Why use two separate terms to address the Self?

[SalixIncendium]

I have a question.
Is Brahman really immutable?
I mean, if the world appears and disappears as waves/bubbles in the infinite ocean of Brahman, then isn't Brahman undergoing changes?

If you say it is Brahman's shakti maya that undergoes all sorts of changes and not Brahman itself, then we have to believe that maya is a separate entity and is different from brahman. Is it not? But since the scriptures say they are not different but one and the same, then how can Brahman remain changeless?

Yes, Brahman is immutable. The world is an appearance.

The movie projected on a screen is constantly changing, but the screen on which the movie is displayed remains changeless.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

@SalixIncendium Well, In the case of a movie, the pictures thrown by a projector has their own separate existence from that of the background screen. The pictures come from a projector and doesn't emanate from the screen and so the screen remains unaffected and unchangable.
But in the case of Brahman, everything (jiva,jagat,maya etc.) is cropping up or is emanating from this infinite reality called Brahman and then again they are merging back into Brahman. Is it not?

 

[SalixIncendium]

No. Brahman remains changeless. It is Maya that gives the appearance of everything cropping up or emanating. This is avidya. In my analogy, Maya is represented by the movie projector.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

Yes, Brahman is immutable. The world is an appearance.

The movie projected on a screen is constantly changing, but the screen on which the movie is displayed remains changeless.

No. Brahman remains changeless. It is Maya that gives the appearance of everything cropping up or emanating. This is avidya. In my analogy, Maya is represented by the movie projector.

So if its Maya that gives the appearance of emanating and also (in your analogy), if maya is the projector, then that makes maya a separate entity and different from Brahman.
But if you say maya and brahman are One, (like how the ocean and its waves are one) then whatever changes are taking place, they must be taking place within maya, and this maya remains within Brahman and not outside Brahman. So that IMO, makes Brahman a non-immutable entity.
What are your thoughts on this?

 

[SalixIncendium]

So if its Maya that gives the appearance of emanating and also (in your analogy), if maya is the projector, then that makes maya a separate entity and different from Brahman.

I think you're taking my analogy a bit too literally.

Everything is not the screen is an appearance.

But if you say maya and brahman are One, (like how the ocean and its waves are one) then whatever changes are taking place, they must be taking place within maya, and this maya remains within Brahman and not outside Brahman. So that IMO, makes Brahman a non-immutable entity.
What are your thoughts on this?

"Within Maya" is possibly misleading you. "As a result of Maya" is likely a more accurate description. Maya is time/space/causation. It is the veil that keeps one in ignorance of Brahman. In reality, Brahman is all there is, just as with the ocean and waves, there is only water making an appearance as ocean and waves. The water is still just water in its true nature.

A chunk of gold can be fashioned into a ring, a necklace, or a bangle. The gold remains unchanged as gold and is only appearing as a ring, necklace, or bangle.

Anything that appears to change in Brahman is merely an appearance of change. Brahman itself, while appearing in many forms as a result of Maya, remains changeless as Brahman.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

Ok got it. Thanks Salix