the world is an illusion, but its real enough

[the sadhu]

The world is an illusion but it is real enough. The human senses are finite and thus subject to faults, so the world percieved by a human mind is an illusion. However the energy that is the substratum of phenomena is real. The brain identifies may qualities of Brahman and so names them many things. But this is an illusion because there is nothing but that energy, for example a chair isn't a chair, chairs don't exist, what exists is a quality of Brahman that we identify as a chair...
Ive noticed in many posts that people confuse advaita, for some kind of solipsism. The world is an illusion, but its real enough.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté sadhu


We are considered a sadācārin¹ when a post begins with a welcome, a hello, some preamble to his/her post that is well received by our HDF members. Please consider starting off your post with a hello, or a namasté , or some salutation.

It is our custom here to do this...we ask you to join in on this custom.

iti śivaṁ

words

sadācāra - virtuous conduct , good manners , well conducted, well mannered
sad = sat - good or honest or wise or respectable people
ācāra = conduct , manner of action , behavior , good behavior , good conduct
Hence the sadācārin is one having "having pure, bright, good conduct "

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


The world is an illusion but it is real enough.
I my opinion , to say the world is an illusion but real, is like saying the picture on a movie screen is an illusion but the actors are real enough.

People can rationalize that the actors at some point were filmed and then projected onto the screen; they are and are not real. So it depends on who is doing the looking. Are they real on the screen , no. Turn off the projector and the actors subside. Yet they could be in the same audience watching the movie and be ~real~.

Yet too not all advaita schools think that the world is an illusion. This is not a firm fundamental principle completely yielded to by all schools.

iti śivaṁ

[kallol]

When it is said that world is an illision, the POV is highly macro. It is very difficult for ordinary people to appreciate the context and the philosophy behind this.

So from micro point of view it is real. This is the reality through which we live and interact. 99.9999% people cannot perceive the truth behind the world otherwise the interaction with the world would have been more harmonious.

That said the reality aslo is that it is an illusion - for the knowers. The forms, shapes, smells, etc are weapons of maya to cover our mind to see through the percieved reality.

[the sadhu]

sorry hi, I don't use a name any more, but when I'm pressed to identify myself I say my name is Sadhu. This person doesn't have a life outside Brahman. I as in the illusory I is an American ascetic who most people think is mad. Live outside a lot.
Sorry I'm on a smart phone. That's why the message is so compact. At any rate there many qualities of Brahman, what is homogeneous is the awareness that pervades all reality.

I read a post were someone said " so you think. Your mom is an illusion?"
And this brain spits out the paradoxical thought "well its real, but its not real."
Consciousness experiences the world, but through the illusion of the senses but the experience however illusory still occurred.

Adi shankara refers to the realness of the snake in the woods by proving its reality as a rope.

Many people aren't ready to grasp that the world is fake but Brahman isn't. We experience Brahman, and that's what's real.

[harih]

The world is an illusion because it is in a constant state of flux.

The world that is when I start to write the �i� in the word illusion is no more (lost͵ bygone) by the time I reached the �n�.

And as a part of the world͵ I am profoundly changed too.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté



Many people aren't ready to grasp that the world is fake but Brahman isn't. We experience Brahman, and that's what's real.

Again, this may be for some schools of thought. It holds no weight within the purview of kaśmir śaivism . Now why would that be ?

Within this school of thinking all this is none other then śiva ( some may prefer the term anīśvarāya , which is one without a superior, therefore Supreme and unsurpassable). If all this is anīśvarāya and one says the world is fake , then one infers that anīśvarāya is also fake, by association. This cannot be, and therefore the notion of illusion and fake lies within the eyes that are viewing the world.

The blemish of the eye is removed by the ointment of knowledge...

iti śivaṁ

[Jetavan]

Greetings,

What word does Shankara use that is translated as "illusion"?

In English, "illusion" comes ultimately from Latin "ludere", "to play", and "in", "on, upon, with, against"; implying that an "illusion" is a play, an act, a game.

[the sadhu]

Namaste', Yajvan you have a point, but the reference to the world implies a world of objects and therefore multiplicity... indeed reality in any form cannot be illusory, but any concept of any genuine multiplicity or any notion of real seperation, is illusory and must naturally be caused by human ignorance of the true nature of reality.

[Spirit Seeker]

Namaste,

As a westerner and a Newcomer to Sanatana Dharma Philosophy, I'm guilty as charged as mistaking Advaita Vedanta as Presented by Eastern Dharma Was similiar to western solipsism, In fact, I was quite foolish for thinking they are anything alike in context, and this is the problem in the west. I learned More and can See how both Vedenta philosophies can be true.

I dont think Advaita Vedanta is any way solipstic as "Neo" Westerners Make it out to be, just grabbing teachings from different religious traditions and mixing it into their own spiritual pot to one up their own personal philosophys..


Just like in Hinduism people argue over Saguna vs Nirguna Brahman, The World Being Real or Illusory, Etc, the Western World rationalizes between The extreme ends of Aristotlean Realism and Platonic Idealism with hardly a middle ground.

Speaking Purely from My POV the problem is with the levels of realizations, when people say "All is God" "Everything is God" "You are god" Or "There is Only Brahman". etc without explaining how they came to this realization and why they believe it, It is perceived to be a gross over simplification on the nature of reality. In order to properly make such statements IMO is to speak in a language the recipients mind will be receptive too, start small, explain the inter-mechanical relationships, the functions of reality and how they work along side each other to generate the perceived entity. Are you going to teach calculus to someone who is just starting the elementary basics of mathematics?

To me It is all "real" no matter how a person defines "real". I can however accept it being "illusory" from the most microcosmic standpoint of the base existence, But it is still all real to me.

I'm not a big fan of the solipstic way of thinking at all, and that is mainly because the west presented their theory in a format my mind could not accept based on personal spiritual experience and understanding, Hindu Vedanta I can far more relate to and accept as being true all across the spectrum.

Real or unreal "Stuff" exists, how can anyone deny?

Thank you for the post.

[Amrut]

Namaste,

The world is real for Ignorant people, while it is unreal for a Jnani says Patanjali yoga Sutra 2.22.

The world is an illusion has to be experienced. If you merely say or convince yourself with tarka (logic) like a NyAyika (person following nyAya), then it is just an empty talk.

It is like seeing snake, but saying I see rope. It is not that the teachings are false. They are true, but they have to be realized. Here the path begins. sAdhanA is for removal for ignorance.

Hence we have to take relative reality (vyavahArika satya) and absolute reality (pArmArthika satya).

Real is that which is present at all times and is eternal. All end in Jnana except Brahman. I think for practical purpose this explanation is useful.

Aum

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

If I am sitting on the sun, how can I say there is darkness ? If I am setting on the earth I see day and night pass by.

If I am walking on a road I cannot see what is coming. But if I am standing on the mountain top I see the lay of the land. Like that, the wise are able to ~see~ the lay of the land, all the curves, the forks in the road, etc. and can provide good council to the one's below walking on the road.

One's view depends upon the level of consciousness that has been cultured.

iti śivaṁ

[Spirit Seeker]

The world is an illusion has to be experienced. If you merely say or convince yourself with tarka (logic) like a NyAyika (person following nyAya), then it is just an empty talk.



Namaste

I wholeheartedly agree.

[Amrut]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

If I am sitting on the sun, how can I say there is darkness ? If I am setting on the earth I see day and night pass by.

If I am walking on a road I cannot see what is coming. But if I am standing on the mountain top I see the lay of the land. Like that, the wise are able to ~see~ the lay of the land, all the curves, the forks in the road, etc. and can provide good council to the one's below walking on the road.

One's view depends upon the level of consciousness that has been cultured.

iti śivaṁ


Namaste,

I think we are speaking same thing. You explained it better.

Aum

[realdemigod]

Of course it's real and true only the levels differ. But to your point chair doesn't exist because there is no inherent quality of a chair and itsn't the quality of Brahman that you identify an object as chair but it's the other way round.. you call it a chair after you define the purpose of an object.

[Amrut]

Namaste

I wholeheartedly agree.

Namaste,

These are not 'just' my words. They are words of Kanchi Paramacharya.

Advaita, asks us to focus on NirguNa aspect, hence whatever is within guNa-s is negated, not given importance. This does not mean that I should not meditate or eat or sleep as everything is illusion. The theory of Illusion does not give license to go crazy and insane :D

Aum

[the sadhu]

Namaste
As you seem well versed in western philosophy, it would not be to far of to compare cedillas. Philosophy to the monism pre-socratics.

But unlike Greek philosophy there was little debate on the most basic essence of the universe. Vedantist call it Brahman which is infinite energy-consciousness.
I think the best translation for Brahman, is the Greek aperion which requires futher translation and means "unbounded".

This variates into infinite qualities. Yet it is the One existence, thus anything other than the One is considered unreal.

For example a snow ball isn't a snow ball, it is actually just snow.

So objects aren't objects, they are actually just variations of one energy.

Pranam

[the sadhu]

Namaste,

These are not 'just' my words. They are words of Kanchi Paramacharya.

Advaita, asks us to focus on NirguNa aspect, hence whatever is within guNa-s is negated, not given importance. This does not mean that I should not meditate or eat or sleep as everything is illusion. The theory of Illusion does not give license to go crazy and insane :D

Aum
Namaste:)
Tell the Babas that especially the Bauls

[Avyaydya]

Real is pertaining to reality. But that makes it very hard to define as we can not define reality, because it is the subject we examine. Whatever definition we use is unprovable and will determine the logical conclusions. So even if we do define our concepts, this already is like answering the question. That is why religion often is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

What is the whole purpose of this discussion? Does it have a purpose from Hindu perspective? The answer is yes. Sages tell us that the way we experience reality can be changed. It is possible to experience reality in a state that is stable and filled with continuous happiness, or bliss.

Now the arbitrary thing is this state is considered "more real". A more accurate word would probably be "more blissful", because both states are real in their own right. But when we call one more real than they other becomes less real or more illusionary.

So the prime purpose for calling our world illusionary is to open the mind to another state of experience. It should not be seen as an absolute claim. So why did the Sages call the state of bliss more real? That is because they made the assumption that an unchanging state is more real than a changing state. The state of absolute bliss is an unchanging state, while our present state is continuously changing. So they reasoned, the Divine is unchanging and therefor ultimate reality and everything else is changing and less real or illusionary. What we see in the world has no permanent state, but only for a time, thus creating the illusion of being unchangeable. That is the illusion we are talking about. We give things unchanging names as if they are unchanging entities, but they are changing entities. So these names only create the illusion in the mind that things are unchangeable. Thinking itself is the creator of this illusion. That is why thinking must be overcome to reach the higher state.

[Spirit Seeker]

Real is pertaining to reality. But that makes it very hard to define as we can not define reality, because it is the subject we examine. Whatever definition we use is unprovable and will determine the logical conclusions. So even if we do define our concepts, this already is like answering the question. That is why religion often is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

What is the whole purpose of this discussion? Does it have a purpose from Hindu perspective? The answer is yes. Sages tell us that the way we experience reality can be changed. It is possible to experience reality in a state that is stable and filled with continuous happiness, or bliss.

Now the arbitrary thing is this state is considered "more real". A more accurate word would probably be "more blissful", because both states are real in their own right. But when we call one more real than they other becomes less real or more illusionary.

So the prime purpose for calling our world illusionary is to open the mind to another state of experience. It should not be seen as an absolute claim. So why did the Sages call the state of bliss more real? That is because they made the assumption that an unchanging state is more real than a changing state. The state of absolute bliss is an unchanging state, while our present state is continuously changing. So they reasoned, the Divine is unchanging and therefor ultimate reality and everything else is changing and less real or illusionary. What we see in the world has no permanent state, but only for a time, thus creating the illusion of being unchangeable. That is the illusion we are talking about. We give things unchanging names as if they are unchanging entities, but they are changing entities. So these names only create the illusion in the mind that things are unchangeable. Thinking itself is the creator of this illusion. That is why thinking must be overcome to reach the higher state.

You see if one were to put it that way, it's easier for my mind to grasp and accept by the very structure of it.

Pertaining to solipsism and how one can easily mistake advaita for solipsism is usually by comparision on the surface.

The thing is I am so used to coming across statements like "This world is my imagination, it is your imagination too.", "This apple that your holding doesnt exist" "Nothing around you is real, you think it is but it is not" etc. etc.

And the very thing about it is, Most of these statements and arguments here in the west dont even stem from any sort of higher 'realization' or experience, but rather, it's just an appealing way to think for them within the contextual framework they apply for the universe.. and they dont for the most part have any good arguments to back it up.

It's just vague statements as the examples I presented that can be easily misleading or misinterpreted, when one simply expressess them, but has no good reasoning as to how or why they came to such a conclusion.

I'm just speaking generally on the Western Ideas as one could make the mistaking of comparing them with Dharma philosophy, which really might be nothing alike in CONTEXT.

I know more about advaita then when i first came here, nothing is going to stop westerners from taking bits and pieces of indian philosophy here and there and just apply it to their own way of thinking, all the while rejecting everything else for them.

So I cant say they are the same, but I have read elsewhere on the forum that advaita is an idealist school? If this is true, in what sense?

So I am humbly ask for the wise on the forum, all our brains have different ways of mapping out reality in a neurological sense. When one says "the world is an illusion", many different things are going to come to mind for the receivers from the ideas and information they have been exposed and used to up to that point, far from the meaning or context of which it meant for you.

If the word "illusion" is to be used as the appropriate metaphor, it's implications are vast on the average mind which can easily misinterpret the meaning and significance behind such a statement when it is left alone.

[Amrut]

Namaste SS,

In simple way, as I have defined in earlier posts,

Real = That which is eternal and is present at all times. OR that which is no non-existence.

False = That which does not exist at any time.

False (asatya) cannot be experienced and hence the word 'asatya' is used only to complete duality i.e. fill pair of opposites.

MithyA = In between. That which is not eternal.

There can be two possibilities

1. The object is destroyed or of perishable nature, hence object after perishing leaves it's traces i.e. cloth burned by fire, reduces to ash, ashes are traces that once there was something.
2. Object after negation, does not leave a trace - snake does not leave any trace when rope is realized nor does silver leave trace when sea shell is realized nor is desert appearing as water.

So logically mithyA means illusion. But this contradicts our day-2-day perception. Hence there are 3 truths and it is said that this world is real from empherical POV and not from absolute POV.

The mithyAtva (property of this world being illusion) is only realized in samadhi and not before and hence as I have said, just saying everything is illusion and not doing anything is just empty talk.

The thing is that we are under ignorance and hence we see this (experience) this world. So efforts are to be mad to remove this ignorance or to transcend guNa-s, 3 states, 5 sheaths, etc. Since we are under ignorance, hence we have to accept this world as real, but at the same time, out attempts should be such that we cross the boundaries of guNa-s as our shruti-s teach.

Only after realization we can make such statements. For contemplation purpose, Self Enquiry, chanting OM or do neti-neti, all this accepts duality in the beginning, else there cannot be any sadhana, but the laxyArtha of such sadhana is to rise above guNa-s to experience ultimate truth.

So vAchyArtha is duality and talked in terms of duality.
laxyArtha is non-duality.

in short dual statements lead to non-duality.

We Adi shankara had not accepted 3 levels of truths, then we could accuse him and advaita as that which can never be started and that everything is illusion (at all levels) and that there is no guru, not sahdhana, no creation, etc.

But accepting 3 levels of truths makes advaita practical.

OM

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam: For those of you who haven't seen this, it might be 'fun'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KXidr0z1RY

Aum Namasivaya

[Avyaydya]

If the word "illusion" is to be used as the appropriate metaphor, it's implications are vast on the average mind which can easily misinterpret the meaning and significance behind such a statement when it is left alone.

I agree. My take on this is that we have gone from a situation in which this was secret knowledge for initiates to help explain higher experiences to a situation in which this is taught to first year students of Hinduism as one of the basic tenets every Hindu is supposed to know and accept. It is bizarre and reversal of the tradition of Hinduism. In ancient religions, like Hinduism is, there was always an unfolding of knowledge in stages. The Celtic Druids had tree stages and the education of carefully selected initiates took many decades. Greece and Egypt had their mystery schools where advanced people could discover the final truth. All kept their higher knowledge secret.

To me westerners looking for ultimate truth behave a bit like Indiana Jones, looking for the lost Sankara stones (Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom). In protestantism there is strong egalitarian thinking in which all knowledge should be shared. They hated the Catholic church for forbidding common people to read the bible. They saw this as a means to keep people backward and in a subservient position, which is not untrue. We are in the strange position that westerners study all other cultures in depth and then start telling those people what it is about. Protestants also have a very intellectual approach to religion, they do not believe in right action (dharm) or devotion (bhakti), but solely in right knowledge (scripture). They call that "sola scriptura" (Only scripture).

I see people on forums constantly stating the Vedas are "authoritative". They use the Vedas like they are some kind of Bible on which a theology is based. The Vedas however are foremost a dharmic instrument. The hymns are not meant to be intellectually understood, but declaimed with the exact right pronunciation in rituals to bring about a harmony with the Gods and the universe. This is a practice, the Dharm of priests. Hindu knowledge is above all practical knowledge, even when it comes to enlightenment, for which many practical paths are developed. If it comes to philosophy Hinduism does not have one, but many coexisting schools of thought. Hinduism always celebrated this diversity and did not try to form a unified ideology.

To me it looks like the first things westerners do when meeting Hinduism is to try form a universal theology that can encompass all Hindu traditions and all western traditions. Because westerners are indoctrinated with the idea that there can only be one truth. If there are two truths than they must be merged through the process of synthesis, leaving only one truth again. This is the heritage of the Greek philosophers. It led to a syncretic religion like Christianity, which is the synthesis of many cults. And this idea still rules all western knowledge whether science or religion. That is why western science can not accept subjective (personal) knowledge.

I think even with the best intentions most westerners will understand Hinduism very differently. When a Westerner reads in Advaita philosophy that this world is an illusion, than for him this becomes the tenet of Hinduism. But in Hinduism that is only a perception that goes with a certain higher experience. It is not a universal law or something.

I think on forums we see the rise of a kind of Hinduism in which the order is reversed, which is more of a theology, a belief in a universal God, than a dharmic religion. In which you do not improve through dharm and finaly go to a guru for the final stages after even more dharm, but one in which you start studying Hindu "basics" like "You are God" and "the world is maya".

That is what I read when newbies in Hinduism start telling what they know. Like students they rehearse these lessons until they can comfortably wield them. Hinduism becomes a belief system based on these tenets. I think the video Eastern Mind gave (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KXidr0z1RY) is a funny, but recognizable parody on that.

[Vega]

You are right and Reality is subject to your free will. Things are only there when they are observed in digital and finite form, but when not observed, matter or energy is in wave form/shapeless form/infinite form.

[silence_speaks]

Friends,

The world only a figment of imagination and nothing more.
To verify it for oneself, one has to start looking at it as a figment of imagination. Its like a "long dream or a city imagined in air" --> Yoga Vasishta.

Being a product of our imagination, it appears as we see it. If I see it as real, it appears real. If I see it as an illusion, the reality wanes away!! :)

Love!
Silence

[Eastern Mind]

Friends,

The world only a figment of imagination and nothing more.
To verify it for oneself, one has to start looking at it as a figment of imagination. Its like a "long dream or a city imagined in air" --> Yoga Vasishta.

Being a product of our imagination, it appears as we see it. If I see it as real, it appears real. If I see it as an illusion, the reality wanes away!! :)

Love!
Silence

Vannakkam: One day I tried convincing my boss that the world was just one big illusion. The next day, which was payday, he asked me again what I thought. Then when he went to hand me the cheque, he tore it up right in front of me. "You're fired," he said. "In fact, you never worked here. It was all just one big illusion." Fortunately for me, my angry wife was an illusion too.

Aum Namasivaya

[Believer]

Namaste,

The world only a figment of imagination and nothing more.
Just dunk your head under water and keep it there for a couple of minutes. Let me know what you think of this world after that. :)

Pranam.

[Eastern Mind]

Namaste,

Just dunk your head under water and keep it there for a couple of minutes. Let me know what you think of this world after that. :)

Pranam.

Vannakkam Believer et al: The other day I got to wondering why the advaita thing is so overblown here in the west, and seems to be rather misconstrued. My internet research lead me to this page http://davidgodman.org/interviews/rs2.shtml , basically an ode to Ramana Maharshi. It did a lot for me, in that it backed up many of my own suspicions. I highly recommend it to anyone seeking to discover or compare Advaita to what has become known as neo-Advaita. The page is in the form of an interview, and explains a ton. Hope you enjoy it. There are a couple of paragraphs in there that are spot-on. :)

Aum Namasivaya

[Spirit Seeker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

"Advaita Vedanta[edit]
Advaita is one of the six most-known Hindu philosophical systems, and literally means "non-duality". Its first great consolidator was Adi Shankaracharya, who continued the work of some of the Upanishadic teachers, and that of his teacher's teacher Gaudapada. By using various arguments, such as the analysis of the three states of experience—wakefulness, dream, and deep sleep, he established the singular reality of Brahman, in which Brahman, the universe and the Atman or the Self, were one and the same.
One who sees everything as nothing but the Self, and the Self in everything one sees, such a seer withdraws from nothing. For the enlightened, all that exists is nothing but the Self, so how could any suffering or delusion continue for those who know this oneness?
— Ishopanishad: sloka 6, 7
The concept of the Self in the philosophy of Advaita, could be interpreted as solipsism. However, the transhuman, theological implications of the Self in Advaita protect it from true solipsism as is found in the west. Similarly, the Vedantic text Yogavasistha, escapes charge of solipsism because the real "I" is thought to be nothing but the absolute whole looked at through a particular unique point of interest.[17]
Advaita is also thought to strongly diverge from solipsism in that, the former is a system of exploration of one's mind in order to finally understand the nature of the self and attain complete knowledge. The unity of existence is said to be directly experienced and understood at the end as a part of complete knowledge. On the other hand solipsism posits the non-existence of the external void right at the beginning, and says that no further inquiry is possible.[citation needed]"

How do traditional advaitans feel being compared to western solipsism? I Truly feel they are nothing alike(What I learned of Advaita so far), I deal with these people all the time..

[Amrut]

Vannakkam: One day I tried convincing my boss that the world was just one big illusion. The next day, which was payday, he asked me again what I thought. Then when he went to hand me the cheque, he tore it up right in front of me. "You're fired," he said. "In fact, you never worked here. It was all just one big illusion." Fortunately for me, my angry wife was an illusion too.

Aum Namasivaya

Vannakam :)

I thought you are a good old retired guy, but you are 60 years young.

I would have kept my boss under ignorance until I retired or wished to break up ;)

Aum Namasivaya

[silence_speaks]

Vannakkam: One day I tried convincing my boss that the world was just one big illusion. The next day, which was payday, he asked me again what I thought. Then when he went to hand me the cheque, he tore it up right in front of me. "You're fired," he said. "In fact, you never worked here. It was all just one big illusion." Fortunately for me, my angry wife was an illusion too.

Aum Namasivaya

Dear Eastern Mind,
:)

Once in my dream you told me, my friend, this is a figment of your imagination! And I replied exactly what you did just now ! :)

and indeed my wife i saw in that dream ... who was angry with me ... was a figment of my imagination :D

Love!
Silence

[silence_speaks]

Namaste,

Just dunk your head under water and keep it there for a couple of minutes. Let me know what you think of this world after that. :)

Pranam.

Dear Believer,
:) Once I had a dream that I was buried alive! I was suffering ... lack of oxygen ... dying really ... and then i said to myself "This is real... not a dream at all... very real... how stupid was I to think that this is only a figment of imagination!!!"!! ...

and today I still say its a figment of imagination!!

Anyways I would not try this experiment of yours, I would not try it now ... and even in my dream I would have said just this !! Somehow !

Love!
Silence

[silence_speaks]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

"Advaita Vedanta[edit]
Advaita is one of the six most-known Hindu philosophical systems, and literally means "non-duality". Its first great consolidator was Adi Shankaracharya, who continued the work of some of the Upanishadic teachers, and that of his teacher's teacher Gaudapada. By using various arguments, such as the analysis of the three states of experience�wakefulness, dream, and deep sleep, he established the singular reality of Brahman, in which Brahman, the universe and the Atman or the Self, were one and the same.
One who sees everything as nothing but the Self, and the Self in everything one sees, such a seer withdraws from nothing. For the enlightened, all that exists is nothing but the Self, so how could any suffering or delusion continue for those who know this oneness?
� Ishopanishad: sloka 6, 7
The concept of the Self in the philosophy of Advaita, could be interpreted as solipsism. However, the transhuman, theological implications of the Self in Advaita protect it from true solipsism as is found in the west. Similarly, the Vedantic text Yogavasistha, escapes charge of solipsism because the real "I" is thought to be nothing but the absolute whole looked at through a particular unique point of interest.[17]
Advaita is also thought to strongly diverge from solipsism in that, the former is a system of exploration of one's mind in order to finally understand the nature of the self and attain complete knowledge. The unity of existence is said to be directly experienced and understood at the end as a part of complete knowledge. On the other hand solipsism posits the non-existence of the external void right at the beginning, and says that no further inquiry is possible.[citation needed]"

How do traditional advaitans feel being compared to western solipsism? I Truly feel they are nothing alike(What I learned of Advaita so far), I deal with these people all the time..

Dear Spirit Seeker,
:) I Like this question ... There are many facets in which it may be answered ...
I'll take a simple thought experiment to explain ...
suppose there are just two people [humans] in this world... and lets say one of us sees colors and the other does not.
which is a disease [color blindness / hallucination] and which is not ?
Do you perceive the person who sees the colors as hallucinating
or do you see the person who does not see colors as suffering from color blindness ?
Whats the way to distinguish ?

Here is the point: a psychological aberration is something that "restricts" or "troubles" in practical sense. The person who sees the colors , if he starts to fear it and is afraid ... its a disease ... on the other hand if he is able to use his vision to easily distinguish fruits on a tree its a supernatural power!

Same way...
if this Knowledge that the world is a dream/unreal is forced upon him and he is not able to function normally ... its a disease ... a psychological problem.

on the contrary if the same knowledge gives him the clarity to not "hold onto this transient world and see things in the right perspective" ... its liberation!!

Without realizing that the world is no more than a figment of imagination ... liberation is not possible :)...

Love!
Silence

[Avyaydya]

Friends,

The world only a figment of imagination and nothing more.
To verify it for oneself, one has to start looking at it as a figment of imagination. Its like a "long dream or a city imagined in air" --> Yoga Vasishta.

Being a product of our imagination, it appears as we see it. If I see it as real, it appears real. If I see it as an illusion, the reality wanes away!! :)

Love!
Silence

What the problem is here, is that it is brought as "the truth".

There is no such all encompassing objective truth. The only real truth lies in subjective experience. But subjective experience is related to the level of consciousness. The level of consciousness can not be raised by believing in higher truth. Then one acquires the ideas without the true experience. That is like putting on the robe and crown of a king, without being a king. it is self-deceit. In Hinduism truth is always connected to experience and not a purely theoretical abstract entity like in the west. Hindus for instance say: "A truth that hurt can not be true". In the west it is the opposite. In my country we have sayings like: "The truth is hard" and "it is the painful truth". Because in Western (Greek) thinking truth was disconnected from experience.

Truth is always relative to ones consciousness. In a higher consciousness, which only a few people on this planet have access too, Brahman can be experienced as truth. People like Ramakrishna were able to do this. If you can at will go to this higher state of consciousness, then you can say on your comeback, in this higher state/experience the normal worldly experience is an illusion. This truth only lasts as long as you are in this state. No longer. If people say: this world is an illusion. I say: Give me all your possessions, you do not need them anymore, but I still do. But they never do that, because they are just pretenders, who robed themselves with the shrouds of belief.

Why are they so fanatic about this? Because through meditation or drugs or whatever they have tasted a higher experience for a short moment and now they think they are warped into this higher consciousness forever by the experience. Of course such an experience does have a lasting impact, but is does not turn the world into an illusion one can ignore. Ones desire to flee this world into higher reality is proof of the contrary and should be rejected. Why? Because Hinduism does not preach renunciation of this world but rather embracing this world seeing Brahman in every aspect of it. Those are two diametrically opposed ideas.

How can this be? Because Hinduism teaches different paths for different kinds of people. It has different truths for different levels and sorts of consciousness. For a westerner this is impossible to grasp. The westerner is raised with the idea of ONE all encompassing truth. He thinks: God is the truth, the one truth. If you talk one way this moment and another way next, you are a liar, a deceiver. But Hindu gurus have no problem with that. To one person they say: You should meditate, meditation is bliss for you. To another they say: do not meditate, meditation is bad for you. Why? Because a good guru tells a subjective (personal) truth.

So what we have on forums is lots of people that agree the world is illusion, and at other times tell us hat they have trouble paying the rent. If they lived in the consciousness the world is an illusion, the rent should not be problem. A real renunciate can live on alms. Why should he want a house? A house is an illusion. So these people dress up as enlightened beings, but they are still sufferers of the world. As Vivekananda called them: "they are beggars handing out the treasures of the world". The highest philosophical ideas they casually spread around to impress people, but also to convince people. Why are they so determined to convince others? Because they need to convince themselves! Because dressing up as king, still not fully convinces you, you are a king. You can only believe it if others complement you on it. That is the problem with beliefs and believers in general. They try so hard to convince others to convince themselves.

And what does this remind us off? Lies. Lies are the illusions we try to convince ourselves of by rationalizing. The more we argue, the more arguments we find, the more we start to believe in our own lies. That is why the believer must herald his ideas. That is why they become such fanatic proselyters for their ideas. Would a person that is truly realized, start convincing the world? No, such people do the opposite, they rather withdraw from the world. Because in the world it is very hard to live in this higher experience for longer times. People will constantly draw you into their reality. So most realized gurus rather live seclusive and pass on their knowledge to one or a few on the threshold. You will not find them on forums handing out wisdom.

Of course there are very advanced people who see it as the task to help the world. Take for instance Vivekanda, he was a great teacher, but he did not create an order where people were lifted to moksha. That is impossible. Those are fake gurus. He created an order to help people in their needs. Hindu knowledge is always practical and pragmatic, never purely theoretical as in the west. It is always an instrument of Dharm. This may offend people, but i would rather have a Hindu forum in which we would exchange the practical wisdom of Hinduism that far out philosophical ideas westerners are so attracted to, but help no one. I think the last is even against Hindu tradition. Shruti is not to meant to be read or discussed. The words and their sound are meant to be heard directly from a guru. And the guru determines whether he will convey it. So advaita texts, even the Gita are not to be handed out on forums, or be advertised for self-study. It only creates inflated ego's, which kid themselves they mastered higher knowledge. It does not do them or their environment any good.

So lets get rid of all the "world is illusion/maya", the different states of God, the endless meaningless dribble about moksha. Lets stop turning Hinduism in an escapist theology or redemption theology. Hinduism is a Dharmic religion, it is directed at making life happier for all. It strives for harmony. It puts emphasis on experience. For 99.999999% of the people that is the experience in this world. Training large groups of unfit people for escapism is done to create religious soldiers. Whether you call it moksha or eternal heaven makes no difference. The essence is you say a better state is awaiting them. Mohammed told his warriors that they would fly directly to heaven and get forty virgins. That is moksha enough for most. Christian religious soldiers believe that fighting Gods wars is landing them in heaven/extasy too. It is this idea that lets debase people to blind servants that do the will of others in all kind of cults. They are told to keep their mind directed only at the salvation, while their leaders do the most unethical things and tell them to do unethical things for the highest cause.

This world is not a hellhole. This world is the place of action. We can make this world into a place where we live happily through right action (dharm). Lots of traditional societies were able to do that. It is the salvation seekers that have given up hope that this is possible. This very negative ideology is hurting the world. The Gita was meant to be secret for good reason. No healthy society can be based on such ideas. We have to understand Krishna is not bringing one truth, but several for different groups. In nothing Krishna's own conduct remind us of a sannyasin. There never was a God that enjoyed life so much as Krishna. From childhood on he is the great enjoyer and spreader of joy, even more than Rama. But his example like that of Rama is all about dharm.

What Krishna tells to Arjuna is only meant for Arjuna's ears. Arjuna is a warrior in a deep existential conflict. He has to do his duty but his true love for the world (ahimsa) is withholding him. To free him, Krishna tells only him to renounce the world and concentrate on him instead. For the western mind it is impossible to understand that a God would convey two different truths. The west is all about one truth. They will fight to the brink to get one truth imposed on all. That brings truth down to the masses. The one truth of the west therefor became the mediocre, life hating truth of salvation for all. Well if you want to speak of illusion, that is an illusion!

[Amrut]

Namaste,

Just dunk your head under water and keep it there for a couple of minutes. Let me know what you think of this world after that. :)

Pranam.

Namaste,

Even then the 'I' will remain. Though it is a conditioned 'I' (Jiva) .I is the same good old friend :D

This 'I" cannot be negated at any time, even after you die, you take birth and the process continues till one realizes the real 'I' - Brahman.

Consciousness is one and the same and kAraNa sharira does not die with the death of body.

Do you mean that 'I am body' ?

Existence of 'I' is self evident. Without 'I', the first person, there is no 'you', the second person and 'he' the third person.

We are just concerned with this first person 'I' and are eager to know - 'Who am I'. 'I' is not a point of light, nor body, nor jiva. 'I' is pure consciousness.

When you dunk your head in water, the world outside water is non-existent for you :D

Advaita is only for intelligent person, not for deha dhAri-s - don't mind ji ;) :D

Hari Bol

[savithru]

"Brahma satyam jagat mithya, jivo brahmaiva naparah"

Brahman is real, the empirical world is an illusion, the noumenal (the world of Gods) world is real and everything in this noumenal world is Brahman. i.e. You, Gods and world are Brahman.

"Tat tvam asi shvethakethu."

Advaita supports Open Realism.

[Eastern Mind]

snip snip

Vannakkam: Thank you for one of the most elucidating posts on this matter I have ever seen. Bravo!

Aum Namasivaya

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

I have read many of the posts above... for me , my studies and what I have been taught and experience is this:
When you think you are of name and form this is what you see - name and form every where; the world is filled with diversity because of the differentiated ( departmentalized) consciousness/awareness one is engaged in. Yet when you no longer see yourself as individual name and form then then all of creation is the same - of wholeness, of fullness.

There is no illusion only different frames of reference... this is not my discovery, but a basic premise of kaśmiri śaivism¹. The insight is simple - if ~all this~ is an illusion so is the fundamental base line or creator for all this i.e. śiva. Why so ? It is because ~all this~ appears in that (śiva). If ~all this~ is illusion so this that, and this postulate is not acceptable nor the experience of those that are realized beings on this good earth.

iti śivaṁ

1. Within kaśmiri śaivism there are some differences ( not objections) to vedānta:


yoga in action (karma-yoga)
mokṣa and its delineation
ignorance and its ( complete) elimination
who is fit to practice yoga
the notion of māyā - māyā is not a “villain” generating the illusion that the rope is a snake. Māyā in Triká is the power that generates differences or duality.
what is pure and impure
the ultimate Reality as being dormant or active ( aware of It-Self)These are a few... now to develop these ideas to the fullest extent should be done in the uttara folder, as these are advanced in depth and breath of thinking.

[silence_speaks]

Dear Yajvan ji,
:)



स्वप्नमाये यथा दृष्टे गन्धर्वनगरँ यथा।
तथा विश्वमिदँ दृष्टँ वेदान्तेषु विचक्षणैः॥



Gaudapada karika , vaitathya prakaranm.

People who have the vision of vedanta consider this world to be nothing more than a dream or a magic city :)

When you say Siva is all this ... you see changes here ... if Siva is changing then he becomes "Time Dependent" ... its a logical flaw ... no vedanta is required to dismiss such an assertion.

if on the contrary you say that the changes that you see are not real, then you are actually saying that the changes are unreal.

As you may be aware , such sentences as " all this is siva" are given with


baadhaayaam saamaanaadhikaranyam where the saamaanaadhikaranya is to be understood in the sense of negation alone. Its similar to the sentence "sthaanurayam purusah, the person is but a stump of tree". This sentence is mean to correct an error in perception wherein a stump of a tree is mistaken for a person. We are not qualifying the word sthaanu with the word purusa or vice versa, The sentence negates the idea that it is the thief and what remains is the trunk of the tree alone.

Similarly when one says " all this here is purusa", everything is swallowed or devoured and the purusa remains.


The above quote is from mundaka upanishad of swami dayananda saraswati.

Ribhu Gita says page after page that this world is like the horns of a hare ! Yoga vasishta / Tripura Rahasyam also speak the same language. Shankara says the same thing in vivekachudamani and other prakarana texts.

Love!
Silence

[Amrut]

Namaste Yajvan ji,

Those are really nice observations and surely these points must be separately discussed.

The thing is that mAyA as Illusion is so much bombarded, that we, who are under ignorance, are not given any explanation as to how to remove ignorance, rise above mAyA and enter into formless.

I feel, this aspect, the meditative aspect also needs to be discussed.

Hari OM

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté



Namaste Yajvan ji,
The thing is that mAyA as Illusion is so much bombarded, that we, who are under ignorance, are not given any explanation as to how to remove ignorance, rise above mAyA and enter into formless.

I feel, this aspect, the meditative aspect also needs to be discussed.

Hari OM

Your observation has merit... I am of the opinion that this māyā is a bit over-rated, and it seems, much in vogue to discuss. As forementioned māyā is not a “villain”. Yet for some the notion of illusion is mesmerizing.

What is this māyā ? It is rooted ( √ ) in mā or measuring and this 'yā' is restraining . Yet many say māyā is the notion of illusion. How are these two i.e. illusion and measuring/restraining , connected?

Māyā is the illusion that the Infinite can be measured out or restrained. It is the idea that this Infinite Being that we experience as the universe ( and what it contains) is made of parts, finite items, zillions of them, but still finite , within boundaries. It is the boundless measured into the boundaries , this is the illusion of avidya ( ignorance).

This has been used as a tool by the wise to help with ~framing~ what is worthy of pursuit and what is not.

To rid one's self of this māyā is a bi-product or residual result found from the recognition ( re-cognition) of who we really are, our real nature.

From here we come to how to do this. And that gets us to 'it all depends'. But depends on what ? Where we are at today. Where and how far has our development taken us ? One size does not fit all, so for one to continue to unfold it may just take a nudge, for others more tapas is required. And that leads us to the various practices we find in all the disciplines found in sanātana dharma ( some may call ārṣa dharma ).


iti śivaṁ

[Amrut]

Namaste Yajvan ji,

+1
I fully agree with what you have said. oh and yes, mAyA is not villain.

Hari OM

[silence_speaks]

Dear Yajvan ji,
:) Can you please respond to my post [previous to this one], when you find time ?

I read maya derives from ya - ma ... that which is NOT!

:)

If God is made of parts :) that disturbs other definitions where he is said to be part-less , changeless etc.

Love!
Silence

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

Dear Yajvan ji,
I read maya derives from ya - ma ... that which is NOT!

If God is made of parts :) that disturbs other definitions where he is said to be part-less , changeless etc.

The wise tell us this... This brahman is pūrṇa - fullness, plenty, abundance; wholeness; It is anāhata defined as unbeaten , not multiplied. It is another way of saying the 'wholeness' of Being. We are told it has the quality of ād vyāpana, meaning to go , pervade, or cover thoroughly.
A more common word is viśva which = all-pervading or all-containing , omnipresent; this is the fundamental root of viṣṇu.
And if we use the word śiva it is rooted in śī , 'in whom all things lie' , which meets with the definition of viśva.

The wise also use the term satatoditam¹. It means that which has no pause, no break. This for me really captures the essence of this totality, the fullness or pūrṇa . It is break-less and unitary.

So, this establishes the tenet that the Supreme is without parts, with no break or pause. Yet to us, to the human condition we experience diversity, breaks and pauses. This then is the notion of what I posted above:


Māyā is the illusion that the Infinite can be measured out or restrained. It is the idea that this Infinite Being that we experience as the universe ( and what it contains) is made of parts, finite items, zillions of them, but still finite , within boundaries. It is the boundless measured into the boundaries , this is the illusion of avidya ( ignorance).
It is as if this wholeness has parts, but it does not. Just as if we think we see the whole ice-berg sticking out of the water, when it does not. The totality of the ice-berg is both seen and unseen.


re: ya-ma
Many use this idea and I am fine with it... yet if one does some looking we find the following:
yama -

act of checking or curbing , suppression , restraint
a twin , one of a pair or couple
it is also the ~symbol~ for '2'
it is also a name for the devata that presides over the pitṛ-s ; some too call dharmarāja ; also another name for saturn.We can see how some of these notions may apply to māyā :
-> curbing or check the Supreme (as if) it can be constrained
-> the symbol for '2' is another way of saying diversity - that is the diverse part of unity ,which gives us uni-verse ( or universe)

When we look to the components:

ya can mean joining (union) or restraining (diversity); yet yā has these same definitions it also means to go away , withdraw , retire.
ma in its masculine gender means time. what is time? It is the measurement of eternity. So , see the connection (I hope)
ma in its female gender has many meanings e.g. light, mother, even death. Yet too it means to bind, and also to measure. Once again we see the connection. Yet too we see similar definitions for mā, add to it the following: to measure across , to measure (by any standard) , compare with.So we see how nicely yā+ mā ( at the phoneme level) algins with mā + yā


praṇām

words
satatoditam - If I look at this word as sat + a-tu + dita , it tells me that which really is (sat) + not (a) + to have authority (tu) + bound or divided (dita). Or that Reality that cannot be bound or divided

[silence_speaks]

Dear Yajvan ji,
:) Thank you!
The moment we say "as if", we have already said that its an appearance without "reality" ! That is what we mean when we say the world is an illusion.

BTW sir, I am not able to see the sanskrit texts you are writing , has it got to do with the browser configuration or some fonts ?

Love!
Silence

[upsydownyupsy mv ss]

Umm... Hello to all... I hate it when philosophy boils down to language and that too when it gets hit like a tennis ball between two languages.... Can someone please explain to me what "exactly" maya is?

According to me "illusion" is nothing but misperceived reality or wrong perception of an object that exists and the dictionary.com agrees with me. So, therefore for something to be misperceived it implies it definitely exists (not talking about form or appearance, just existence). 'cuz, we're perceiving it. "delusion" is the perfect word to describe pigment of imagination. Dreams are delusions and fantasies, not illusions. see below... it says it can be confused with illusion. I can never agree to something like "ultimately nothing is real". If nothing was real, anything can't exist, even this that we see, read and think. I feel that reality is like a mirage, not a sick joke of "nothing exists, or reality is false." If nothing exists, then even Brahman and this "I" program in this brain also don't exist.

(I hate using the "I") The way I see it.... The world is an illusion, because my senses or my cognition or "I" fail to "look" at the world properly, maybe I'm not evolved enough or wise enough. Just because I can't make sense, doesn't mean it doesn't exist (dont exist "sounds like" buddhism -> am I wrong?). Everything does exist, we're not good enough to "look" and "recognize" it. When we are good enough, or wise enough nothing is an illusion.

The way I see it.. God is the gene and I'm the expression, god is the program and I'm his function, he's the idea and i'm the result.... Can't really explain this feeling, (a bad analogy follows...) he's the anticlockwise motion and I'm the clockwise motion (You see from one side cyclone may be in anti clockwise and other way, the same is clockwise) like south and north pole at electron level, like ice and water. Come Maya, He's the world we see, if wisdom shines in us/me, back to being water.... Even this does not explain it! Just how shallow is language?



Nice thread Sadhuji....



illusion

  [/URL][URL="http://www.reference.com/example-sentences/illusion"]Use Illusion in a sentence (http://app.dictionary.com/signup/core?source=favorites&fnCallback=loginuser&callbackAction=addToFav&domaindest=reference.com&logindest=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2Fillusion%3Fs%3Dt)
il·lu·sion

file:///C:\DOCUME~1\User18\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\02\clip_image002.gif[/IMG]file:///C:\DOCUME~1\User18\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\02\clip_image002.gifn] Show IPA
noun
1.
something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality.
2.
the state or condition of being deceived; misapprehension.
3.
an instance of being deceived.
4.
Psychology . a perception, as of visual stimuli (optical illusion) that represents what is perceived in a way different from the way it is in reality.
5.
a very thin, delicate tulle (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tulle) of silk or nylon having a cobwebbed appearance, for trimmings, veilings, and the like.
Relevant Questions
What Is Illusion? (http://ask.reference.com/web?q=What%20Is%20Illusion?&o=100100)
What Does Illusion Mean? (http://ask.reference.com/web?q=What%20Does%20Illusion%20Mean?&o=100100)
What Are Illusions? (http://ask.reference.com/web?q=What%20Are%20Illusions?&o=100100)
What Causes An Optical Illusion? (http://ask.reference.com/web?q=What%20Causes%20An%20Optical%20Illusion?&o=100100)
[I]Origin:
1300–50; Middle English < Latin illūsiōn- (stem of illūsiō ) irony, mocking, equivalent to illūs ( us ) past participle of illūdere to mock, ridicule ( il- il- (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/il-)1 + lūd- play (see ludicrous (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ludicrous)) + -tus past participle suffix, with dt > s ) + -iōn- -ion (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/-ion)

Related forms
il·lu·sioned, adjective

Can be confused: allusion (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/allusion), delusion (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delusion), elusion (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/elusion), hallucination (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hallucination), illusion (see synonym study at the current entry).

Synonyms
1. aberration, fantasy, chimera. illusion, hallucination, delusion refer to false perceptions or ideas. An illusion is a false mental image produced by misinterpretation of things that actually exist: A mirage is an illusion produced by reflection of light against the sky. A hallucination is a perception of a thing or quality that has no physical counterpart: Under the influence of LSD, Terry had hallucinations that the living-room floor was rippling. A delusion is a persistent false belief: A paranoiac has delusions of persecution.
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013.
Cite This Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=illusion&ia=luna)
|
Link To illusion
Collins
World English Dictionary
illusion (ɪˈluːʒən)

— n


1.
a false appearance or deceptive impression of reality: the mirror gives an illusion of depth


2.
a false or misleading perception or belief; delusion: he has the illusion that he is really clever


3.
psychol See also hallucination (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hallucination) a perception that is not true to reality, having been altered subjectively in some way in the mind of the perceiver


4.
a very fine gauze or tulle used for trimmings, veils, etc

[C14: from Latin illūsiō deceit, from illūdere; see illude ]

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

Can someone please explain to me what "exactly" maya is?

This has been done ( substantially) on this HDF site... May I suggest a search on the word maya and on māyā to begin.

Note that maya does not = māyā in definition, but has been spelled like this through-out the HDF site.

iti śivaṁ

[silence_speaks]

Friends,
:) A few quotes from Tripura Rahasyam :) [that fit into the context]:

Tripura rahasyam 13th chapter:

स्वप्नवृक्षोऽपि तत्काले किँ न साधयते हितम्।
पान्थानाँ किँ न हरति तापँ छायाप्रदानतः॥
Are not the trees seen in dream useful in dream?
Would they not provide shelter to a tiered person in dream?

फलाद्यैः स्वप्नमर्त्यादीन्न तर्पयति किँ वद।
स्वप्ने क्व बाधितः स्वाप्नः क्वास्थिरश्चोपलक्षितः।

Or do they not give fruits to a hungry person in dream, please tell ?
Can the objects of the dream be negated there ? Or can they be made to stay always ?

अखिलँ बाधितँ जाग्रद्दशायामिति चेच्छृणु।
जाग्रत्प्रपञ्चोऽपि सर्वः सुषुप्तौ किँ न बाधितः॥

If you say that everything in the dream gets negated when one wakes up,
isn't it true that even the waking state gets negated in deep sleep ?



Its expressed with such a simplicity :):

Ribhu gita says :

vakshye prapancha shunyayatvam sasha srngena sammitam
sarva lokeshu durlabham savadhana mana srunu...

chapter 8, ribhu gita:
i shall tell you the total void ness of world, equivalent to the horns of a hare.
this knowledge is rare to be found in all worlds, oh mind listen with alertness...

idam prapancham yat kinchit, yat srunoti ca pashyati
drshya rupam ca drk rupam sarvam sasha vishana vat!!

this world, what ever little is heard or seen , with both the seen and the seer are only like the children of a barren women!



Love!
Silence

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté




As forementioned māyā is not a “villain”. Yet for some the notion of illusion is mesmerizing.

What is this māyā ? It is rooted ( √ ) in mā or measuring and this 'yā' is restraining . Yet many say māyā is the notion of illusion. How are these two i.e. illusion and measuring/restraining , connected?

Māyā is the illusion that the Infinite can be measured out or restrained. It is the idea that this Infinite Being that we experience as the universe ( and what it contains) is made of parts, finite items, zillions of them, but still finite , within boundaries. It is the boundless measured into the boundaries , this is the illusion of avidya ( ignorance).

If we look to this māyā it has much to do with the notion of creation, not just how we experience it or ~ see ~ it.
In general we can organize the notion of creation into 3 groups:

ajāta siddhānta¹ - or the 'unborn' view ; there is no creation to speak of i.e. no birth, no death of the universe or of us.
vivarta siddhānta - or 'changing from one state to another' which is the vedāntic point of view of error , illusion , an apparent or illusory form
sṛṣṭi-dṛṣṭi siddhānta - or the creation (sṛṣṭi - letting go) of the universe (by the Supreme or by natural processes) before a seer or witness is observing (dṛṣṭi) its creation.The scientific community would support sṛṣṭi-dṛṣṭi siddhānta as the big bang idea.

Ajāta siddhānta is supported by the great brahmaṛṣi gauḍapāda-ji ; he tells us the truth from his level of enlightenment:
The supreme truth is this: there is no birth and no dissolution, no aspirant to liberation and no liberated, and no one who is in slavery
(māṇdūkayakārikā, II, 32).

This vivarta siddhānta view is sometimes 'pinned' to ādi śaṅkara-ji¹ due to this notion of māyā. But many times people read his work and do not complete śaṅkara-ji's thought; this is ramaṅa mahaṛṣi's view on the matter. We are told all this is brahman, the world is illusion (māyā) , therefore all is brahman. This last part has been conveniently left aside and we end up with the idea of māyāvāda as śaṅkara-ji's contribution to the world.

Now my question for the astute HDF reader/thinker.... why even bring in the notion that the world is illusion or māyā. What contribution does it have for the adhikārin¹ or for that matter the paśu¹? Surely all the siddhānta-s could stand on their own merit without the need for māyā.

iti śivaṁ

words

siddhānta - settled opinion; demonstrated conclusion of an argument ; any fixed or established or canonical text-book or received scientific treatise on any subject
often these 9 are called out: brahma-siddhānta , sūrya-siddhānta , soma-siddhānta , bṛhaspati-siddhānta , garga-siddhānta , nārada-siddhānta , parāśara-siddhānta , pulastya-siddhānta , vasiṣṭha-siddhānta ; or the following 5 , siddhāntas , pauliśa-siddhānta , romaka-siddhānta , vāsiṣṭha-siddhānta , śaura-siddhānta , and paitāmaha-siddhānta
Ādi Śaṅkara we know as Śaṅkara Bhagavatpāda.

ādi = first, beginning
Śaṅkara = śaṃkara = causing prosperity , auspicious , beneficent. This is another name for śiva or rudra.
Bhagavatpāda = Bhagavat+pāda bhagavat is glorious , illustrious , divine + pāda or pādāḥ is added to proper names or titles in token of respect. With this case pāda it is then a ray or beam of light (considered as the foot of a heavenly body).
Yet what is this 1st or beginning? He was the first Śaṅkarācārya¹ , as he set up the maţha-s (some write as mutt's, math's) across India.
adhikārin - 'fit for'; one who is fit/ready ripe for the revelation of the Self.
paśu - tethered animal ; another name the wise use for the ignorant.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté



If we look to this māyā it has much to do with the notion of creation, not just how we experience it or ~ see ~ it.
In general we can organize the notion of creation into 3 groups:

ajāta siddhānta¹ - or the 'unborn' view ; there is no creation to speak of i.e. no birth, no death of the universe or of us.
vivarta siddhānta - or 'changing from one state to another' which is the vedāntic point of view of error , illusion , an apparent or illusory form
sṛṣṭi-dṛṣṭi siddhānta - or the creation (sṛṣṭi - letting go) of the universe (by the Supreme or by natural processes) before a seer or witness is observing (dṛṣṭi) its creation.
Within this group we can also add dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi siddhānta ... note that in sṛṣṭi-dṛṣṭi siddhānta creation comes forth and then there are people that see creation.
In dṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭi siddhānta it is slightly different. Creation only occurs because of the seer or the perceiver. It comes forth because there is mind.
What could be an example of this ? When one dreams. A whole world is created/perceived in the mind from ~nothing~ or mind-stuff one person has said.
So there is a ~world~ due to one's mind. Note to that a name for ~world~ is loka. It is defined as the wide space or world (either the universe " or , any division of it);
yet too loka is defined as 'the faculty of seeing , sight' or that which is seen. Hence the connection to loka comes about by one's perception and not the other way around.

This point of view is less intuitive to many... we wish to grind out that there must be a creation occurring before 'i' can perceive it. I will let others argue/debate the point.

iti śivaṁ

[Mana]

om gurave namaḥ

Namaste All,

Thank you for these wonderful posts; they are extremely thought provoking, and as such I would like to respond with a few thoughts which have arisen in consequence.

Yajvan Ji you have said:


... why even bring in the notion that the world is illusion or māyā. What contribution does it have for the adhikārin� or for that matter the paśu�? Surely all the siddhānta-s could stand on their own merit without the need for māyā.

Might this lead the paśu into this wonderful tradition of philosophy and knowledge; I think to a large extent, for me, it has been due to this notion. Providing an initial answer to any who are profoundly seeking, sincerely. This idea helps the thinker to begin a proses of separation; prakti from puruṣa; as he gradually begins to emerge from a state of differentiated knowledge in which he was previously enveloped. Thus giving weight to the very path that it is; to questioning ones existence; many would simply call out madness, thus seldom those who may dare.
As such, it is māyā that forms a sheath or protective layer about the self, that it might incubate us, so as to reproduce the very same. How else would would we come to know of the nature of our own greater existence, when or our current nature is so limited and very relative?

Now the paradox here is, to my mind, that māyā is her self māyā. A trick or illusion with out which this existence would not be; in effect She entices us to know her further; A process which of its self causes growth, upachaya, regulating its self through its own self recognition.
The essential difference then, being that of awareness; As we recognise again, we return to being a part of the whole and our growth is then both concious and positive; through both day and night, ahorātram.
With the awareness that we are in integral part of something much bigger than ourselves.

Kind regards.

[silence_speaks]

Dear Yajvan ji,
:)

There can be three categories of objects:
-- SAT, what IS and remains as it IS: trikalepi tishtati, it exists in all three periods of time without any change.

--ASAT, that which is not there in the three periods of time -- without any iota of doubt. Like the horns of a hare. Or a barren women's children.

--MITHYA: that which is not there but appears "as if " there. Like a Mirage water. There is no water body there. The water body seen there is really "ASAT" , but it appears as if its there. Like a palace imagined in dream. The palace is not there , but appears true. The Adhistana on which mithya is imaged up [like a snake seen on a rope, rope is the adhistana] is SAT.

So Ignorace is to see MITHYA as SAT as something existing.
Knowledge is to see MITHYA as ASAT. Or MITHYA as MITHYA :). The changes become ASAT.

Maya is the ignorance [or its cause ... the cause and affect have to be on the same plane]. So Maya belongs to category of MITHYA too!! Thats why I stressed on the meaning "YA - MA", what which is Not!

Shankara wrote an entire panchakam called Maya Panchakam. :) !!

Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi explained statement
Brahma satyam jagan mithya jeevo brahmaiva na parah... he says:
1. World is ASAT
2. Brahman is SAT
3. Brahman alone is all this

which is to say the changes that we see belong to the category of MITHYA. Its to be understood as exactly equivalent to saying:
1. The snake is unreal.
2. Rope is real.
3. Snake is nothing but the rope.

which is to say that the rope is not Moving! If we reject [bhagatyaga lakshanam] the movement and potential to hiss of the snake ... and see what is its adhistanam ... its rope alone. So the snake is only maya kalpitha ... its mithya. its maya.


ajata vada is the ultimate truth as it is. Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi was asked "Is there rebirth" and he replied "Find out if there is a birth in the first place" ! There is no birth, no death. So no question of Srishti . This is Ajata vada. Its just to say BRAHMAN Alone IS.

Infact sristhi drishti vada is only given for people who are not able to understand or accept dristi sristhi vada.

Love!
Silence

[Amrut]

Namaste,

Why is mAyA talked too much?

Since matured sadhakas are very rare and are generally in isolation and maun cannot be taught. You will have to feel it, it is not much focused. Teaching via maun is very supreme, as in the case of Bhagavan DakshaNaamurty, but very few can grasp it. It also requires presence of a Realized Guru. Most of the sadhakas are beginners and for them maayaa is taught. It's the newer ones that makes noise and so we find more talks about maayaa, where it is given importance. So initially to withdraw the senses, one is constantly reminded of maayaa, one should stay away from worldly objects, mentally disconnect from friends, family members, avoid them as poisons, avoid objects of senses as poison, etc. This produces vivek yukta vairagya. Once the mind becomes 100 % introvert, it's time to think of brahman and nothing else. Guru makes extrovert mind introvert, and Ishwara establishes introvert mind into heart (Atman, Brahman, source of everything – breath, mantra, thoughts and this world). No more bombarding of withdrawing of senses et al is done.

As Yajvan ji has said, the verse Sarvam Khalu-idam Brahman is often forgotten.

Sri Ramana Maharshi has said this here (http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/advaitin/conversations/topics/31951)

Either by experiencing oneness with everything and then transcending it to enter into non-duality OR by first entering into non-duality neglecting everything and then experiencing the oneness with everything.

Paramhansa Hariharananda says, either by disassociating or by integrating 5 sheaths, you attain immortality.

Once your mind is rooted in something very deep, then thoughts, etc cannot be influence you. You do not need to think of it as mAyA or as an illusion. OM or something else, that is very deep, the root of all, uproots everything by itself and I, as an individual, have no role in it. I feel as if the source of all is waiting for me, but I am not ready yet.

Illusion, etc is only in the beginning. Later there is no need to think about it. It is something I cannot explain, but I have seen the power of this force. It has the power to uproot any emotions, desires (vAsanA-s) from root in a flash. This force, which does not have any shape, can cure the incurable ailments. I feel that the saints rooted in this infinite source can bring peace to the depressed person. the power is such that nothing can stand in front of it.

From within, you become very soft as ego is getting destroyed, but when dealing in samsAra, we have to adopt duality and be humble. I cannot say, I, as Brahman, am saying this. So we accept Ishvara and even surrender praise, complain, and do salutations to the Lord, Narayana, as he is the one who is the sustainer, or say, in general, to the omnipresent entity. After the desires are uprooted, there is profound peace and bliss. You are literally bathing in deep peace and bliss, and the intensity is such that material happiness and material joy is no match against this nijAnanda.

Also the emotions remain, and you may get angry, but the anger fades away fast, the more you stay rooted in the source, faster you reset yourself. If you manage to be rooted in day time, well, nothing can disturb your peace

Hari OM

[silence_speaks]

If Maya was not required to be discussed: shankara would not have written a maya panchakam ! :)

Love!
Silence

[Amrut]

If Maya was not required to be discussed: shankara would not have written a maya panchakam ! :)

Love!
Silence

He has written many stotra-s. Can all be applied practically by one person throughout the life? they are for different people in different level of consciousness or say in different stages of evaluation.

adhikAra bheda is important, but it looks like you do not ascribe to this view :)

Discussing about mAyA is imp for beginners. What happens to vivarta vAda when one is taught ajata vAda. Or say, if ajAta vAda is taught from beginning and nothing else, what will be the case ....

Silent Love! - radiant, cool, peaceful, unperturbed, anand born out of vairAgya. :D

Hari OM

[silence_speaks]

Dear Indiaspirituality Amrut ji,
:)
I appreciate your intention in the post. But when you say :



they are for different people in different level of consciousness or say in different stages of evaluation.


:) Are you telling this about yourself or about others ?
If its about others its not correct to judge others.
If its about yourself : When a budding scientist thinks "I cannot think originally like a Feynman", he becomes a non-scientist. Have faith in yourself ! Thats the most fundamental point to understand. We often condemn ourselves to mediocrity by delving upon such ideas. This is my view. This Truth has to be understood carefully and anyone who is interested in it can understand.

The Truth has to be presented to all... let those that can take take it. And those that cannot will obviously not accept it. Even if a few people cannot live it out, the Truth does not change, isnt it ?

Love!
Silence

[silence_speaks]

Finally,
This point of Yajvan ji:



Surely all the siddhānta-s could stand on their own merit without the need for māyā.


Is not true.


Love!
Silence

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

Our āgama-s & śāstra-s proclaim brahman is the true, the real, reality. Our upaniṣad-s proclaim I am that, all this is that. Nothing is other then that.
How then can any thing ( including this whole creation) be something other then that ?

For those entwined in tripuṭā ( the 3's ) let them bathe in this māyā , as they have (once again) mistaken a diamond for a piece of broken glass.

Even with the application of the ointment of knowledge, they continue to think , there is brahman and there is 'me'... here in lies the problem.

iti śivaṁ

[silence_speaks]

Dear Yajvan ji,


hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

Our āgama-s & śāstra-s proclaim brahman is the true, the real, reality. Our upaniṣad-s proclaim I am that, all this is that. Nothing is other then that.
How then can any thing ( including this whole creation) be something other then that ?

For those entwined in tripuṭā ( the 3's ) let them bathe in this māyā , as they have (once again) mistaken a diamond for a piece of broken glass.

Even with the application of the ointment of knowledge, they continue to think , there is brahman and there is 'me'... here in lies the problem.

iti śivaṁ



So where is the problem ? The concept of Maya is used to establish that Brahman alone IS! So shastras say Brahman alone IS and the teaching is to reject anything "seen" as other than Brahman as Maya - Ya Ma, that which is Not!
As even ... Rope Alone IS, but i see a snake... so the "snake is maya... that which is not! or an effect of maya ... what ever!" !
so its at a different level that the concept of Maya is taught.

Infact if Brahman alone IS, why even teach or present this Truth ? Brahman has no confusion !! :D

Love!
Silence

[Amrut]

Dear Indiaspirituality Amrut ji,
:)
I appreciate your intention in the post. But when you say :



:) Are you telling this about yourself or about others ?
If its about others its not correct to judge others.
If its about yourself : When a budding scientist thinks "I cannot think originally like a Feynman", he becomes a non-scientist. Have faith in yourself ! Thats the most fundamental point to understand. We often condemn ourselves to mediocrity by delving upon such ideas. This is my view. This Truth has to be understood carefully and anyone who is interested in it can understand.

The Truth has to be presented to all... let those that can take take it. And those that cannot will obviously not accept it. Even if a few people cannot live it out, the Truth does not change, isnt it ?

Love!
Silence

Namaste

I know you do not accept adhikAra bheda :)

Truth does not change, but when the road has many turns, you simply cannot talk all the way to destination. so give step by step instructions, which makes it easy for the traveller.

Hari OM

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté



... why even bring in the notion that the world is illusion or māyā. What contribution does it have for the adhikārin¹ or for that matter the paśu¹? Surely all the siddhānta-s could stand on their own merit without the need for māyā.



One view is this. If I tell you that the diamond ring you have on your finger is fake, and the setting is not gold, it is made from some tin and lead, its value to you is reduced substantially. So much so you think, why do I even have this ? Why burden my hand with something that is just glass and tin ?
The world offered as the possibility of illusion is the same . The wise inform us , finite things ( the world and its offers) do not contain happiness¹ - why then pursue it ?

So, yajvan what is one to do ? Become a rock and do nothing ? This always becomes a reasonable question to ask. I will see what offers other HDF members care to offer.

iti śivaṁ

1. This wisdom can be found in the chāndogya upaniṣad, where sanatkumāra is instructing nārada and says, nālpe sukham asti or finite (alpa) things do not (na) contain happiness (suka).

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté



So, yajvan what is one to do ?

Some who are immature (apāka) will act foolishly. Oh, so everything is illusion then too so is my behavior and I can do what ever I please.
This only gets one deeper into hot water... for not having clarity of vision and for choosing actions that are not life supporting. This is not the best course of action and breeds more grief and attachment to the world at large.

iti śivaṁ

[Amrut]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté



Some who are immature (apāka) will act foolishly. Oh, so everything is illusion then too so is my behavior and I can do what ever I please.
This only gets one deeper into hot water... for not having clarity of vision and for choosing actions that are not life supporting. This is not the best course of action and breeds more grief and attachment to the world at large.

iti śivaṁ

Namaste Yajvan ji,

I agree. when we are in vyavahArika plain, we have to deal accordingly. I cannot say, 'I am Brahman'. I am human being for all bank transactions and they will need my signature to pass my cheque :)

we should not act foolishly. Before entering into advaita, which belongs to 4th ashram, one has to be purified inwardly and should be capable to think beyond body. Yet while dealing in society, he has to stay in relative reality and interact accordingly.

Hari OM

[nparab]

Hello,

First of all, I am a new member to HDF, and I hope you do not think of me as hijacking this discussion. Actually, I wanted to share a view of reality as illusion, or vice versa, as a reply to the original poster.

This is a non-solipsistic view which I have garnered through philophisizing and referencing Hindu thought, but even then I feel that no thinking person (even a spiritual Hindu) can discount solipsism. In fact, I think I remember reading that even Swami Vivekananda in one of his books (I think it was "Talks with Swami Vivekananda") has said that philosophically speaking one cannot be sure if anything other than one's own consciousness "exists". That "everything / everyone else that we interact with" could just be an illusion projected onto one's consciousness. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyway, the point of view that I am putting forth is NOT solipsistic. It is in the form of a simple diagram I have created, which can be found at this link:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6754033/realitymodelnew.jpg

I think the thought behind this point of view is partly Advaitic and partly Dvaitic (maybe someone on this forum can enlighten me which part it falls under, if that doesn't take away from the discussion; that is another reason I wanted to share this diagram / point of view).

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namaste



What is this māyā ? It is rooted ( √ ) in mā or measuring and this 'yā' is restraining . Yet many say māyā is the notion of illusion. How are these two i.e. illusion and measuring/restraining , connected?

Māyā is the illusion that the Infinite can be measured out or restrained. It is the idea that this Infinite Being that we experience as the universe ( and what it contains) is made of parts, finite items, zillions of them, but still finite , within boundaries. It is the boundless measured into the boundaries , this is the illusion of avidya ( ignorance).

This has been used as a tool by the wise to help with ~framing~ what is worthy of pursuit and what is not.

To rid one's self of this māyā is a bi-product or residual result found from the recognition ( re-cognition) of who we really are, our real nature.

I happened to bump into this post today... I thought one more thing could be added to the overall conversation.

This māyā , if we wish to call it ~illusion~ then it is the illusion that one considers themselves separate from the universe .There is 'me' and there is everything else ( the 'not me' portion).
When one is in this frame of reference then then we can consider that person the saṁsārī¹, the wise often call the paśu¹.
Yet when everything appears divine to you , as an extension of your own SELF then all is right with the world; one understands this māyā as that tool of the Supreme to throttle it Self down into the field of individuality. When that experience is opposite of this, then you are that limited being , the saṁsārī within the world of differentiated awareness , in a world of diverse and separate things.

As I have mentioned in a post or two above ( #39, #42, etc), within kaśmir śaivism ( which is just one frame of reference) this māyā is not the villain, it is an energy ( His energy ) used by the Supreme. Yet, the person with the clear mind sees that in both cases e.g. the saṁsārī or that person with divine vision ( the accomplished one, the avibhāgin) are both the Supreme just in different conditions. How could one not be this, if we consider all is brahman ( all is Supreme, all śiva).

So the difference in a nut shell is this:

by the energy (śakti) of māyā one experiences the world and themselves as separate and different from the universe and resides within that frame of reference.
by the energy of the light of consciousness, some call vimarśa, one sees the world as an extension of their own Self. There is no separateness; there is unity within the field of diversity.
In both cases the Divine is still the Divine.iti śivaṁ

words

saṁsārī - is he/she that is within saṁsāra - passing through a succession of states , circuit of mundane existence , some consider birth after birth. For those that do not digest this birth-after-birth, it is that person that continues to cycle though wake-dream-sleep consciousness without ever experiencing the underlying 4th condition which is turīya.
paśu - any tethered animal; domesticated animal. The paśūni or cattle

[hinduism♥krishna]

The world is an illusion. The only reason to believe so in Advaita is that something doesn't exist. The most impossible thing is that something exists.

[devotee]

Namaste HLK,

Your statement results from any pure logical analysis or based on what scriptures say ?

OM

[hinduism♥krishna]

Namaste HLK,

Your statement results from any pure logical analysis or based on what scriptures say ?

OM

I can not explain that. I've always been felt that existence of something is impossible, before reading any scripture. Cause being one can not have power to multiply or divide itself. It's impossible. On what basis it would be divided when there is only the cause itself. If we said by imagination, then also it would be irrational as the imagination also can come under the frame of cause only. So there is neither world (effect) nor an imagination of world (cause of effect).

May be MANDUKYA karika has references about this

Everything is absolute flawless.

[devotee]

Excellent new insight, HLK ! :)

OM