a notion or a factor that is brought in to account for the

creation that is seen in vyavahaara.

 

At paaramaarthika level there is only one truth or reality that which

is one without a second. Any description of that falls flat."

 

Yes - the 'one truth or reality' is what I am saying you can call 'God' if

you want (or anything else). I acknowledge that many people 'invent' God in

vyavahAra to provide an explanation for the so-called creation. I was merely

saying that it does not help this particular mind - in 'MY' vyavahAra, there

is no God. The explanation does not help me. I know that ajAtivAda is an

intellectual explanation that applies to paramArtha but I find it helpful

here and now (in vyavahAra). And, if you think about it, it can only ever

have any relevance in vyavahAra anyway!

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

P.S. How comes your reply preceded the post to which you were replying in

the Digest?!

[Guest guest]

HI:

 

 

 

As long as we're talking about Illusion, then what about Xeno's famous model

of Achilles and the Tortoise, also known as Xeno's Arrow. Achilles and the

Tortiose are ina race, the tortiose is ahead, Achilles is gaining.

Theoretically, Achilles should come ever closer to the tortoise, without ever

being able to close an infinitely diminishing gap. Since in "real life" Achilles

would catch up and pass the tortiose, the world around us must be an illusion. I

have never heard of a flaw in Xeno's reasoning.

 

 

 

Motleyjack

 

 

 

Keep the faith,

Stay the course,

Vaya con Dios,

Pacem et Bonham.

 

 

 

Post your free ad now! Canada Personals

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste all!

I have a couple of things to add in this discussion.

Since this is my first contribution, I would like to say a line

about Advaita:

 

Science starts with 'What is that' and Religion starts with 'Who am I'.

Advaita gives the answer 'I am that'. As is the microcosm, so is the macrocosm.

 

 

Getting back, since illusion is a perception, I would like to point out some

views of Swami Vivekananda about perception. The mind is like a lake hit by

objects both external (say x) and internal (say y). This makes the mind-stuff

(Chitta) take forms/waves (Vrittis).

 

"As an example, you are x and you act upon my mind, and the mind throws a wave

in the direction from which the impact comes, and that wave is what I call Mr.

or Mrs. So-and-so. There are two elements in the perception, one coming from

outside and the other from inside, and the combination of these two, x + mind,

is our external universe. All knowledge is by reaction. Similar is the case with

internal perception. Let us call it y. When I know myself as so-and-so, it is y

+ the mind. That y strikes a blow on the mind. So our whole world is x + mind

(external), and y + mind (internal), x and y standing for the thing-in-itself

behind the external and the internal worlds respectively. The y, the internal

thing-in-itself, which, combining with mind, manufactures existence, knowledge,

and love.

 

All difference (between x and y) is due to time, space, and causation. These are

the constituent elements of the mind. Take them away, and the mind itself does

not exist. All difference is, therefore, due to the mind. According to Vedanta,

it is the mind, its forms, that have limited x and y apparently and made them

appear as external and internal worlds. But x and y, being both beyond the mind,

are without difference and hence one. We cannot attribute any quality to them,

because qualities are born of the mind. That which is qualityless must be one; x

is without qualities, it only takes qualities of the mind; so does y; therefore

these x and y are one. The whole universe is one."

 

 

So, to end the illusion we need to arrive at x=y. Either reach a state that

everything is in me or realise that I am in all (y=x) ... thus answering 'Who am

I'.

 

Jai Gurudeva!

-Rahul Soundrarajan

 

PS: Guru is the 'wise one' in us and 'deva' is the innocenct/playful part. By

Jai Gurudeva, we appreciate the beauty that arises out of this combination in

each of us. Please let me know if any part in this mail does not comply with the

requirements of this discussion group.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Rahulji.

 

My doubts are in brackets .

> Getting back, since illusion is a perception, I would like to point

out some views of Swami Vivekananda about perception. The mind is

like a lake hit by objects both external (say x) and internal (say

y). This makes the mind-stuff (Chitta) take forms/waves (Vrittis).

 

[How would then my seeing the mind (thoughts) described? Mind

becomes an object to whom? Not to the mind, of course.

> "As an example, you are x and you act upon my mind, and the mind

throws a wave in the direction from which the impact comes, and that

wave is what I call Mr. or Mrs. So-and-so. There are two elements in

the perception, one coming from outside and the other from inside,

and the combination of these two, x + mind, is our external universe.

All knowledge is by reaction.

 

[For the sake of an explanation, I can accept this 'interaction'

between my mind and 'x'. But, if the ultimate explanation that

external objects are verily within Consciousness is accepted, what

you say cannot be true. If you really want to split it the way you

have done, then there should be three components, the Ultimate I

(Witness), the mind and 'x' both witnessed by the Witness.]

 

Similar is the case with internal perception. Let us call it y. When

I know myself as so-and-so, it is y + the mind.

 

[Here the 'y' is already in the mind! Isn't my knowing myself *an

idea* within the mind?]

 

That y strikes a blow on the mind. So our whole world is x + mind

(external), and y + mind (internal), x and y standing for the thing-

in-itself behind the external and the internal worlds respectively.

 

[No. Our whole world should then be I (the Witness) + mind ('y'

included in it) + x).]

 

The y, the internal thing-in-itself, which, combining with mind,

manufactures existence, knowledge, and love.

 

[i believe by 'existence, knowledge and love' you mean the advaitin's

sat-chit-AnandA. What is the internal thing-in-itself that you

mentioned? You haven't referred to it in your above discussion at

all. Can you please clarify?]

> All difference (between x and y) is due to time, space, and

causation. These are the constituent elements of the mind.

 

[in which category, i.e. x or y, would you place these constituent

elements?]

 

Take them away, and the mind itself does not exist. All difference

is, therefore, due to the mind. According to Vedanta, it is the mind,

its forms, that have limited x and y apparently and made them appear

as external and internal worlds. But x and y, being both beyond the

mind, are without difference and hence one.

 

[i am not with you on that last sentence. 'y' is within the

mind. 'x' is outside if your first mention of the interaction

between it and the mind is accepted.]

 

We cannot attribute any quality to them, because qualities are born

of the mind. That which is qualityless must be one; x is without

qualities, it only takes qualities of the mind; so does y; therefore

these x and y are one. The whole universe is one."

 

[That conclusion (ignoring my views expressed above) only suggests

that the objectified universe is one. You have missed the One who

witnesses it all as your post dealt with only objects like mind, x

and y and the interactions between them.]

> So, to end the illusion we need to arrive at x=y. Either reach a

state that everything is in me or realise that I am in all (y=x) ...

thus answering 'Who am I'.

 

['x' (external object)= 'y' (internal object, i.e. my *idea* of

myself) cannot be the advaitic Truth. We are really missing out on

the Truth here.]

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

[Guest guest]

Madathil Nairji, I will try to address your questions.

 

[How would then my seeing the mind (thoughts) described? Mind

becomes an object to whom? Not to the mind, of course.

->

For this, we need to look at the levels that are subtler than the mind.

Intellect

comes first which discriminates, based on the references it has in Memory. It is

the thing that was doing the 'Yes' and 'No's when you were reading my previous

mail.

Then comes the 'Ego' which differentiates and then there is the Self, the

Purusha in Kapila's Sankhya. So, if I see the mind/observe the mind, then I am

not the mind ... I am the observer, the Self, the Purusha.

--

 

[For the sake of an explanation, I can accept this 'interaction'

between my mind and 'x'. But, if the ultimate explanation that

external objects are verily within Consciousness is accepted, what

you say cannot be true. If you really want to split it the way you

have done, then there should be three components, the Ultimate I

(Witness), the mind and 'x' both witnessed by the Witness.]

->

 

If you can be aware of the Ultimate I, the witness you have realised

Advaita - No-Two=> No mind, no x. There *is* no concept other than God.

--

[Here the 'y' is already in the mind! Isn't my knowing myself *an

idea* within the mind?]

 

->

y is not in the mind.

y is Purusha. Whenever you experience Love, it is Purusha/Self perceived in the

mind-domain. The y, the internal thing-in-itself combines with mind and

manufactures existence, knowledge, and love. Yes, knowing yourself is an idea

with in the mind, but it is in the mind domain ... meaning it has attributes

of your name and your form.

--

 

->

[i believe by 'existence, knowledge and love' you mean the advaitin's

sat-chit-AnandA. What is the internal thing-in-itself that you

mentioned? You haven't referred to it in your above discussion at

all. Can you please clarify?]

 

Yes, y is sat-chit-AnandA ... not the qualities but the essence of the

Soul/Self/Purusha.

--

 

->

[in which category, i.e. x or y, would you place these constituent

elements?]

Put in a mathematical way:

The mind = f(Whole). Where 'f' is the function that reduces the 'Whole' to

what we perceive. So perception of 'space, time and causation' implies the

presence of mind. Also, at realisation, x=y. So the three can be a part of

nither.

=> They constitute the mind.

--

 

->

Take them away, and the mind itself does not exist. All difference

is, therefore, due to the mind. According to Vedanta, it is the mind,

its forms, that have limited x and y apparently and made them appear

as external and internal worlds. But x and y, being both beyond the

mind, are without difference and hence one.

 

[i am not with you on that last sentence. 'y' is within the

mind. 'x' is outside if your first mention of the interaction

between it and the mind is accepted.]

 

x is not equal to y in qualities and qualities are perceptions of the mind.

There is 'inside' and 'outside' only when there *is* mind.

--

 

->

[That conclusion (ignoring my views expressed above) only suggests

that the objectified universe is one. You have missed the One who

witnesses it all as your post dealt with only objects like mind, x

and y and the interactions between them.]

 

Since the discussion was on illusion, I restricted it to the mind-level.

--

 

->

['x' (external object)= 'y' (internal object, i.e. my *idea* of

myself) cannot be the advaitic Truth. We are really missing out on

the Truth here.]

 

My idea of myself comes from the mind with name and form attributes.

Who am I answered by the mind.

--

 

 

I hope I have been able to express a little bit better.

 

Jai Gurudeva!

[Guest guest]

Namaste Rahulji,

 

 

You said :

" y is Purusha. Whenever you experience Love, it is Purusha/Self perceived in

the

mind-domain. The y, the internal thing-in-itself combines with mind and

manufactures existence, knowledge, and love. "

 

 

Rahulji, can you please explain how this is so?

ie, how is Self perceived in the mind?

How does the Self combine with mind to manufacture (?) Knowledge?

 

 

Hari Om

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

-->

Rahulji, can you please explain how this is so?

ie, how is Self perceived in the mind?

How does the Self combine with mind to manufacture (?) Knowledge?

 

Namaste Ranjeetji,

I can not explain it from direct perception, but yes I think it can be inferred.

 

The basis of the 'self' is 'Existance, Knowledge and Bliss' - Absolute,

the only source of all three.

 

To the extent you can language the three ... it is the Self perceived in the

mind.

What can you say about them in purity? Words lose the purport.

 

For example, the love for my mother is pure 'Love' of the self, coloured with

name

and form that arises from the mind.

 

There is only one source so I see no other way it could happen.

 

Now, manufacture implies 'Coming to be' - A causality. When existance, knowlege

and bliss appears to be causal, there is mind and there is this world and there

is the veil of 'Maya'.

 

 

Jai Gurudeva!

[Guest guest]

Namaste Rahulji.

 

Reference your post # 19040.

 

Sorry for the delay. It couldn't be helped due to web problems.

 

Your equations and functions, I should say, have confounded me more.

To my understanding, the only equation that explains advaita is

pUrnamadah pUrnamidam, although I should note that it has confounded

many who repose their trust on pure mathematical equations.

Mathematical equations cannot explain what transcends mathematics.

 

While thanking you for your efforts, I would, therefore, rather wait

for the pUrnamadah discussion currently proposed for January to

return in more detail to this topic.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair