Q: Why exactly is the world considered illusory? In what sense is it illusory?
Objects change their form and so the form is unreal. We have ideas about objects but these are unreal being imagination only. The whole subjective world with a person as its center is born of imagination.
I can see that objects including the body-mind appear in this field of awareness and everything functions by itself. But the differentiation still exists. There is awareness and also its contents. So how are they illusory? Is it because they are dependent on awareness?
A: Advaita does not say that the world is illusory. (This is a mistranslation by some modern teachers.) Nor is it ‘imaginary’. The world is mithyā, which means that it derives its existence from Brahman. It is ‘name and form’ of Brahman just as we can say that a chair is name and form of wood.
Q: From your answer, I understand that presence-awareness and its contents are two aspects of the same reality. Presence-awareness is called nirguṇa brahman while its contents are called saguṇa brahman. Brahman as presence forms the substance of objects while awareness illuminates the form of objects.
And the clue to this recognition comes when we realize that this object called body is filled with presence-awareness. And later it is seen that all objects including the body appear in, and are permeated by, presenc- awareness like jamun in sugar syrup.
When objects are seen as brahman they are real, and when seen as forms are transient and hence unreal.
So, ignorance is actually seeing forms without recognizing the underlying essence.
A: Your understanding is essentially correct. But when you try to put it into words, you have to be extremely careful. If you are explaining this to someone else, it is likely that they will not completely understand what you are saying.
Be especially careful with phrases such as ‘presence-awareness’. This is the phrase used by some modern teachers such as ‘Sailor’ Bob Adamson and his disciples. In reality, there is only Brahman. (You can call this ‘Consciousness’ if you like, as long as you explain that it is not to be confused with the ‘consciousness’ (small ‘c’) of the person who is not in deep-sleep.) Brahman has no attributes of any kind, so you cannot say anything at all about it. And there is nothing else.
Speaking of ‘saguṇa brahman’ and objects, and recognition, and bodies etc. etc. all belongs to the level of ‘appearance’. Every ‘thing’ is Brahman. The teaching itself is entirely within the appearance and is ultimately acknowledged as mithyā.
One often struggles to comprehend terms like, name and form, manifestation, appearance, and Brahman alone is. I am no exception.
Brahman is formless. It is immutable, i.e., not subject to modification. Universe is ‘name and form’ of Brahman like a chair which is name and form of wood. The following questions arise.
1 The two statements appear contradictory. How can there be a form of formless and immutable Brahman?
2 In the case of chair-wood illustration, both chair and wood are objects of experience. In the case of Brahman and the universe, the universe is experienced and Brahman is not experienced. Therefore, the illustration is not apt.
My understanding is that the answers lie in the use of inverted commas and the word like. The universe is mithya and is a lower order of reality because though it is experienced, it borrows existence from Brahman. In Vedantic terminology, this fact is restated variously such as,
Brahman is the Absolute reality and the universe is a lower order reality;
universe has relative reality;
universe is ‘name and form’ of Brahman
Brahman appears as universe;
universe is a manifestation of Brahman;
Brahman alone is.
Inverted commas are used because Brahman is formless. For a better understanding, the metaphor of chair-wood is cited. When a metaphor is used, there is a focus on similarities between the illustration and the thing illustrated. The two are not identical for otherwise metaphor will cease to be a metaphor.
Bimal
Dear Bimal,
You are right! The entire topic is fraught with potential misunderstanding. Hence the months of discussion that happened a year or two ago.
The fundamental problem is that Brahman refers to the absolute, non-dual reality (although it is a name given by us in empirical reality). To speak of ‘name and form’ in a pāramārthika sense is clearly meaningless. But we obviously perceive duality all the time so that the rationalization is that the jñānī sees duality but knows it is mithyā – simply ‘name and form’ of Brahman. It is we who ‘impose’ the name and form, as per vācārambhaṇa śruti. So the problem is one of a clash between what is perceived and what is known. (There cannot be a ‘lower order reality’, incidentally, if reality is non-dual.)
Regarding your second point, you say: “In the case of chair-wood illustration, both chair and wood are objects of experience. In the case of Brahman and the universe, the universe is experienced and Brahman is not experienced. Therefore, the illustration is not apt.”
This is the same sort of problem. We are obliged ALWAYS to speak in dualistic terms. There is no language in paramārtha! The chair and wood example is a metaphor and the purpose of metaphors is to lead you to an understanding. They always collapse in a heap if you try to take them too far! But, I ask you: you say that you experience the universe but you do not experience Brahman. I understand what you say but, since the universe IS Brahman (sarvam khalvidam brahma), how can you NOT be experiencing Brahman?
The answer, of course, is that ‘experience’ is not an appropriate word, since it requires a subject and an object. Since Brahman is neither (or both), you cannot use this word in its usually understood sense. The same applies to ‘knowing’ Brahman of course…
It is often said that the teaching process of Advaita is one of adhyāropa-apavāda and it must always be remembered that the ENTIRETY of the teaching has to be given up in the end. It is ALL mithyā.
Best wishes,
Dennis