The Old Forum dedicated to Arunachala and Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi

Ramana Maharshi => The teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi => Topic started by: Hari on March 30, 2012, 12:34:51 PM

Title: Unreality of the world
Post by: Hari on March 30, 2012, 12:34:51 PM
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?
Title: Re: Unreality of the world
Post by: Nagaraj on March 30, 2012, 12:52:18 PM
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
Title: Re: Unreality of the world
Post by: Hari on March 30, 2012, 01:01:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: Unreality of the world
Post by: Nagaraj on March 30, 2012, 01:07:14 PM
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
Title: Re: Unreality of the world
Post by: Nagaraj on March 30, 2012, 01:18:10 PM
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
Title: Re: Unreality of the world
Post by: Hari on March 30, 2012, 02:09:36 PM
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".
Title: Re: Unreality of the world
Post by: Hari on March 30, 2012, 02:22:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: Unreality of the world
Post by: Subramanian.R on March 30, 2012, 03:08:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: Unreality of the world
Post by: Hari on March 30, 2012, 04:13:15 PM
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:
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Unreality of the world
Post by: Hari on March 30, 2012, 04:19:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: Unreality of the world
Post by: Hari on March 30, 2012, 05:44:25 PM
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:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Unreality of the world
Post by: Nagaraj on March 30, 2012, 05:47:27 PM
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
Title: Re: Unreality of the world
Post by: Hari on March 30, 2012, 06:00:11 PM
Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Unreality of the world
Post by: Nagaraj on March 30, 2012, 06:14:29 PM
Dear Ramana,

Quote
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...

Quote
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
Title: Re: Unreality of the world
Post by: Subramanian.R on March 30, 2012, 06:18:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: Unreality of the world
Post by: Hari on March 30, 2012, 07:15:45 PM
Thank you, srkudai. I have read a little part of Yoga Vasishta - Sara I think. I accept unreality, as reality of the world. These are just different views of the Reality. Let's not forget that all notions about reality and unreality are from the mind.

I found this conversation with Ramana:

Quote
Q: In golden ornaments both the gold and the ornaments seem to be real. The only difference is that the piece of gold does not have the same beauty as the ornament. Likewise, both Brahman and the world appear to be real.

Maharshi: Whether you keep the gold or the gold ornaments, in both, the basic material is the same. The name given to a form is for everyday activities . If there were a lot of gold ornaments lying around, and if we were to say "please get the gold" the job could not be done. Similarly, there is only "I" and it is the same in all people, but for worldly activities we cannot say "please call that "I"." That is why some "I"'s are called "Ramachandran" and some "Krishna La". Even so, there is only "I".

Q: If the "I" at one place calls the "I" at some other place 'I', many mistakes will happen.

M. During worldly activity, if your attention is fixed on the fundamental reality, there is no difficulty. But ordinary people forget the reality and take the name alone to be real. The different "I"'s are not real. There is only one 'I'. The separate "I" is like a watchman in a fort . He is like the protector of the body. The real owner in everybody is only the one real "I". So, when the separate "I" surrenders to the real "I" , then , [because the idea of a separate self who "owns" the body disappears ], "I" and 'mine' are eliminated . The true state comes into existence when, after sorting out what belongs to whom, the ego "I" surrenders itself to the real owner.
Title: Re: Unreality of the world
Post by: Hari on March 30, 2012, 08:35:55 PM
It is very good that you elaborate such an important topic. But unfortunately now I have no time to answer you. Tomorrow we will discuss this in more details. Have a nice evening to all forum members!
Title: Re: Unreality of the world
Post by: Hari on April 01, 2012, 03:59:43 PM
Dear Udai. I will try to explain what I mean in more details.

The very core of the problem is that we see everything as a separate entity or as different parts of the One Reality. That's the illusion, that's the ignorance. When you see everything as the Self then all is the Self and there is nothing other. For example: I see a squirrel. "I" is the Self, "see" is the Self, "squirrel" is the Self. How can you say that "I", "seeing" and "squirrel" are unreal? But if you see "I" as person, "seeing" as a process and "squirrel" as an object then where is the Self. If the Self is the only reality and suddenly "I", "seeing" and "squirrel" appear then we must conclude that they are unreal. Do you see what I mean? Lord Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita "Everything is Vasudeva". If you believe Him, then how can you say world is unreal? But it is unreal for you and me because we don't see it and experience it as Vasudeva.

If I am Self-realized person and a seeker of the truth comes to me and ask me "Is the world real?" I will answers him "No!" because I know what he means by "real". He means that all different aspects of the world are absolutely and eternally existant, that the world is something different from the Self. For me for the Self-realized person there in no duality but He sees, feels and so on everything as we do. The difference is that jnani knows everythins as the Self. But He call the world unreal because He knows that if He tells us it is real we will understand Him wrongly.
Title: Re: Unreality of the world
Post by: Subramanian.R on April 01, 2012, 04:11:46 PM
Dear ramana,

Kindly go through Sad Darsanam, Verse 1 of the Main Text and contemplate on the meaning.

Arunachala Siva. 
 
Title: Re: Unreality of the world
Post by: nonduel on April 01, 2012, 06:59:12 PM
During a vivid dream, the experiences in it are very real. Some dreams will bring screams, great fears or joy, some will be happy and joyous. These later ones will even disappoint the dreamer if awaken from the dream.

That's the reality of dreams, once awakened, it is said to be unreal.

Isn't this the same as the waking state?  The dream being the snake, the waking state being the rope. For a Jnani could it be that BOTH are unreal?  The Self is non-dual, thus there is no subject and no object. No rope and no snake!



Title: Re: Unreality of the world
Post by: Hari on April 01, 2012, 07:06:56 PM
Quote
During a vivid dream, the experiences in it are very real. Some dreams will bring screams, great fears or joy, some will be happy and joyous. These later ones will even disappoint the dreamer if awaken from the dream.

That's the reality of dreams, once awakened, it is said to be unreal.

Isn't this the same as the waking state?  The dream being the snake, the waking state being the rope. For a Jnani could it be that BOTH are unreal?  The Self is non-dual, thus there is no subject and no object. No rope and no snake!

Yes, that's what I am saying. To see the Self everywhere is the same as to say Awareness watching Itself - "I, I".
Title: Re: Unreality of the world
Post by: Ravi.N on April 01, 2012, 10:31:35 PM
Friends,
An excerpt from The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna:
On his way to Dakshineswar from Keshab's cottage Sri Ramakrishna stopped at Jaygopal
Sen's house. It was about seven o'clock in the evening.
In the drawing-room, Jaygopal's relatives and neighbours had gathered. Vaikuntha,
Jaygopal's brother, said to the Master: "Sir, we are worldly people. Please give us some
advice."
Advice to the worldly-minded
MASTER: "Do your duty to the world after knowing God. With one hand hold to the Lotus
Feet of the Lord and with the other do your work."
VAIKUNTHA: "Is the world unreal?"
MASTER: "Yes, it is unreal as long as one has not realized God. Through ignorance man
forgets God and speaks always of 'I' and 'mine'. He sinks down and down, entangled in
maya, deluded by 'woman and gold'. Maya robs him of his knowledge to such an extent that
he cannot find the way of escape, though such a way exists.
"Listen to a song:
When such delusion veils the world, through Mahamaya's spell,
That Brahma is bereft of sense
And Vishnu loses consciousness,
What hope is left for men? . .
"You all know from your experience how impermanent the world is. Look at it this way.
How many people have come into the world and again passed away! People are born and
they die. This moment the world is and the next it is not. It is impermanent. Those you
think to be your very own will not exist for you when you close your eyes in death. Again,
you see people who have no immediate relatives, and yet for the sake of a grandson they
will not go to Benares to lead a holy life. 'Oh, what will become of my Haru then?' they
argue.:
The narrow channel first is made, and there the trap is set;
But open though the passage lies,
The fish, once safely through the gate,
Do not come out again.
Yet even though a way leads forth,
Encased within its own cocoon,
The worm remains to die.
This kind of world is illusory and impermanent."
A NEIGHBOUR: "Why, sir, should one hold to God with one hand and to the world with
the other? Why should one even stretch out one hand to hold to the world, if it is
impermanent
?"
MASTER: "The world is not impermanent if one lives there after knowing God. Listen to
another song:
O mind, you do not know how to farm!
Fallow lies the field of your life.
If you had only worked it well,
How rich a harvest you might reap!
Hedge it about with Kali's name
If you would keep your harvest safe;
This is the stoutest hedge of all,
For Death himself cannot come near it. . . .
"Did you listen to the song?
Hedge it about with Kali's name
If you would keep your harvest safe.
Surrender yourself to God and you will achieve everything.
This is the stoutest hedge of all,
For Death himself cannot come near it.
Ideal householder's life
"Yes, it is a strong hedge indeed. If you but, realize God, you won't see the world as
unsubstantial. He who has realized God knows that God Himself has become the world and
all living beings
. When you feed your child, you should feel that you are feeding God. You
should look on your father and mother as veritable manifestations of God and the Divine
Mother, and serve them as such. If a man enters the world after realizing God, he does not
generally keep up physical relations with his wife. Both of them are devotees; they love to
talk only of God and pass their time in spiritual conversation. They serve other devotees of
God, for they know that God alone has become all living beings; and, knowing this, they
devote their lives to the service of others."

Namaskar.
Title: Re: Unreality of the world
Post by: Hari on April 02, 2012, 10:30:52 AM
Dear Ramana,
        :) I think you have missed some technical points here. Thats what I have been mentioning. Please observe.

If this world is a manifestation of God, then God becomes an entity that is changing. Brahman is changeless.

So even the manifestation part is "as if", meaning its unreal.

Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma means all this akhila jagat is Brahman alone. Now, how is Brahman ? Changeless, Formless, Movementless :). And the saying is thats what this whole universe is!!

If you are in the center of a distorting mirror hall and there are mirrors arranged in circle around you what will you see? Different reflections of yourself. Does that mean that you have changed even a bit? Yes, the reflection is not "real" but it is not "unreal" because it is you. Like that the world is manifestation of Brahman and Brahman is not changing at all.
Modify message
Title: Re: Unreality of the world
Post by: Hari on April 02, 2012, 11:46:23 AM
I agree that my explanation is limited. But every explanation is limited because it is dualistic. Even when we say Brahman, we are already in duality.
Title: Re: Unreality of the world
Post by: Nagaraj on April 02, 2012, 11:56:47 AM
I agree that my explanation is limited. But every explanation is limited because it is dualistic. Even when we say Brahman, we are already in duality.

Thats because, each of you are only communicating with yourselves (including myself now) until and unless, we discern for ourselves, this duality will remain. But we feel, we are communicating with 'others'

Ramana is communicating with Ramana(but imagines himself to be Udai), Udai communicates with Udai (but imagines to be Ramana) similarly to myself, as well.

So, to who are we really raising questions or seeking light from? It is the same source!

Two people cannot meet, because, there is no place really for two! They are already One!

If we enquire, why a need arises to communicate and whom? by whom, to whom, for what? deeply, it will reveal itself!

Salutations to Bhagavan
Title: Re: Unreality of the world
Post by: Nagaraj on April 02, 2012, 12:12:17 PM
Moreover,

i reflect, why is it important to contemplate on manifestation of Brahman, why is it important to contemplate on the reflection of Brahman(if that is what we refer it as) all these are really unnecessary !

We seem to be more interested in our reflection! than ourselves! And we are more stuck in proving that even the reflection also is brahman! But why, for what, to whom? why do we need to prove that even the reflection is also brahman or not? Stay Still with the Self. That is only required. All these, are deviations, is it not? i reflect.

Just go to the root, self, find out the Self, why even bother about the reflections?

Enquire not the reflection, esquire that which is being reflected, staying with this, is only tapas, looking at the reflection is going away from our center

These are small ways, we get deviated. Many such discernment also are not required, we just need to stick to the 'I' always, that is all. if it raises questions, such as, ok, I am there (dont even allow this expression, just remain), but what is all these that I see, it is not the right question, the moment, we say "I am" etc.. we are lost! We are only deviating from the Tapas, deviating from the 'I', deviating from the enquiry.

We ought to give least importance to questions, and stick to the source.

Salutations to Bhagavan
Title: Re: Unreality of the world
Post by: Hari on April 02, 2012, 12:15:18 PM
The truth is that if we want to speak about Reality we must become silent.

I will try to explain you about Brahman using modern physics. Now we know that one electron can be situated in many, many positions at the same time. For a observer there are many electrons but in reality there is one electron in many positions. So one electron can "create" many electrons (objects), so we see many objects (electrons) but what we really see is one electron. So does the objects unreal? It may be said so because they are really one electron. But they are real also because they are actually the one existing electron. The existing electron is You. And everything is You (the Self). Yes, again this is relative example. But if we discuss about anything we cannot escape it.
Title: Re: Unreality of the world
Post by: Hari on April 02, 2012, 02:18:25 PM
I am in a dream from Absolute point of view so it is not surprise that I expressed myself in that way. :)

I have a question to you and for all. And this is an importan question!
If you are bhakta and love the Lord and the world with all your heart will you call them unreal? Why should a such bhakta to be nondual? Jnanis "see" "through the eyes of the Lord" (is the sugar) but why the serving and loving Him (to taste the sugar) to be considered lower and unreal. That's my question.
Title: Re: Unreality of the world
Post by: Subramanian.R on April 02, 2012, 02:52:50 PM

Sri Bhagavan has said:

1. On many occasions, Bhakti is Jnana Matha, Bhakti is mother of Jnana.

2. He said in Jnana one realizes and then submits, and in bhakti one submits and then  realizes.

3. Sri Bhagavan wrote the entire Stuti Panchakam, AFTER Self Realization. See the nectarine bhakti in those songs. Sri Bhagavan
said that bhakti and jnana are not different.

4. In Who am I? When Sivapraksam Pillai asked :
Who is the greatest of bhaktas?

Bhagavan said: The one who sacrifices himself to the god or the Self and remains ever in Atma Nishtai is the greatest
bhakta.

5. When Dilip Kumar Roy asked Him, after singing some melodious songs: I know only this. Will this do for my Self Realization?

Sri Bhagavan said: Yes. If you maintain that bhava, it is called Para bhakti and this will make you realize the Self.

Arunachala Siva.       
Title: Re: Unreality of the world
Post by: Hari on April 02, 2012, 02:54:15 PM
Quote
There are no two kinds of people "Bhaktas" and "Jnanis"

I didn't mean that. My point was not to distinct jnanis and bhaktas. But you answered well :)

Quote
Thats why Sri Sankra says "Atma Nishta" [literally staying established as Self] is the highest Bhakti.
and Sri Ramana when he was asked whether duality is true or advaita, he said surrender totally and see for urself.
Title: Re: Unreality of the world
Post by: Ravi.N on April 07, 2012, 07:56:37 PM
Friends,
An excerpt from The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna:
Quote
"But the universe and its created beings, and the twenty-four cosmic principles, all exist
because God exists. Nothing remains if God is eliminated. The number increases if you put
many zeros after the figure one; but the zeros don't have any value if the one is not there
."

Namaskar.
Title: Re: Unreality of the world
Post by: Hari on April 07, 2012, 09:41:04 PM
Very wise and true! Thank you for this quotation, Sri Ravi!
Title: Re: Unreality of the world
Post by: sanjaya_ganesh on April 10, 2012, 03:45:22 PM
Dear sirs - In my opinion, "unreal" only means something which is not ever existent and ever present. "real" is ever present. If something looks to be existent today and is not existent tomorrow, it is unreal. The classic definition of brahma satyam, jagath midhya. "unreal" is mithya in the sense here - per what I have understood, sirs. Lord says this in Gita too that "Only I existed before all of these and will exist after all of these". that ONE is real.
Title: Re: Unreality of the world
Post by: Subramanian.R on April 10, 2012, 04:20:52 PM
Dear ganesh,

Yes. That is why it is called mithya in Sanskrit. Mithya is seemingly real or seemingly unreal, ever changing and not eternal.

All except Brahman is changing. Brahman is changless, achalam, Arunachala, but eternal.


Every cell in our body changes in seven years. Old cells die and new cells form. Teeth fall away one by one. Skin becomes
wrinkled. Eye becomes dull. Hairs become white and cottony. Some even lose hairs and become bald. But the Heart is
eternal.  Heart is Atma, Arunachala, Brahman and is eternal.

See Verse 2 of Sri Arunachala Pancharatnam rendered in Tamizh and Sanskrit by Sri Bhagavan.

Arunachala Siva.       
Title: Re: Unreality of the world
Post by: Hari on April 11, 2012, 12:51:22 AM
Accidentally I found this conversation between Lord Ramana and a visitor:

Quote
A visitor: “The Supreme Spirit (Brahman) is Real. The world (jagat) is illusion,” is the stock phrase of Sri Sankaracharya. Yet others say, “The world is reality”. Which is true?

M.: Both statements are true. They refer to different stages of development and are spoken from different points of view. The aspirant (abhyasi) starts with the definition, that which is real exists always; then he eliminates the world as unreal because it is changing. It cannot be real; ‘not this, not this!’ The seeker ultimately reaches the Self and there finds unity as the prevailing note. Then, that which was originally rejected as being unreal is found to be a part of the unity. Being absorbed in the Reality, the world also is Real. There is only being in Self-Realisation, and nothing but being. Again Reality is used in a different sense and is applied loosely by some thinkers to objects. They say that the reflected (adhyasika) Reality admits of degrees which are named:
(1) Vyavaharika satya (everyday life) - this chair is seen by me
and is real.
(2) Pratibhasika satya (illusory) - Illusion of a serpent in a
coiled rope. The appearance is real to the man who thinks so.
This phenomenon appears at a point of time and under certain
circumstances.
(3) Paramartika satya (ultimate) - Reality is that which remains the same always and without change. If Reality be used in the wider sense the world may be said to have the everyday life and illusory degrees (vyavaharika and pratibhasika satya). Some, however, deny even the reality of practical life - vyavaharika satya and consider it to be only projection of the mind. According to them it is only pratibhasika satya, i.e., an illusion.