What is real - What is an illusion

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

I do not see God as a separate deity, name or label, that includes brahman and atman. I see the whole as God, and I see God as the whole.

Someone asked Ramana Maharshi 'What is the nature of the Self?' to which he replied:

What exists in truth is the Self alone. The world, the individual soul, and God are appearances in it. like silver in mother-of-pearl, these three appear at the same time, and disappear at the same time. The Self is that where there is absolutely no “I” thought. That is called “Silence”. The Self itself is the world; the Self itself is “I”; the Self itself is God; all is Shiva, the Self.

Ramana Maharshi is not just expounding a philosophy, he is describing a realised state of Being, limitless and unchanging. This was the experienced reality of his daily life, not just a collection of ideas.

So when you say that "I see the whole as God, and I see God as the whole," is this just a mental idea or do you genuinely see yourself present in all things every moment of the day, knowing yourself as infinite Being?

Peace

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

That's not at all what's meant by unreal. What is meant is limitation by name, form and usage in space, time and causation....... and a mistake, an error, to say Water is a wave. A paradox for sure and the answer is internal, not external in the world of name and form.

You have used unreal and illusion in the same context before, and they mean pretty much the same thing-imaginary or made up, thus they do not really exist.

I already shared my perspective on putting limitations on the limitless in previous posts, and I am not going to run around in circles with you.

If a wave is not water, then what is that wet stuff, a wave is made out of?

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by iamthat

So when you say that "I see the whole as God, and I see God as the whole," is this just a mental idea or do you genuinely see yourself present in all things every moment of the day, knowing yourself as infinite Being?

I see myself present in all things, every moment, knowing myself as an infinite Being. Atman is infinite, is 'it' not? Brahman is infinite and brahman is atman, is "it" not? So how is atman limited by form/thoughts?

Atman being in form does not limit atman. Having a perspective that form places limits on atman, puts limits on atman.

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

I

I?

see

The prospect of a medium!

myself

As opposed to...?

present

Time.

in

Position.

all

Quantity.

things

Well, it is "things" we're talking about. Right?

, every moment, knowing myself as an infinite Being.

"Knowing," as you put it, is separation. How can that be "infinite?" Lay it on me, big one!

Atman is infinite, is 'it' not? Brahman is infinite and brahman is atman, is "it" not? So how is atman limited by form/thoughts?

Atman is. Beyond that is yours!

Atman being in form does not limit atman. Having a perspective that form places limits on atman, puts limits on atman.

Namarupa. "Atman" is an interesting word.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Wagner

"Knowing," as you put it, is separation. How can that be "infinite?" Lay it on me, big one!
Atman is. Beyond that is yours!
Namarupa. "Atman" is an interesting word.

The opposite of knowing is ignorance. Ignorance, simply means to not know.

Yes, it is separation, the separation of what is truth, and what is not true, in the hindu religion, this is called satya. Truth never changes to become not true.

Atman is the individuation but not separation of brahman, therefore atman is not beyond that is yours. This is the reason why I do not have a problem saying that I am conscious and aware. The I/me is atman/the divine spark. Atman is the same divine spark inside everyone. The error is in people having a perspective that the divine spark is small and limited

Prerequisites for Realization. This is specific to Advaita but one will find the same requisites in other traditions, though the language is probably somewhat different. Pretty sure what most of us are talking about here is the philosophy because the actual Realization is beyond mind and certainly beyond language.

https://youtu.be/eXXwKqh5aO8?t=4085

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

The opposite of knowing is ignorance. Ignorance, simply means to not know.

Can't argue with that.

Yes, it is separation, the separation of what is truth, and what is not true, in the hindu religion, this is called satya. Truth never changes to become not true.

Again, I can't argue with that. Truth CANNOT change to become "untrue."

Atman is the individuation but not separation of brahman, therefore atman is not beyond that is yours. This is the reason why I do not have a problem saying that I am conscious and aware. The I/me is atman/the divine spark. Atman is the same divine spark inside everyone. The error is in people having a perspective that the divine spark is small and limited

It is. However, "Atman" is just a word. And its presence causes no end to the opposite of knowing. Conscious and aware... You Are. Well and good.

What are your perspectives on dhyana? One-pointed concentration is effective because it promotes the focused retention of the attention. That is the key point, the retention of the mind's attention as it subsides, due to the lack of stimulus and activity resulting from the perfection of concentration. Like the shades of night effervescing at the dawn of the sun's imputrescible light.... Sorry, I wax poetic like an idiot far too often...

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Wagner

It is. However, "Atman" is just a word. And its presence causes no end to the opposite of knowing. Conscious and aware... You Are. Well and good.

What are your perspectives on dhyana? One-pointed concentration is effective because it promotes the focused retention of the attention.

Yes, atman is just a word, and the word atman is not what atman really is, this to me, means that once you know what atman really is, and you stored what atman really is in your memory, you should stop thinking about or/focusing on the word atman, and focus/observe on what atman really is instead, without any other thoughts, if that is what you want to do for meditative purposes.

This is the first time that I have heard dhyana, so I had to google dhyana, one website says that dhyana is meditation without any distractions, and another website says that dhyana is when you become whatever you are focused on. It becomes apparent to me that you become what you focus on because there are no distractions of what you are focused on.

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

That doesn't seem to fit the fact we live in a shared universe. That is if my creation is different than your creation how do we explain a reality where there's one universe and not two (or 7+ billion)?

I don't live your life, Guy. And everyone living in the same universe has the same constraints. Collective energy is probably more powerful than just one individual. This is why when Esther channels Abraham, he's always telling the audience to focus on 'good feelings'; and 'positive outcomes'. Those worried about global issues are just dumping more negative feelings out there (poverty, war, climate crisis) but instead should be focusing on the world coming together to solve these issue; and feeling positive that these issues are being solved. This is how mankind accomplished major advancement in civilizations, science, etc, I believe. I would think that creating different universes would be above our 'pay grade'. It doesn't mean it isn't possible. This universe got created and the multiverse is probably a real thing too. I'm talking about creating things in our life that affect us. We create things we want as well as things we don't desire by how much focus and energy we give to them and this energy (made of molecules) coalesce so to speak as solid and concrete (also made of molecules), whether it is the money to pay for that dream vacation or bringing the right person into your life. That's creation.