Advaita questions

[Valjean]

So have you personally experienced sense-objects as illusions, and if so, what is that actually like?

It is ineffable.
If a flatworm suddenly found itself merged with an Einstein or Newton, seeing the world through their eyes, would it be able to describe the world and its new insights to its fellow flatworms? Of course not. It wouldn't even have the neurological architecture to retain the insight itself.
Yet the difference between a flatworm and Einstein is practically unnoticeable compared to the realities of waking-state vs expanded consciousness. Explaining color to a blind man would be child's play in comparison.

So what about the experience of pain when you drop a brick on your foot? Is that also just an abstract illusion?

Total illusion; less than a dream.

Clearly we create a mental model of the world, and it can be an approximation, but the model is based on sensory input.

It's more than a mental model, and it's not just an approximation. It bears no relationship whatever to the reality perceived. It''s a whole different world.

The sensory input is just electrochemical impulses. The input from your eyes, tongue and ears is identical. It's your brain that paints different pictures from each.
Moreover, your senses pick up only a narrow spectrum of the whatever input they're sampling, plus, most of what's out there isn't even picked up by the senses.

For example, colour perception is pretty consistent in humans - if it wasn't, then colour coding wouldn't be used for safety-critical situations like traffic lights and electric cabling.

Yes, we share the same anatomical and neurological anatomy, so the experience is similar. Nevertheless, our retinas have different mixtures of cone cells, and our brains are free to make of the input what it will.

So no. Our experience of colour is different. What you might experience as green I might experience as what you'd call chartreuse or yellow. My red is not the same red you experience. Our color names are cultural, not experiential.
We learn that the name of a certain wavelength is 'blue', so we call the same color by the same name, but our actual perception of it is different
Your Color Red Really Could Be My Blue | Color Perception | Live Science
There's Evidence Humans Didn't Actually See Blue Until Modern Times

Then there are cultural influences. Consider the Himba, an African tribe.
They don't see blue. Their sky is not blue. Shown blue paint or color charts, they cannot pick out the blue. They're color blind to blue. Yet their retinal anatomy is the same as ours.
On the other hand, they see two distinctly different colors of what we perceive as brown. We perceive a spectrum. They see entirely different and unrelated colors.

{quote]But this is rather different from describing experience as an "illusion", which suggests it has no basis at all in reality.[/quote]"Reality," again?
There is Objective Reality, which is Really Real, and consistent with theoretical physics; and then there are the several subjective realities we experience as real even though they're not consistent with physics. Yet these dreams are so tangibly real to us, that we cannot conceive of them as being anything but actual reality.

The science of perception is one thing, the belief in Maya as illusion seems like another.

Quite true. Try as we might to poke holes in perceived "reality" with physics, anatomy or neurology, only intellectuals, scientists or those who've actually exited the cave can appreciate the fact that our reality is an illusion.

 

[Martin]

It is ineffable.
If a flatworm suddenly found itself merged with an Einstein or Newton, seeing the world through their eyes, would it be able to describe the world and its new insights to its fellow flatworms? Of course not. It wouldn't even have the neurological architecture to retain the insight itself.
Yet the difference between a flatworm and Einstein is practically unnoticeable compared to the realities of waking-state vs expanded consciousness. Explaining color to a blind man would be child's play in comparison.
Total illusion; less than a dream.

It's more than a mental model, and it's not just an approximation. It bears no relationship whatever to the reality perceived. It''s a whole different world.

The sensory input is just electrochemical impulses. The input from your eyes, tongue and ears is identical. It's your brain that paints different pictures from each.
Moreover, your senses pick up only a narrow spectrum of the whatever input they're sampling, plus, most of what's out there isn't even picked up by the senses.

Yes, we share the same anatomical and neurological anatomy, so the experience is similar. Nevertheless, our retinas have different mixtures of cone cells, and our brains are free to make of the input what it will.

So no. Our experience of colour is different. What you might experience as green I might experience as what you'd call chartreuse or yellow. My red is not the same red you experience. Our color names are cultural, not experiential.
We learn that the name of a certain wavelength is 'blue', so we call the same color by the same name, but our actual perception of it is different
Your Color Red Really Could Be My Blue | Color Perception | Live Science
There's Evidence Humans Didn't Actually See Blue Until Modern Times

Then there are cultural influences. Consider the Himba, an African tribe.
They don't see blue. Their sky is not blue. Shown blue paint or color charts, they cannot pick out the blue. They're color blind to blue. Yet their retinal anatomy is the same as ours.
On the other hand, they see two distinctly different colors of what we perceive as brown. We perceive a spectrum. They see entirely different and unrelated colors.

{quote]But this is rather different from describing experience as an "illusion", which suggests it has no basis at all in reality."Reality," again?
There is Objective Reality, which is Really Real, and consistent with theoretical physics; and then there are the several subjective realities we experience as real even though they're not consistent with physics. Yet these dreams are so tangibly real to us, that we cannot conceive of them as being anything but actual reality.

Quite true. Try as we might to poke holes in perceived "reality" with physics, anatomy or neurology, only intellectuals, scientists or those who've actually exited the cave can appreciate the fact that our reality is an illusion.

Thanks, but this this is another intellectual analysis, and I am more interested in what you have actually experienced.
You didn't really answer my first question: Have you personally experienced sense-objects as illusions, and if so, what is that actually like, practically speaking?
Do you experience sights, sounds, flavours, odours and bodily sensations differently, and if so, how exactly?
For example, if you were to drop a brick on your foot, would you feel pain, or something else?

And what is your practical experience of Nirguna Brahman?

 

[Valjean]

Thanks, but this this is another intellectual analysis, and I am more interested in what you have actually experienced.
You didn't really answer my first question: Have you personally experienced sense-objects as illusions, and if so, what is that actually like, practically speaking?
Do you experience sights, sounds, flavours, odours and bodily sensations differently, and if so, how exactly?
For example, if you were to drop a brick on your foot, would you feel pain, or something else?

And what is your practical experience of Nirguna Brahman?

My point was that the question can't be answered, nor could any answer be comprehended, any more than a flatworm could understand -- or communicate -- relativity.
I did not so much experience sights and sounds differently. I was the sights and sounds, as well as the experience.

If I were to drop myself on myself?
How can an event happen in a timeless, unchanging universe? Transcend time and space and nothing happens.

 

[Martin]

My point was that the question can't be answered, nor could any answer be comprehended, any more than a flatworm could understand -- or communicate -- relativity.
I did not so much experience sights and sounds differently. I was the sights and sounds, as well as the experience.

If I were to drop myself on myself?
How can an event happen in a timeless, unchanging universe? Transcend time and space and nothing happens.

Thanks. This sounds like an experience of non-duality, a sort of merging with sense objects. I think such experiences are significant, though interpretation is subjective. Are these experiences just a radical change in perception, or do they point to something deeper?

Anyway, could you explain how this kind of non-dual experience relates to Maya as illusion?
How does it relate to the idea of Maya as "forgetfulness of Self", which suggests there is a need to withdraw from sense-objects, rather than merging with them? And aren't the sense-objects you're merging with themselves illusory (Maya), according to Advaita?

 

[Valjean]

Thanks. This sounds like an experience of non-duality, a sort of merging with sense objects. I think such experiences are significant, though interpretation is subjective. Are these experiences just a radical change in perception, or do they point to something deeper?

That's the $64,000 question, isn't it?
Those who've experienced unity are pretty convinced of it, just like those who've awakened from a dream believe waking-state "realer" than the dream.
Ordinary physics can refute the world we perceive in waking-state. But 'proof' of the mystical experience? You had to have been there.

That's why mystics don't preach. They'd consider anyone who believed their outrageous claims without having experienced unity themselves to be fools -- or perhaps physicists.

Anyway, could you explain how this kind of non-dual experience relates to Maya as illusion?
How does it relate to the idea of Maya as "forgetfulness of Self", which suggests there is a need to withdraw from sense-objects, rather than merging with them? And aren't the sense-objects you're merging with themselves illusory (Maya), according to Advaita?

An illusion is a false or deceptive perception. From a non-dual perspective, our dualistic world is a false perception, ergo: an illusion.

Maya isn't forgetfulness, it's illusion, though it might be described as forgetfulness of self as Brahman. I see samadhi as a realization or expansion of self; a realization that other objects formerly perceived as separate are, in fact, part of yourself. Enlightenment isn't a withdrawal, it's a merger.
Yes, the sense objects are illusions. When you merge with them the boundaries vanish, and they cease to be perceptible as individual objects.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

That's the $64,000 question, isn't it?
Those who've experienced unity are pretty convinced of it, just like those who've awakened from a dream believe waking-state "realer" than the dream.

Perhaps, you should check with @ajay0. He has experienced this unity through his Brahma-kumari type meditations that he has described at length in his previous posts.

Enlightenment isn't a withdrawal, it's a merger.

Can you elaborate? At this moment, I see my laptop as I type into it, I am looking out the window and I see my neighbor's home. I am seeing books, a TV, a lamp, my phone, etc.

1) Do all of them merge together?
2) If I experience oneness with the phone,
(a) is it that the phone and I are simultaneously one and different at the same time or
(b) does the phone simply disappear? a and b are two different options.
3) If the phone does disappear, will it come back or are is it gone forever?

 

[Valjean]

Can you elaborate? At this moment, I see my laptop as I type into it, I am looking out the window and I see my neighbor's home. I am seeing books, a TV, a lamp, my phone, etc.

-- You're dreaming them. They're all an illusion.

1) Do all of them merge together?
2) If I experience oneness with the phone,
(a) is it that the phone and I are simultaneously one and different at the same time or
(b) does the phone simply disappear? a and b are two different options.
3) If the phone does disappear, will it come back or are is it gone forever?

Everything merges into a featureless, timeless unity. You are the phone.
The reality you experience is a function of your state of consciousness. If you remain in 7th-state, so will the perception of unity. Fall back asleep, and the dream will resume.

 

[ajay0]

Anyway, could you explain how this kind of non-dual experience relates to Maya as illusion?

In practice of present moment awareness or meditation, there
comes a time where the incessant habitual thinking and labelling ceases resulting in the suspension of the dualistic mental world and perception we inordinately create and where we experience the nondual experience for ourselves. It is our own subjectivity we vomit into our perception and experience of the world, making it dualistic and false.


Awareness and ego are mutually exclusive and ego is but stale
psychic energy animated by our cravings and aversions creating the illusory 'I' or small self , opposed to the Self which is our true Being and identity. Thus the ego has no substance of its own and is just a manmade illusion.

This is why the ego looks ugly and repulsive in the same way
stagnant water looks stale and disease-prone as opposed to flowing water in a river. The ego is incapable of correct judgement because it is incapable of seeing and acting beyond its own self- interests and pleasures even if it is harmful.



These sayings are quite insightful....

Every ego is a master of selective perception and distorted
interpretation. - Eckhart Tolle

Awareness means grasping life just the way it is, without
contamination by mental projections. - Jaggi Vasudev

How does it relate to the idea of Maya as "forgetfulness of Self", which suggests there is a need to withdraw from sense-objects, rather than merging with them? And aren't the sense-objects you're merging with themselves illusory (Maya), according to Advaita?

The idea is to be anchored in the Self and act masterfully in the midst of sensory objects rather than be forgetful of the Self and be manipulated by the sensory world around us like a puppet or slave. Addicts are a good example of the latter.

As Guru Gobind Singh said, " My Sikhs (disciples) shall enjoy the pleasures of the world and at the same time will be detached from it." ( due to being anchored in the Self).

 

[Martin]

In practice of present moment awareness or meditation, there
comes a time where the incessant habitual thinking and labelling ceases resulting in the suspension of the dualistic mental world and perception we inordinately create and where we experience the nondual experience for ourselves. It is our own subjectivity we vomit into our perception and experience of the world, making it dualistic and false.


Awareness and ego are mutually exclusive and ego is but stale
psychic energy animated by our cravings and aversions creating the illusory 'I' or small self , opposed to the Self which is our true Being and identity. Thus the ego has no substance of its own and is just a manmade illusion.

This is why the ego looks ugly and repulsive in the same way
stagnant water looks stale and disease-prone as opposed to flowing water in a river. The ego is incapable of correct judgement because it is incapable of seeing and acting beyond its own self- interests and pleasures even if it is harmful.



These sayings are quite insightful....

Every ego is a master of selective perception and distorted
interpretation. - Eckhart Tolle

Awareness means grasping life just the way it is, without
contamination by mental projections. - Jaggi Vasudev




The idea is to be anchored in the Self and act masterfully in the midst of sensory objects rather than be forgetful of the Self and be manipulated by the sensory world around us like a puppet or slave. Addicts are a good example of the latter.

As Guru Gobind Singh said, " My Sikhs (disciples) shall enjoy the pleasures of the world and at the same time will be detached from it." ( due to being anchored in the Self).

I can certainly relate to the sense of being "anchored" in the Self, and not being consumed by sense objects.
But I'm still not clear how this relates to non-duality, merging with sense-objects, or becoming sense-objects, or whatever.

And could you explain what you mean by "dualistic mental world"?

 

[ajay0]

And could you explain what you mean by "dualistic mental world"?

The mind at present is in the past or future mostly due to
psychological desires. This sets off a stream of unconscious thinking and emoting which blurs the Self. One identifies with thoughts and emotions rather than the Self. This secondary and false identification is termed as the ego.


The egoic mind perceives everything from the lens of dualistic thought because it itself is a creation of thought and emotion.

Instead of enjoying a rose in its freshness and naturalness, the egoic mind might start analysing it habitually, compulsively and labelling it as stamen, anther, filament and so on, and totally damage the aesthetic experience.

Same may go for a beautiful sunset, which may be totally missed as one is engaged in a compulsive thought process of past grievances, resentment or regrets.

Instead of the natural joy and happiness that comes from enjoyment of the rose or sunset in the present, one's unnatural psychology ruins the moment creating unhappiness and misery.

This is what I mean by the 'dualistic mental world.'



Some sayings in this regard...


Ego is complete identification with thought and emotion. – Eckhart Tolle


Be aware that what you think, to a large extent, creates the emotions that you feel. See the link between your thinking and your emotions.Rather than being your thoughts and emotions, be the awareness behind them. – Eckhart Tolle


We are completely unaware of our true nature because we identify ourselves with our body, our emotions and our thoughts, thus losing sight of our unchanging centre, which is (Self) pure consciousness. ~ Dr. Jean Klein

But I'm still not clear how this relates to non-duality, merging with sense-objects, or becoming sense-objects, or whatever.

In nondual perception there is no dualistic labelling, creating walls between the perceiver and perceived. You see everything naturally and clearly without a conditioned lens distorting it. This is all there is to it.

Nirvikalpa samadhi is a state where this perception is of a
permanent nature, and this is considered a mark of enlightenment.

The enlightened one also seems to perceive everything to be in its essential state to be pure consciousness.

Here is an account of enlightenment by Gary Weber...

Happiness Beyond Thought

Somehow, I happened upon the teachings of Ramana Maharshi. I began looking in the other direction, back inside at what it was that was doing all of these practices and causing all of this confusion. One day, realizing that enlightenment was impossible as long as there was an “I” insisting on being present for the exciting conclusion as well as keeping all of its attachments, I surrendered completely. Everything was surrendered, everything; my “self”, possessions, job, corner office, parking space, options, house, attachments, everything. I said deeply and sincerely from the bottom of my being, that I had to know the Truth, even if it cost my life. With that surrender, I could feel something shift.

Shortly afterwards, doing an asana that I had done thousands of times before, the “I” blew out like a candle in the wind, and a page turned. I went into the asana one way and came out transformed. Consciousness shifted completely and irrevocably. Thought stopped as a continuous activity and stillness and presence were there at a level I could never have imagined. I realized that I was not this body, nor these thoughts, but the undying consciousness behind them. I saw that everything was perfect just as it was and that everything was somehow inside me and was in fact, all One. Surprisingly, I also realized that everything was God. - Gary Weber

 

[Aupmanyav]

I can understand Maya as identification with sense-objects, but how does that make sense-objects an "illusion"?
And how is Saguna Brahman an "illusion", given that it's an manifestation of Brahman?

It is quite simple, Meerkat. You take them to be sense-objects, that is why they are illusions. If you took them as Brahman, then they are not illusion. The problem is how we view them. Through the lens of 'maya' or with naked eyes as what they are.
Similarly, to give Brahman, the attributes of your choice to make it into Saguna Brahman is the illusion. Brahman is Brahman, it has no form other than nirguna. That is why Sankara accepted Saguan Brahman only at the lower reality - Vyavaharika and not at Parmarthika.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Perhaps, you should check with .. Brahma- ..

1) Do all of them merge together?
2) (a) is it that the phone and I are simultaneously one and different at the same time, or
(b) does the phone simply disappear? a and b are two different options.
3) If the phone does disappear, will it come back or are is it gone forever?

Where is the question of merging. THEY ARE BUT ONE.
(Purnamadah, purnamidam, purnat purnamudachyate; purnasya purnamadaya, purnamevavasishyate)
(Parsing: Purnam adah, purnam idam, purnat purnam udachyate; purnasya purnam adaya, purnam eva vasishyate)
Like Sankara said, "What Elephant?" or "What lion?", I will ask "What I?", What phone?" This is unadultrated 'Advaita'.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Ordinary physics can refute the world we perceive in waking-state. But 'proof' of the mystical experience? You had to have been there.
An illusion is a false or deceptive perception. From a non-dual perspective, our dualistic world is a false perception, ergo: an illusion.
Maya isn't forgetfulness, it's illusion, though it might be described as forgetfulness of self as Brahman. I see samadhi as a realization or expansion of self; a realization that other objects formerly perceived as separate are, in fact, part of yourself. Enlightenment isn't a withdrawal, it's a merger.
Yes, the sense objects are illusions. When you merge with them the boundaries vanish, and they cease to be perceptible as individual objects.

Valjean, I do not think there is anything mystical about it. Yes, many people will say so. But it is only a matter of understanding, yu could even say a matter of phsyics. After all, as per present knowledge, the universe started with only one thing, a ball of energy.
IMHO, you are right in the rest of your post, but for the last sentence. It is not a withdrawal, it is not a merger, it is acceptance of what it really is (at least for a non-dualist).

 

[Martin]

It is quite simple, Meerkat. You take them to be sense-objects, that is why they are illusions. If you took them as Brahman, then they are not illusion. The problem is how we view them. Through the lens of 'maya' or with naked eyes as what they are.
Similarly, to give Brahman, the attributes of your choice to make it into Saguna Brahman is the illusion. Brahman is Brahman, it has no form other than nirguna. That is why Sankara accepted Saguan Brahman only at the lower reality - Vyavaharika and not at Parmarthika.

It's Sankara's idea of Saguna Brahman that I'm struggling with here. And how do I have a choice when it comes to recognising attributes, practically speaking? Beyond recognising they they ARE just attributes?

 

[Martin]

Where is the question of merging. THEY ARE BUT ONE.
(Purnamadah, purnamidam, purnat purnamudachyate; purnasya purnamadaya, purnamevavasishyate)
(Parsing: Purnam adah, purnam idam, purnat purnam udachyate; purnasya purnam adaya, purnam eva vasishyate)
Like Sankara said, "What Elephant?" or "What lion?", I will ask "What I?", What phone?" This is unadultrated 'Advaita'.

Asking "What lion?" is surely very sensible if you're about to be eaten by one. We have evolved to recognise threats.
And asking "What red light?" is very useful when driving a car or train, or whatever.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It's Sankara's idea of Saguna Brahman that I'm struggling with here. And how do I have a choice when it comes to recognising attributes, practically speaking? Beyond recognising they they ARE just attributes?

How many people (that too in India, uneducated, living in some 500,000 villages), can understand 'Nirguna Brahman'? As a leader of Hindus, Sankara had to provide them something that they could understand. He left 'Nirguna' for the more informed.

Asking "What lion?" is surely very sensible if you're about to be eaten by one. We have evolved to recognise threats. And asking "What red light?" is very useful when driving a car or train, or whatever.

Sankara's idea was very simple. If there is a danger of being eaten by a lion or trampled by an elephant, run as fast as you can. That is your Vyavaharika (Pragmatic) truth. When there is no such danger, ask 'What lion?', 'What elephant?'. Then you can discuss Dvaita or Advaita at that time. He was a practical person.

 

[Martin]

How many people (that too in India, uneducated, living in some 500,000 villages), can understand 'Nirguna Brahman'? As a leader of Hindus, Sankara had to provide them something that they could understand. He left 'Nirguna' for the more informed.Sankara's idea was very simple. If there is a danger of being eaten by a lion or trampled by an elephant, run as fast as you can. That is your Vyavaharika (Pragmatic) truth. When there is no such danger, ask 'What lion?', 'What elephant?'. Then you can discuss Dvaita or Advaita at that time. He was a practical person.

You haven't answered my questions.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

-- You're dreaming them. They're all an illusion.

Ok. Let's follow this line of thinking.

I am currently dreaming and the phone is part of my dream. I wake up and there is no longer a phone. What am I now?

Am I still Shiv? If not, what is my identity?
Do I still have recollection of the phone?

Everything merges into a featureless, timeless unity. You are the phone.

If I am the phone and the book, what does that mean? The book = the phone or are they distinct entities that are part of me?

Fall back asleep, and the dream will resume.

I am Shiv and I am dreaming. I wake up (what am I now?) and if I return to sleep, will I will be Shiv again with the exact same objects in place as before?

 

[Aupmanyav]

It's Sankara's idea of Saguna Brahman that I'm struggling with here. And how do I have a choice when it comes to recognizing attributes, practically speaking? Beyond recognizing they they ARE just attributes?

Don't struggle with the idea. Accept, if you like it, reject if you do not like it. For my part, I reject it. I consider it as abandoning truth. Most Hindus like it. They are comfortable with the psychological support it provides. Saguna Brahman is your Brahman. Give it any attribute that you fancy. What happens in Advaita is that you know there is 'nirguna' also in addition to 'saguna'. Theist know only the 'saguna' and reject the 'nirguna'.
Was this your question?

 

[Valjean]

Asking "What lion?" is surely very sensible if you're about to be eaten by one. We have evolved to recognise threats.
And asking "What red light?" is very useful when driving a car or train, or whatever.

You have to live in the world you perceive. Knowing intellectually that you're dreaming the lion won't save you as long as you're dreaming.
The only way to change the dream is to wake up.