Sat

[egodust]

Gummuluru Murthy wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Sep 1996, egodust wrote:
>
> > > At 09:35 PM 9/14/96 -0400, you wrote:
> > > >                                          Om namo Bhagavati
> > > >Sadasivasamarhambham!
> > > >
> > > >Namste!
> > > >
> > > >Can you please tell me what is illusion and what is reality the way you
> > > >undersatnd it.
> > > >
> > > >Regards
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > Rao
> > > >
> > >
> > >  Reality is  "what persists."
> > >
> > >  If it changes, alters, modifies, evolves, transforms, mutates, unfolds or
> > > unravels, it's NOT real.
> > >
> > >                                            With Blessings,
> > >                                                   Chuck Hillig
> >
> > Concur.  That which is real, persists.  The space-time continuum can be
> > regarded as a fragmentation of reality insofar as it represents a
> modification
> > of the Absolute Attributeless.  The simplest barometer is undoubtedly the
> > factor of change as it applies to what is witnessable: [incredibly] that
> > envelops Everything [conceivable].  (Note: the key word here is
>  'conceivable'--
> > which alludes to the ongoing mental Play of Phenomena...this is a strong
> hint
> > in the direction of the significance of the blown out root 'I'-thought {viz.
> > nirvana}--which is ALREADY the natural substratum of What IS.  Again only
> the
> > Veil of Avidya needs be lifted.  Nothing *new* to acquire!)
> >
> > namaste.
> >
>
> Well described.
>
> Sri Sankara's writings are full of the distinction between Reality
> and illusion. The one I am reading presently is the one in
> Upadesa Sahasri 19.8 which says
>
> " ....
>   vikalpitam caapy asad iti avasthitam "
>
> Everything created by the mind is non-existent or an illusion.
>
> I trust I am interpreting it properly and in context.
>
>
> Regards
> Gummuluru Murthy
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Adau ante ca yan nAsti vartamAnepi tat tathA !
>                                 GaudapAda in Mandukya kArika
> What did not exist at the beginning and what is not going to exist at the
>  end is as good as non-existent even in the present.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to the individual's understanding/development, the idea that the
Mind is rooted in illusion may or may not apply.  The dvaitin considers it
real (as well as being *distinct* from brahman).  The student of advaita is
instructed to regard it as mayavic.  Whereas a veteran advaitin realizes
that [even the temporal affair of] the Mind *ISN'T* different from brahman.
Adi Sankara's formula is clear on this.  The stipulation involving the maya
aspect arises if/when the perception of separativeness is considered real
(viz: if one considers the works of the thoughtWorld to be something *other*
than brahman).

The important factor in all this philosophical jockeying (which plants
vital seeds in the antahkarana) is to enable the notion of ego to forget
its phantasm, whereupon its Source will effortlessly radiate.  The ego
is non-different from its Source UNTIL it IMAGINES its limit.  This is
the Fall of jiva from Grace.  Yet, WHO is it that falls?

namaste.