Nirvikalpa and ajata etc

[Guest guest]

NonDualPhil , " Wim Borsboom "

<wim_borsboom> wrote:

>

> Appreciated Tony,

>

> Underneath the differences that the two of us have in defining

> reality, illusion and what " happening " actually means, I do

understand

> what you are saying clearly though.

>

> What differs then are our definitions of " happening " , " reality " and

> " illusion " . For now I think I will touch on " happening " only

obliquely

> in this response and about the assumption that 'scriptures of old'

> call what is commonly identified as the 'world of reality' that it

is

> actually an ephemeral world of illusion, I have written enough

already

> that I find that a flawed understanding.

>

> I want to show here more conclusively though that

> (1) illusion is NOT the opposite of reality

> (2) illusion is not the nature of what we commonly call reality

> (3) I cannot agree that whatever is happening is not even happening

> and thus even less then illusion.

>

> To do that I will attempt to define illusion as a 'tricking'

handling

> of reality - either playfully or seriously - that makes reality

only

 

Namaste Wim,

 

Thanks for the answer. I still get the sneaking impression that what

you are saying is that, creation is an appearance upon the Self and

is in fact non dual.

If this is what you are saying then I can accept that from a

embodied Mukta's point of view. However when the Mukta drops the

body, what is there now? According to the Sages, creation

disappears, for the Mukta is now what he always was Nirguna Brahman.

So as Brahman is not two, the creation never happened or whatever

word one wants to use.

 

I try and work in my own logic to arrive at this conclusion, plus

the word of Sages.

 

There is no time, even scientifically, so all is happening at once.

 

Sub-atomic particle travel back in 'time'.

 

All is primordial soup, and proto energy, and as the ground there is

consciousness.

 

However consciousness or God or Saguna is only a necessary concept

when one believes there is an expanding creation. As there is not,

so there is no God or Saguna. We are left in Nirguna.

 

If there is no time, how can it possibly be real?

 

Most teachers leave the Saguna-Self as a concept for teaching

purposes, for most wouldn't understand Ajativada etc or accept it.

 

My guess is that if one becomes a Mukta or one with the Saguna one

realises Nirguna at the same time. So it is not productive in common

teaching to nullify the Self/Saguna, for people are attached to its

attributes or qualities as Ramana calls them Sat-Cit-Ananda.

 

N Maharaj only talked of Praneaswara or Saguna, in his talks, for

the same reason.

 

Buddha talked only of something not becoming, and the end of

suffering.

 

The Koi San Bushmen of Southern Africa, say that somewhere there is

a dream dreaming us. So without the benefit of education they are

right up there with the top teachers.

 

The only conclusion we think it is real or happening is we are

Brahman, but veiled or not veiled that it the question. To be or not

to be-------that is the question--Shakespeare........ONS..Tony.