What is the greatest illusion?

[godnotgod]

Friend gng,

True, still the posts are getting responded to!

It is just an action of the universe, without a 'responder'.


The point raised earlier was that illusions too are real even temporarily and cannot be denied.
Day follows night or vice versa meaning both exists. Likewise soul and body are two ends of the same scale i.e. form and no-forms, things & no-things etc. and all dualities, likewise.

Love & rgds[/quote]

Well, that there are real illusions simply means that they are still illusions. The response to the illusion is real, but never for one moment did the illusion itself represent reality, except from the point of view of the ordinary mind. In the rope/snake metaphor, there never was a snake, even for one moment.

Because day cannot exist without night, and vice versa, we cannot state that day or night exist perse. All we can say is that day/night exist, but even this is illusory as it is a manifestation of the undifferentiated source. Also, day and night are not 'things', but events, like a wave on the sea. There is no-thing there which can be called a 'some-thing', and that is the nature of an illusion.

zz please read the next post re: 'maya'.

 

[godnotgod]

What is the Nature of Maya?
[ie: "What is the nature of the universe?"]

by Professor V. Krishnamurthy

[edited]

Is maya [illusion] real or imaginary?

Unless maya is already present, neither concealment nor projection can take place.

Ultimate Reality is beyond space and time.

Time, space and causation are like the glass through which the Absolute is seen.

In the Absolute itself, there is neither space, nor time nor causation.

The only relevant question that you can ask about maya is about its nature and final destiny. Examination will show that maya is neither real nor unreal.

`I am ignorant' is a common expression, within anybody's experience. Hence maya is not completely unreal. But it disappears with the onset of knowledge. So it is not real either. Thus it is different from both the real and the unreal. It cannot be defined one way or the other. It is in this sense that the world of perception, the common world of experience, cannot be rejected out of hand as totally false, nor can it be taken to be totally real because it suffers contradiction at a higher level of experience:

It is real in the empirical sense and unreal in the Absolute sense.

This is also the case with a dream. For the dreamer, the dream is real. The dream and similarly the perceptible universe is not falsehood but comparative unreality. It is not total non-existence like a unicorn but it is midway between the absolute truth of Ultimate Reality and the absolute falsehood of a unicorn.

One analogy to explain the peculiar relationship between Ultimate Reality and the universe is the relationless relationship of the rope that is mistaken for the snake, because of poor lighting. The rope appears as a snake no doubt, but actually there is no snake there, ever.

The second analogy that is used in the literature is the appearance of water in a mirage. And the third one is that of the dreamer and his dream. Each of these three analogies has its own limitation in explaining the relationship between Brahman, which is invisible, and the universe, which is visible.

Brahman [the Absolute] is the rope; the visible universe is the snake [maya].

What appears as the universe is not really the universe. (!)

When spiritual illumination [Enlightnement] takes place we will know that what was there all the time was only Brahman.

The three analogies are not, however, just three analogies in place of one. There is a gradation, says Ramana Maharshi. First it may be questioned, with reference to the analogy of the rope and the snake that when the lighting situation improves the appearance of the snake is no more, whereas, in the case of Brahman versus universe, even after learning that Brahman is the substratum of truth, and the universe is only a superimposition like the snake on the rope, we still continue to see the universe; it has not disappeared!

For this the Maharishi wants you to go to the analogy of the mirage. Once you understand it is the mirage and no watershed, the appearance of water is no more there. But now there is another objection: 'Even after knowing that there is only Brahman and the universe is only an appearance, one gets certain wants fulfilled from this appearance of a universe: one gets one's hunger satisfied, thirst quenched and so on. But the water in the mirage does not quench one's thirst; so to that extent the analogy is inappropriate'.

The analogy of the dream meets this objection, says the Maharishi. The dreamer has his thirst quenched in the dream. The thirst itself is a dream thirst and it is quenched by drinking (dream) water in the dream; so also the wants that one feels in this universe like hunger and thirst are also quenched by corresponding objects in this universe. Thus in this sense the analogy of the dream is reasonably perfect. Maybe that is why Shankara uses the analogy of the dream so emphatically to describe the reality or unreality of the universe.

In Advaita the concept of reality is always comparative. Relative to materials, things made out of the materials are unreal. In other words if a bucket is made out of plastic, the bucket is unreal relative to the plastic. It is the cause that is `more real' than the effect. The cause of the world versus the world itself gives us a comparison about their relative reality. When we say that the universe is unreal, we mean that it is unreal as the universe, but it is surely as real as Brahman, its cause.

In order to explain this relative unreality the theory of superimposition is meticulously worked out by Shankara. While the snake is superimposed on the rope, the rope undergoes no aberration or modification in the process. It is the same rope all the time. What appears to you is only in your mind. The visible universe is just a perishable (akshara) superimposition on Brahman. Brahman does not undergo any change in the process. All the time Brahman remains as Brahman, the imperishable (akshara) substratum. This is where the nirguna (attributeless) character of Brahman is effectively applied by Shankara to his explanation of this mysterious relationship.

This phenomenon of Brahman not being visible but something else, the universe, being visible, is exactly what the term `maya' means. It does two things: It hides Brahman from you. Simultaneously it projects the universe to you.

The declaration that this is what is happening comes forth from the Lord Himself in Gita IX - 5, 6:

'Everything that is perceptible is pervaded and permeated by Me, who is unmanifested. All the beings are established in Me but not I in them; they are not in Me either, this is my divine yoga.'. He remains unmanifested while what is visible is basically a permeation by him. While he remains unchanged, and imperceptible, the universe is what is perceptible. Everything visible is supported by Him as the only substratum, whereas He Himself is not supported by anything. He is His own support.

The snake appears on the rope; the rope does not undergo any change, but the snake is supported by the rope, (meaning that, without the rope there is no snake). But in reality the snake was never there and so it is also true to say that the snake is not in the rope. To the question: "Where is the snake?", the answer is: "it is in the rope."

To the question; "Is the snake there?", the answer is: "there is no snake; the snake was never in the rope."

It is in this strain that the Lord gives out, almost in the same breath, what appears to be two contradictory statements:

"Everything is in Me; and nothing is in Me."

This is the cosmic mystery of the existence of the Universe. It is and is not - sad-asad-vilakshaNa, mAyA!
*****

 

[zenzero]

Friend gng,

Our understanding is the same expect in our own ways and so missing each other.
Though it matters none as finally the source of all things is *nothingness* but being in human form neither the form nor being can be avoided and they too are TRUTH in all aspect though you may quote what others have said but all out of context here.

Love & rgds

 

[godnotgod]

Friend gng,

Our understanding is the same expect in our own ways and so missing each other.
Though it matters none as finally the source of all things is *nothingness* but being in human form neither the form nor being can be avoided and they too are TRUTH in all aspect though you may quote what others have said but all out of context here.

Love & rgds

In short, you are saying that form is 'Truth', as in 'real'?

 

[zenzero]

Friend gng,

In short, you are saying that form is 'Truth', as in 'real'?

TRUTH is self evident, none speaks for IT!
Form is REAL, even momentarily; their presence itself states TRUTH .

Love & rgds

 

[godnotgod]

Friend gng,



TRUTH is self evident, none speaks for IT!
Form is REAL, even momentarily; their presence itself states TRUTH .

Love & rgds

A mirage would be 'self-evidently' a real pool of water, and yet is an illusion. So what one firmly believed to be a self-evident 'Truth' is, in reality, not true at all.

The snake which seemed real, though it was for a brief moment, was not real, and never was real. The only reality is the rope, and the illusion that there was a snake present. If it did not seem real to the observer, there would be no illusion. The only place where the snake was 'real' was in the mind.

1st observer: 'the flag is moving'
2nd observer: 'the wind is moving'
3rd observer: 'flag & wind are both moving'
passerby: 'your MINDS are moving!'

 

[zenzero]

Friend gng,

passerby: 'your MINDS are moving!'

the mind itself is an illusion! but REAL too.

Love & rgds

 

[godnotgod]

Friend gng,


the mind itself is an illusion! but REAL too.

Love & rgds

Because it is an illusion, it sees in an illusory manner. Where there is no self-created principle called 'mind', there is only pure seeing, wherin one can then see things as they are, rather than as the mind dictates them to be. That is the point of the flag story.

Theoretically, a man who is in the state of no-mind would not see the rope moving in the wind as a snake; he would see it for what it actually is: a rope. Those who see a snake have that image hard-wired in (*via fear), with automatic (ie; conditioned) responses.

Therefore, from the standpoint of higher consciousness, this level of consciousness (ie: Waking Sleep; the 3rd Level) is not real, but from the standpoint of those immersed in Identification, it is.

It is exactly for this reason that pursuits of material goals do not satisfy. There are three lower centers which are Addictions: Power, Sensation, and Security, the pursuit of which do not bring satisfaction, as they are illusions or temporal gratifications, requiring greater and greater input levels, just like any addictive drug. They are, however, perceived by the mind as highly desirable goals by most of mankind. You may recall the parable of the Lilies of the Field, in which Yeshu taught the Wisdom of Insecurity.

 

[zenzero]

Friend gng,
As mentioned earlier there is no denying that its all *nothingness but REALITY is also TRUTH that we exists as beings or else we would not be saring what we are sharing on RF HERE-NOW!
This is also what is TRUTH!

appearances are not different from emptiness,
emptiness is not different to appearances.
Appearances are emptiness,
emptiness is an appearance.

Appearances or forms exists is also to be accepted and understood was the point that was trying to get caross all along.

Love & rgds

 

[cablescavenger]

I believe in God and I also believe that life consist of many things, including a grand illusion. What do you see as this grand illusion? What is life's greatest illusion?

The greatest disappearing trick of all time.

 

[godnotgod]

Friend gng,
As mentioned earlier there is no denying that its all *nothingness but REALITY is also TRUTH that we exists as beings or else we would not be saring what we are sharing on RF HERE-NOW!
This is also what is TRUTH!

Once again I ask: who, or what, is it that is 'saying' and 'sharing'? There is no agent of saying or sharing; there is only the act of saying or sharing., without a say-er or share-er. Only the false self claims that it has a distinct identity, of course.

Appearances or forms exists is also to be accepted and understood was the point that was trying to get caross all along.

Love & rgds

Appearances are just that: illusions. They are not real. That is why they are called 'appearances'. They 'exist' only in the mind; not in reality.

"Illusion is appearance of things differently from what they actually are....The appearance of a person as a combination of the mind and the body is ... an illusion, because man is more than the mere union of the two. A simple analysis of our perceptual experience establishes beyond doubt that the world is not what it appears to be and what we perceive through our senses is just a superficial reality....The world...is an illusion because it conceals truth and reveals itself differently each time we perceive it."

"The world is nothing but a mere vibration of consciousness in space. It seems to exist even as a goblin seems to exist in the eyes of the ignorant. All this is but Maya: for here there is no contradiction between the infinite consciousness and the apparent existence of the universe. It is like the marvelous dream of a person who is awake.”

Vashista



http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/essays/maya.asp


The ordinary mind attempts to ‘fix’ what we experience into permanent forms we call ‘things’, which includes people. Every-thing we refer to as separate ‘things’ are not real as such, as all ‘things’ are interdependent with everything else.

 

[zenzero]

Friend gng,

They 'exist' only in the mind; not in reality.

Repeat, whatever you are stating are all understtod
HOWEVER understand that you using the label gng like any other being is contained in a form whose source is nothingness/consciousness and so you are able to respond through RF and internet etc.
This is happenning cause there is a mind and only trying to get across that the mind exists even momentarily and because of that mind we are still discussing the issue through these pages which are all in time & space which again are contained in NOTHINGNESS!

Love & rgds

 

[godnotgod]

Friend gng,


Repeat, whatever you are stating are all understtod
HOWEVER understand that you using the label gng like any other being is contained in a form whose source is nothingness/consciousness and so you are able to respond through RF and internet etc.
This is happenning cause there is a mind and only trying to get across that the mind exists even momentarily and because of that mind we are still discussing the issue through these pages which are all in time & space which again are contained in NOTHINGNESS!

Love & rgds

It's all just a momentary blip on the radar screen that emerges from no-thing, and returns to no-thing. It never existed, nor does it now. All we have are traces of the energy flow, which is memory, which is dead. The mind self-creates, then creates concepts and constructs and words and symbols as if they had substance, and has 'discussions', but it all is not real.

We like to think of ourselves as existing in reality, but in order for existence to take place, it must be understood against a background of non-existence, something most everyone ignores, but which is crucial to the idea of existence. Now if the background, or field, of existence is essential to it, then we also not-exist. It is the formless out of which form emerges, just as the wave-form emerges from the formless sea, and then returns to it. The wave perse does not exist. It is a moving energy form, just as we are, and just as everything in the universe is. That constitutes the basis for the illusion we refer to as ourselves existing, and for what we call 'things', all of which are illusory.

I fail to grasp what you are getting at in stating that things actually do exist momentarily. You seem to be saying that there really was a snake just for a brief moment. There never was a snake at all. It is a real illusion, but the illusion is not reality.

What endures as real is the field against which all things, including mind, seemingly exist, and that field is the Absolute.

 

[Falvlun]

Math and logic are still functions of the thinking, rational mind. What I was referring to is a conscious awareness outside our ordinary mode of awareness, one which most are completely unaware of. The universe continues to defy rational approaches such a math and logic because these exercises are descriptions of reality, rather than ones revealing the true nature of reality. What I am suggesting to you is a state of mind that is non-rational, one that utilizes the intuitive path of seeing rather than thinking.

You and I may approach 'reality' from two different viewpoints at the beginning, but as our opinions and concepts drop away, we arrive at a common view in which we both see the same reality. Why should it be any different?

I don't know how this "seeing" would be impervious to the problems presented by the other five senses and thinking. After all, it would still simply be a way we are able to perceive Reality. You would be able to come to know a different aspect of Reality, but I don't think you can ever fully escape from the fact that everything we experience will be mediated by our perceptions, thinking or no.

 

[zenzero]

Friend gng,
Go back to the 10 bulls.

ZEN

One cannot jump to the 10th card from the first.
Mountains are mountains both in the first and the last but with a difference.
If your existence is not there then your absence is enough. No need of posting!

Love & rgds

 

[godnotgod]

I don't know how this "seeing" would be impervious to the problems presented by the other five senses and thinking. After all, it would still simply be a way we are able to perceive Reality. You would be able to come to know a different aspect of Reality, but I don't think you can ever fully escape from the fact that everything we experience will be mediated by our perceptions, thinking or no.

First of all, pure seeing, without thought, eliminates the distorting filter of the rational mind. It goes direct to reality itself, and I am not referring to 'seeing' as normal eyesight, as that is still in the area of sensory perception. I am referring to a conscious awareness outside of all sensory perception. What the mystics of past ages have realized is that perception is a distortion of reality. Also, I am not speaking of a way to perceive Reality, but to experience it directly, with nothing to interfere.

In light of your response, the question is: can you conceive of a state of awareness that is an accurate vision of what reality actually is, and if not, why not?

 

[godnotgod]

Friend gng,
Go back to the 10 bulls.

One cannot jump to the 10th card from the first.
Mountains are mountains both in the first and the last but with a difference.
If your existence is not there then your absence is enough. No need of posting!

Love & rgds

When the last is realized, it is understood that one never left in the first place. Everything else is an illusion.

 

[zenzero]

Friend gng,

Since your have raelized the last am sure there is nothing further to discuss with any other as the self is all knowing.
Dust has realised itself; *dust*.

Love & rgds

 

[Falvlun]

First of all, pure seeing, without thought, eliminates the distorting filter of the rational mind. It goes direct to reality itself, and I am not referring to 'seeing' as normal eyesight, as that is still in the area of sensory perception. I am referring to a conscious awareness outside of all sensory perception. What the mystics of past ages have realized is that perception is a distortion of reality. Also, I am not speaking of a way to perceive Reality, but to experience it directly, with nothing to interfere.

In light of your response, the question is: can you conceive of a state of awareness that is an accurate vision of what reality actually is, and if not, why not?

I believe our senses/thinking do give us an accurate picture of what reality actually is; I just don't think they give us the whole picture.

No, I do not think humans have the capability to see the whole picture; at least not yet.

Your concept of "seeing" is tantalizing, and I do think it offers a different aspect of reality that the more traditional ways miss. But, I don't think that it can be fully divorced from our brain, and the problem that humans must experience reality through the mediation of the computing piece of meat inside our skulls. Conscious or unconscious, rational thought or no, it's all still going through the brain.

 

[godnotgod]

I believe our senses/thinking do give us an accurate picture of what reality actually is; I just don't think they give us the whole picture.

If they don''t give us the whole picture, how can they give us an accurate picture of reality?

No, I do not think humans have the capability to see the whole picture; at least not yet.

What would it take to accomplish that?

Your concept of "seeing" is tantalizing, and I do think it offers a different aspect of reality that the more traditional ways miss. But, I don't think that it can be fully divorced from our brain, and the problem that humans must experience reality through the mediation of the computing piece of meat inside our skulls. Conscious or unconscious, rational thought or no, it's all still going through the brain.

Are we not intelligent beings which emerged from an intelligent universe?