Unreality of the world

[Hari]

Talking about unreality a big question arised in me. Why should we consider the world as unreal? Isn't the world Brahman or the Self? If it is so then we call it unreal? Isn't just hte feeling of separateness, that we are separate entities unreal? Like "Oh, see it is my mother. I recognize her - its her face, her hair, etc". If I know everything as the Self, how can I say that this everything is unreal?

[Nagaraj]

Dear Ramana, Udai,

Likewise, we recognise our limbs, our body, so it is so that this body too is just seen as we see our mother, who are we?

Salutations to Bhagavan

[Hari]

Dear Ramana,
        Look at these three statements:

1. The Ghost is unreal.
2. There is only a Post.
3. The Ghost is nothing but the Post.

What do you understand from these ? Now apply the same to the world

1. The world is unreal.
2. There is only Brahman.
3. The world is nothing but the Brahman.

Another example:
1. The snake is unreal.
2. there is only a rope.
3. The snake is nothing but the rope.

The world is seen, its unreal. Like a dream. one sees the dream and one sees all the differences ... but there are none of them in reality. what ever is seen is unreal. Its an appearance. A projection of the mind.

Accept that. But the mind is also from the Self, Its projection. Then why should we consider it as unreal? What is reality after all? If there is only one reality then everything "plays" on It and derives from It.

[Nagaraj]

I felt,

Real and Unreal, is to be really discerned, real unreal, is not to be taken literally. Real and Unreal is english words of the sanskrit words Sat and Asat.

That which is is Sat, That which is not is Asat. That which is not Sat is Asat.

That which is not Real is Unreal.

That which is not you is Unreal, That which is not you is Asat.

In the same way, that which we see, we recognise, but that is not us, inclusive of our body. My family, my parents, my friend, my body, my mind, but when we say, myself, what do we really recognise?

Hence contemplating the Self with English words becomes difficult, I doubt, if there is an alternative word for myself in sanskrit.

But they say in sanskrit as Aham, or Ayam, but the english word Myself does not even come close to Aham or Ayam.

some musings...

Salutations to Bhagavan

[Nagaraj]

Udai, yes,

also, when we say, my Self, its a great mistake, there is no place for the word 'my' when we say Self.

We can say My parents, my family, my body, but we can't say My Self, it becomes two there, you are different from your self.

the Self envelops all the 'My' -  That which says myself itself is the Self, That which stakes ownership as its, as 'My' is itself the Self.

Salutations to Bhagavan

[Hari]

What is the mind? What is the Self? If the thoughless mind is the Self then where do the thoughts come from? Why the Self projects the mind deluding Itself of Its Being? If this chain is true world --> body --> senses --> mind --> thoughts --> the Self then every one of them ultimately derives from the Self, then why should we call them unreal? Yes, they are not the Self (considering them as not-Self) but they are real realizing they are the Self. Rope is a rope, it is not a snake but it doesn't mean that the rope doesn't continue to seem like a snake in the dark, I just know now it is a rope. Sun and its rays are not different. It is unreal and untrue if we say that the rays are something different from the Sun. But it is true if we say "They are from the Sun. They are the Sun. I know it now for sure".

[Hari]

When we say snake is unreal, what do we mean?
it continues to seem like, due to optical illusion, thats fine.
still u will say "snake is unreal"
what will that mean ?

My notion that it was a snake is unreal. But that something was there and it is a rope is real. If I close I will see that it is a rope but if I come into my first position I will see a snake again. The difference is that my notion will be different. I will know it is a rope appearing like a snake. The image of a snake will continue. If I have plasticine I can make many figures by it. I can torn it to many pieces and make many little figures. Is that change the plasticine? Do the figures don't exist? Or they are just plasticine appearing in different forms and shapes?

I am not sure that when jnanis say that the world is not real they mean what we mean.

[Subramanian.R]

Dear Ramana,

When it is said that the world is unreal, it only means it is seemingly real or unreal, mithya.  It is not totally unreal or real.
The world is mithya till Knowledge dawns - that it is the superimposition on the Self. The rope only is there. But it appears
as a snake in dim light. It only means that the snake is only seemingly real, till the Knowledge dawns. When the Knowledge
dawns we come to know that what is really is only the rope and the snake was superimposed on it. There is no separate
snake and separate rope. Till one attains Jnana, he sees the world as mithya, then when Jnana is attained, one sees it
as Brahma Swarupam.

Arunachala Siva.

[Hari]

so do u mean to say the snake existed or not ?

I am not talking so much about it is real or not but that it's appearance will not disappear knowing that it is not what you are thought. Suppose you are in front of Lord Krishna statue. It is not Lord Krishna, it is a stone. Realizing it is a stone does not change that you see Lord Krishna, aren't you. That is what I mean. I found of a quote of Sri Ramakrishna who says:

It's enough to have faith in one aspect of God. You have faith in God without form. That is very good. But never get into your head that your faith alone is true and every other is false. Know for certain that God without form is real and that God with form is also real. Then hold fast to whichever faith appeals to you.

It's the same with Vedanta, Christianity and all religious and philosophical systems. One says reality is only nondual. Other - it is only dual. Third - it is both. If everything is the One, then how can anything to be nonexistent after all. Yes, forms and names may be not eternal but does that mean that they are unreal? It is just play of words for me. Bhagavan Ramana always say that the world is a dream and is unreal. But did He say that to Himself or to His followers. If you see only black and white do you think that I would depict you a picture - using colors or ohter details like form and so on. So Bhagavan say the world is unreal only because we consider it as some other entity divided into parts, communicating each other and so on. My opinion is that for jnanis the world is as real as real is for us but the difference is that they know it is the Self or God. It is very difficult to be imagined but why not be true? And snake and rope example is just one of the many examples given to us. Let we not limit our vision and perspective only to it. Every example is given to represent just a different way of vision. And I wish you know that I don't argue you. I just share my current thoughts.

[Hari]

Dear Ramana,

When it is said that the world is unreal, it only means it is seemingly real or unreal, mithya.  It is not totally unreal or real.
The world is mithya till Knowledge dawns - that it is the superimposition on the Self. The rope only is there. But it appears
as a snake in dim light. It only means that the snake is only seemingly real, till the Knowledge dawns. When the Knowledge
dawns we come to know that what is really is only the rope and the snake was superimposed on it. There is no separate
snake and separate rope. Till one attains Jnana, he sees the world as mithya, then when Jnana is attained, one sees it
as Brahma Swarupam.

Arunachala Siva.

I completely agree with you, Sri Subramanian.

[Hari]

What I am saying is that real and not-real are conceptions of the mind so I cannot state the world is real or not or in between. I accept your view. It is logical. But try to understand and my view. In the light of our conversation I found another question from Sri Ramakrishna about this topic:

He who is called Brahman by the jnanis is known as Atman by the yogis and as Bhagavan by the bhaktas. The same brahmin is called priest, when worshipping in the temple, and cook, when preparing a meal in the kitchen. The jnani, following the path of knowledge, always reason about the Reality saying, "not this, not this." Brahman is neither "this" nor "that"; It is neither the universe nor its living beings. Reasoning in this way, the mind becomes steady. Finally it disappears and the aspirant goes into samadhi. This is the Knowledge of Brahman. It is the unwavering conviction of the jnani that Brahman alone is real and the world is illusory. All these names and forms are illusory, like a dream. What Brahman is cannot be described. One cannot even say that Brahman is a Person. This is the opinion of the jnanis, the followers of Vedanta. But the bhaktas accept all the states of consciousness. They take the waking state to be real also. They don't think the world to be illusory, like a dream. They say that the universe is a manifestation of the God's power and glory. God has created all these — sky, stars, moon, sun, mountains, ocean, men, animals. They constitute His glory. He is within us, in our hearts. Again, He is outside. The most advanced devotees say that He Himself has become all this — the 24 cosmic principles, the universe, and all living beings. The devotee of God wants to eat sugar, and not become sugar. (All laugh.) Do you know how a lover of God feels? His attitude is: "O God, Thou art the Master, and I am Thy servant. Thou art the Mother, and I Thy child." Or again: "Thou art my Father and Mother. Thou art the Whole, and I am a part." He does not like to say, "I am Brahman." They yogi seeks to realize the Paramatman, the Supreme Soul. His ideal is the union of the embodied soul and the Supreme Soul. He withdraws his mind from sense objects and tries to concentrate on the Paramatman. Therefore, during the first stage of his spiritual discipline, he retires into solitude and with undivided attention practices meditation in a fixed posture.
But the reality is one and the same; the difference is only in name. He who is Brahman is verily Atman, and again, He is the Bhagavan. He is Brahman to the followers of the path of knowledge, Paramatman to the yogis, and Bhagavan to the lovers of God.

[Nagaraj]

What is the mind? What is the Self? If the thoughless mind is the Self then where do the thoughts come from? Why the Self projects the mind deluding Itself of Its Being? If this chain is true world --> body --> senses --> mind --> thoughts --> the Self then every one of them ultimately derives from the Self, then why should we call them unreal? Yes, they are not the Self (considering them as not-Self) but they are real realizing they are the Self. Rope is a rope, it is not a snake but it doesn't mean that the rope doesn't continue to seem like a snake in the dark, I just know now it is a rope. Sun and its rays are not different. It is unreal and untrue if we say that the rays are something different from the Sun. But it is true if we say "They are from the Sun. They are the Sun. I know it now for sure".

Self manifests itself as mind, as thoughts. The Self which is nondual, manifests itself as manifolds by way of mind, as thoughts.

The idea that the Self projects the mind deluding itself of its being is incorrect. The Self is never deluded.

The Self projects itself as Mind, Thoughts for its own sake. Like the waves in an ocean.

You are yourself the Rope and Snake as well. Even though it is a beautiful jewelry with amazing craft, it is just Gold. Gold in the manifestation of a jewelry. Now what is ignorance in this context is forgetfulness of the Gold and knowing the piece as a ring or a necklace. This is all to it. So, if you know that the mind, thoughts, to be just the manifestation of the Self, then the delusion is no more. You know thought, mind like a jewelry, but you are aware that it is Gold, in the end.

If that which appears as dream, illusory (snake, rope) Then, is the perceiver (discerner) of the dream Also illusory?

Salutations to Bhagavan

[Hari]

The idea that the Self projects the mind deluding itself of its being is incorrect. The Self is never deluded.

These are just words. Even Bhagavan Ramana has expressed Himself this way - how jiva is the Self trying to liberate Itself. I share your opinion - the Self cannot be deluded or illuminated or whatever.

You are yourself the Rope and Snake as well. Even though it is a beautiful jewelry with amazing craft, it is just Gold. Gold in the manifestation of a jewelry. Now what is ignorance in this context is forgetfulness of the Gold and knowing the piece as a ring or a necklace. This is all to it. So, if you know that the mind, thoughts, to be just the manifestation of the Self, then the delusion is no more. You know thought, mind like a jewelry, but you are aware that it is Gold, in the end.

Yes, but the jewelry exists as the Self. That's my point. You are the Gold but you are the jewelry also.

[Nagaraj]

Dear Ramana,

The idea that the Self projects the mind deluding itself of its being is incorrect. The Self is never deluded.

These are just words. Even Bhagavan Ramana has expressed Himself this way - how jiva is the Self trying to liberate Itself. I share your opinion - the Self cannot be deluded or illuminated or whatever.

This is a simple discernment, let me share my thoughts with you. That the Self is never deluded is the most simplest discernment. How are you able to state that ignorance is cause for knowledge of that ignorance itself? How are you aware of your own ignorance, without becoming aware of the contradiction? If any way, ignorance could delude the Self, then who is stating all these statements such as "These are just words", and so on? How does anything delude the knower, that is yourself? How can you call it as delusion, when you are yourself, the knower is really not deluded?

Its like this, take for instance, a person with cataract problem. Does it make any sense to say that there is cataract is blurring your vision? At all times, the eyesight is ever unimpaired. The clouds may hide the sun, but the sun is ever aware of the clouds. Does it make any sense to say that the Sun has disappeared? when it is behind the clouds? During the waxing and waning phases of moon, can we say that the moon is really appearing and disappearing? the Moon is as it is, without any change!

It is from that same identification with your Self, you are able to state facts such as "These are just words" etc...

You are yourself the Rope and Snake as well. Even though it is a beautiful jewelry with amazing craft, it is just Gold. Gold in the manifestation of a jewelry. Now what is ignorance in this context is forgetfulness of the Gold and knowing the piece as a ring or a necklace. This is all to it. So, if you know that the mind, thoughts, to be just the manifestation of the Self, then the delusion is no more. You know thought, mind like a jewelry, but you are aware that it is Gold, in the end.

Yes, but the jewelry exists as the Self. That's my point. You are the Gold but you are the jewelry also.

What is the confusion here, when you know clearly that the jewelry exists as the self? you now know the you are the Gold and the jewelry as well!

Is jewelry any way different from Gold?

 

Salutations to Bhagavan

[Subramanian.R]

Dear Ramana,

Yes. You are the gold and you are the jewellery too. But till Jnana dawns, you will see gold as different from jewellery.
When Jnana dawns all are gold, one pure gold and others are its manifestations. The world is the manifestation of the
Self.

So also with mud and pot. Mud alone is there. But we see mud, pots, bowls, saucers differently till Jnana dawns.
Once the Jnana dawns you will see all are mud only and the pots, bowls, saucers etc., are manifestations of the
mud. The world is the manifestation of the Self.

Arunachala Siva.