Does The Body/mind Exist?

[Ananta]

I see a lot of confusion on here about whether the "apparent" person you appear to be exists, is unreal or is an illusion.

From the ultimate perspective, this entire phenomenal universe doesn't exist, is unreal and complete illusion.

However, from the jiva/apparent persons perspective (enlightened or not), it "exists", as it can be "experienced", but it's unreal. The reason it's unreal is because it's constantly changing. The definition here of "real" is what never changes- awareness/consciousness. 

So, actually there are 3 perspectives in Vedanta- brahman/awareness perspective, Isvara's (creator-sustainer-destroyer) perspective and Jiva/apparent persons perspective.

They are all valid depending on what perspective you are looking at. That's one of the reasons it can be so confusing.

 

[Toby]

You are missing the third step of the saying:
The world is illusion. Brahman alone is real. The world is Brahman.

[Ananta]

32 minutes ago, Toby said:

You are missing the third step of the saying:
The world is illusion. Brahman alone is real. The world is Brahman.

Most mis-understand this, so wasn't going to get that deep, but since you brought it up!

The "apparent" phenomenal world can be nothing other then, Brahman, because there is nothing but Brahman. However, it's "created" out of the substance-less substance which is Brahman. But, Brahman is not the world.

So, to recap, the world IS Brahman, but Brahman is not the world.

 

Edited July 8, 2017 by Anna1

[Toby]

I'm not so sure about this. How would you explain "Form is Emptiness and Emptiness is Form."?

[Ananta]

11 minutes ago, Toby said:

I'm not so sure about this. How would you explain "Form is Emptiness and Emptiness is Form."?

Is this a Buddhism phrase? I'm a Vedantin. Anyways, we would say "seeing action in inaction and inaction in action". Which means Brahman is unchanging/still, while action (the phenomenal world) is changeful (action). So, Brahman is ever present, the background/substratum, attributeless, full, complete, awareness. The phenomenal "apparent" world "appears" within Brahman/pure awareness. So, Brahman is real, the apparent world depends upon Brahman for its "apparent" existence. As it is created out of/from Brahman.

[Prabhaker]

1 hour ago, Anna1 said:

However, from the jiva/apparent persons perspective (enlightened or not), it "exists", as it can be "experienced", but it's unreal. 

Shankaracharya was in Varanasi. One day, early in the morning – it was still dark because traditionally the Hindu monks take a bath before sunrise – he took a bath. And as he was coming up the steps, a man touched him on purpose, not accidentally, and told him, “Please forgive me. I am a sudra, I am untouchable. I am sorry, but you will have to take another bath to clean yourself.”

Shankaracharya was very angry. He said, “It was not accidental, the way you did that; you did it on purpose. You should be punished in hell.” 
The man said, “When all is illusory, it seems only hell remains real.” That took Shankaracharya aback.

The man said, “Before you go for your bath, you have to answer my few questions. If you don’t answer me, each time you come up after your bath, I will touch you.” 
It was lonely and nobody else was there, so Shankaracharya said, “You seem to be a very strange person. What are your questions?”

He said, “My first question is: Is my body illusory? Is your body illusory? And if two illusions touch each other, what is the problem? Why are you going to take another bath? You are not practicing what you are preaching. How, in an illusory world, can there be a distinction between the untouchable and the brahmin? – the pure and the impure? – when both are illusory, when both are made of the same stuff as dreams are made of? What is the fuss?”

Shankaracharya, who had been conquering great philosophers, could not answer this simple man because any answer was going to be against his philosophy. If he says they are illusory, then there is no point in being angry about it. If he says they are real, then at least he accepts the reality of bodies…but then there is a problem. If human bodies are real, then animal bodies, the bodies of the trees, the bodies of the planets, the stars…then everything is real.

And the man said, “I know you cannot answer this – it will finish your whole philosophy. I’ll ask you another question: I am a sudra, untouchable, impure, but where is my impurity – in my body or in my soul? I have heard you declaring that the soul is absolutely and forever pure, and there is no way to make it impure; so how can there be a distinction between souls? Both are pure, absolutely pure, and there are no degrees of impurity – that somebody is more pure and somebody is less pure. So perhaps it is my soul that has made you impure and you have to take another bath?”

That was even more difficult. But he had never been in such trouble – actual, practical, in a way scientific. Rather than arguing about words, the sudra had created a situation in which the great Adi Shankaracharya accepted his defeat.

Osho, The Great Zen Master Ta Hui, Talk #9 

[Ananta]

11 minutes ago, Prabhaker said:

That was even more difficult. But he had never been in such trouble – actual, practical, in a way scientific. Rather than arguing about words, the sudra had created a situation in which the great Adi Shankaracharya accepted his defeat.

Osho, The Great Zen Master Ta Hui, Talk #9 

Do you have any other proof of this conversation other then from the mouth of Osho? As he obviously wasn't there to know. 

Edited July 8, 2017 by Anna1

[Prabhaker]

@Anna1

Sankara and the Outcaste
One Summer noon at Varanasi Sri  Sankara after taking a bath in the holy Ganga was proceeding towards the temple  of Lord Viswanath along with his disciples. The Great Acharya saw an outcaste,  a Chandala, coming along with his dogs in his way. He told the Chandala “get  away, get away - move away, move away”.

These innocent looking remarks  led to an unexpected questioning from the Chandala and caused Sankara to give  out to the world an immortal poem entitled ‘Maneeshaa Panchakam’ which elaborated the Vedantic ideas and brought into focus that even a person  belonging to a low caste could rekindle the light of wisdom in the greatest  among the great teachers.

Sri Sankara’s encounter and  dialogue with the outcaste on the streets of Varanasi were of immense and  eternal significance. 

Issues raised by the Outcaste
The Chandala asked Sankara:
1. By saying ‘Move away, Move away’ do you wish to move  matter from matter or you mean to separate spirit from the Spirit? You have  established that the Absolute is everywhere - in you and me and yet you want me  to get away from you as if I were different. Is it this body, built up of food  that you wish to keep at a distance from that body which is also built up of  food? Or do you wish to separate Pure Awareness which is present here from the  same Awareness present there?
2. Does it make any difference to the sun when it is  reflected in the waters of Ganga or in the dirty waters of the cesspools in the streets of Chandalas? Is there any difference in the space as such, be it in a  golden pot or in a mud pot? In the self-existing ocean of Blissful  Consciousness, in the inner self, where there are no waves of agitating  thoughts, how can there be this great delusory distinction - this is a Brahmin  and this is an untouchable?

SANKARA’S RESPONSE
These words of the Chandala  struck the Sadguru with astonishment. As a teacher of Advaita propagating the  one Infinite Self in all, he immediately recognized that the Chandala taught  him his own philosophy correctly.

http://www.esamskriti.com/essay-chapters/An-Encounter-between-The-Holy-and-The-Lowly-~-Adi-Sankara`s-Maneesha-Panchakam-1.aspx

[Ananta]

@Prabhaker thanks, the story in my view is a tad different then Osho's. Either way, thanks. Btw, sorry for thinking you were someone else a while back. My mistake. 

[Ananta]

19 minutes ago, jimrich said:

How about you?  What is your own, personal understanding of or perspective on this topic. 

"I" know I exist and I'm aware, I experience this...don't you? 

Somewhere along "my" journey I fell into the "I don't exist camp", it's part of the process I guess. I came out of that "idea" and realized, ah, actully I do...it's just not ultimately real. One day this body/mind will be 6 feet under. 

[Deep]

2 hours ago, Anna1 said:

From the ultimate perspective, this entire phenomenal universe doesn't exist, is unreal and complete illusion.

The universe exists but our perception of it is flawed (maya). We see everything from our egoistic perspective. 

 

2 hours ago, Anna1 said:

However, from the jiva/apparent persons perspective (enlightened or not), it "exists", as it can be "experienced", but it's unreal. 

Enlightened people discovered that Brahman is real. People in the dream state aren't capable of that. This is how enlightened people perceive the world: 

“How silly! This jug is God! This cup is God! Whatever we see is God! And we too are God! Nothing could be more absurd.” Sri Ramakrishna came out of his room and gently touched him. Spellbound, he immediately perceived that everything in the world was indeed God. A new universe opened around him. Returning home in a dazed state, he found there too that the food, the plate, the eater himself, the people around him, were all God.

Swami Nikhilananda. Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna (Kindle Locations 1884-1887). Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Center of New York, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Swami Vivekananda thought enlightenment was delusional, until he me Ramakrishna. lol 

Edited July 8, 2017 by Deep
added info

[Leo Gura]

The definition of a hallucination is something which is actually nothing.

Hence, I like: world = hallucination.

[cetus]

29 minutes ago, Anna1 said:

Somewhere along "my" journey I fell into the "I don't exist camp", it's part of the process I guess

That's the way I've experienced it. You have to come full circle to awaken to where you've always been.

[Ananta]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The definition of a hallucination is something which is actually nothing.

Hence, world = hallucination.

Hallucination is preceiving something that not actually there. Where illusion, imo, is more appropriate, because the preceiving is correct, but what is preceived is a mirage, an appearance. It's a superimposition upon awareness, that makes awareness "appear" as something it isnt. So, it "exists", its experienced, it's just not ultimately "real".

Also, ultimate reality, pure awareness is not "nothing", it is no-thing, there is a difference. 

[Ananta]

25 minutes ago, Deep said:

The universe exists but our perception of it is flawed (maya). We see everything from our egoistic perspective. 

The quote you cited was talking about from the "ultimate" perspective.

[Ananta]

35 minutes ago, jimrich said:

LOL, same here and then I (the ineffable, ultimate Source) will still be just as real as ever.

@jimrich Perfect, then you have the correct understanding. I do as well. All other questions are a wash.

[cetus]

19 minutes ago, jimrich said:

Every thing is both real and unreal - a paradox that's beyond the mind

Yea, that's the full circle I speak of. Your here but are you really?

[Ananta]

4 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

It may not exist, but I get a lot of fruit from considering the idea.

Who are you speaking to? ...and in what context.

[Ananta]

3 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

@Anna1 I'm answering the question from my perspective.  And from that perspective the idea of body-mind, although conceptual and perhaps not empirically verifiable, is nonetheless a useful concept in many ways.  

Did you read any of the posts, including the first one, where I tried to clarify the "exist " thang for peeps? Just wondering...

[Ananta]

2 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

@Anna1 Fair enough, I just re-read your post.  All I can humbly add is that if you are looking for a theoretical answer, I think that goes against what these people want you to do.  They want you to find the answer inside yourself not look for some kind of theoretical right answer.  Any answer would be concept and therefore Maya.  Thought can never answer this.  Looking for objective truth outside of the Absolute is wrong-headed.

I already found the answer. I was questioning your "I may not exist" comment. No need to get defensive.