Dear Colette and Tony,

Tony wrote:
> For those that follow the adwaitic path, these
> gods are illusion as are we.

> Om Namah Sivaya, Tony.

Colette wrote:
> Hey you just gave obeisance to Lord Shiva. Did you
> notice that? Is he illusion too?
> And what of love? What is illusion to you?
> How is it that the beloved meets the One? Why is the
> world come into Being? Is it to love or to shun?
> And what of the masculine & feminine forces in the
> universe? Are they too 'illusion'?
> Could 'illusion' be sacred? What Is This creative
> urge expressed by Nature/Life?
> Is it just a huge mistake? Is Nature's
> creation a worthless illusion?

> Just putting it out there.

Good that you did that Colette.

Colette, what you say is so true.
Tony, what you say is so true as well.
(You could have spend more time on your specific meaning of the word
illusion though.)

Obviously the two of you stumbled over two different meanings of the word
illusion. There are actually three different meanings, originally the word
maya (matter, meter) meant reality as 'measured' and perceived by the senses
(skandas), only later did it start to take on the meaning of the illusively
perceived, the unreal, closer to delusion but not as strong as that.
Each of these meanings come from a different world view, a different
paradigm.

It might just be a little bit true :-) that Colette caught Tony on his "Om
Namah Sivaya"... Or could it be that his greeting comes from a totally
different world view again? Tony just being a bit careless but well meaning
all the same.

We seldom think or speak straight. We are so often careless with our
language and expression of ideas that *what we say* looks more often like a
grab bag, a mental Halloween loot bag. (Causing mental indigestion as we are
gobbling up the contents.)
When we argue (the positive meaning of the word) we often cover a range of
ideas not necessarily associated well or strung together properly. This
happens especially when we do not fully connect interpersonally, but keep
arguing anyways, resulting in the negative form of argument.
When we argue we are usually constructing a quilted bedcover of ideas, it is
wonderful when we see it as an assemblage of historically bound ideas, it
may even form a wonderful wall hanging, but consistency and clear mindedness
may be lacking.

The concept of maya (usually translated as illusion) is one of the simplest
and greatest ideas having arisen from Hindu thought. As I said above, there
has been an historical slippage of meaning of the word maya in the
scriptures, and the commentators and translators have not usually done the
best job catching that transition of its meanings.

Sidharta Gautama Shakyamuni (usually called the Buddha) also used the word
illusion. In buddhist thought though, illusion became connected with to the
illusive aspect of life that follows 'desire', which causes and eventually
culminates in all suffering. The Buddha and subsequent bodhisattvas
indicate that: "Suffering = treating illusion as more real than reality".
The Buddha's philosophy and psychology about *desire, illusion and
suffering* always encompasses an *if... then* clause. It is in those
conditionality statements that the connection with desire is made: "If I had
this or that, then I would be happier.", "If you would do this or that, then
I would give you this or that. ", "If you would do what I ask you to do,
then I would love you.", "If you don't do what I want you to do, then I will
punish you."
When we live our life inside that range of modes of desire (either our own
desires or desires that are planted into us, or those that are cajoled out
of us) and when those desirous attitudes drive and motivate us, then we live
under the power of illusion which is... enslavement into suffering. The
Buddha's use and meaning of the word 'suffering' did not initially have the
same scope as what we now so often mean by suffering: suffering and pain
inflicted during wars and conflicts, or that from accidents, certain
diseases or heinous acts. Although wars and conflict so often arise from the
same ill desiring attitudes they are now on a massive scale (the masses or
the tribes) with different dynamics. Bringing that different meaning of
suffering into this discussion adds other quilt pieces to our bedcover. This
suffering, having now become and being non-illusive, has turned into the
negative reality of malevolent and malicious destruction. Suffering in these
circumstances is of a different more physical nature than the more mental
suffering that the Buddha initially addressed: *illusion and suffering based
on desire* =
real-but-only-real-as-long-as-we-believe-that-it-is-more-real-than-truth,-lo
ve-and-light. The pain of that illusion is still hard to shake because
shaking it would lead us to our reclamation of freedom and that is what the
*instigator of fear or desire in us* does not want us to have. We have to
unshackle and free ourselves though from that power that makes us desire and
therefore enslaves us. We need to understand and have insight into the
dynamics of illusion that is brought about by desire (the 'If...then'
sentences) so that we can liberate ourselves with a free will and clear mind
from that illusive and maddening suffering and so regain our original
reality of light, truth and love.
"Be Buddha" (be illuminated, be the light, be delight, bbliss:-)

Love,
Wim

--- In HarshaSatsangh (AT) egroups (DOT) com, "Wim Borsboom" <aurasphere@h...>
wrote:
> Dear Colette and Tony,

Hi Wim,

> It might just be a little bit true :-) that Colette caught Tony on
his "Om
> Namah Sivaya"... Or could it be that his greeting comes from a
totally
> different world view again? Tony just being a bit careless but well
meaning
> all the same.

I support Tony in his declaration that it is all the Self .. yet I
point out that this same 'Self' differentiates to taste the many
(including beauteous reflections of a masculine & feminine Nature).
This is the dance of Life. Tony is here after all sharing with many
reflections in relationship onlist as we all are.

I hold it that Life is the dance of the formless with form, and it is
a sacred relationship. It's not just a dance of form with formless.
It's also of formless with form. One may be called transcendence, the
other immanence.

A friend once pointed out to me that TO unify into unity consciousness
there actually needs to Be 'something' to unify 'with'. I sense that
this is the energy dance of dual gender polarity.


> When we argue (the positive meaning of the word) we often cover a
range of
> ideas not necessarily associated well or strung together properly.
This
> happens especially when we do not fully connect interpersonally, but
keep
> arguing anyways, resulting in the negative form of argument.

I believe I was adding some balance.

> When we argue we are usually constructing a quilted bedcover of
ideas,

I hope nobody thinks I was arguing. I respect Tony's process as I do
your comments also.


>
> The concept of maya (usually translated as illusion) is one of the
simplest
> and greatest ideas having arisen from Hindu thought. As I said
above, there
> has been an historical slippage of meaning of the word maya in the
> scriptures, and the commentators and translators have not usually
done the
> best job catching that transition of its meanings.

Thanks for bringing it to light.

>
> Sidharta Gautama Shakyamuni (usually called the Buddha) also used
the word
> illusion. In buddhist thought though, illusion became connected with
to the
> illusive aspect of life that follows 'desire', which causes and
eventually
> culminates in all suffering. The Buddha and subsequent bodhisattvas
> indicate that: "Suffering = treating illusion as more real than
reality".

I also support this too. Seeing as we are onto Buddhism & Tony has
mentioned nirguna & saguna I'd like to discuss more here ..

It seems to me that nirguna may be the emptiness which the Buddhists
hold so dear .. I believe Nagarjuna spoke about this as the
'ultimate' (correct me if I am wrong). Most advaitins appear to be
aiming for this too. Now another Buddhist came after Nagarjuna who
wrote that:

"He who clings to the void
And neglects compassion
Does not reach the highest stage.
But he who practices only compassion
Does not gain release from the toils of existence.
he however, who is strong in practice of both,
Remains neither in samsara nor in nirvana."

Saraha

And D. Ruegg feels that simply abiding in emptiness is even more
dangerous than the individualist dogma.

These writers seem to imply that emptiness may not be the ultimate.
Can emptiness move into fullness? Or is empty full? When form becomes
aware it is formless, then does formless also find itself within form?

We need to understand and have insight into
the
> dynamics of illusion that is brought about by desire (the
'If...then'
> sentences) so that we can liberate ourselves with a free will and
clear mind
> from that illusive and maddening suffering and so regain our
original
> reality of light, truth and love.
> "Be Buddha" (be illuminated, be the light, be delight, bliss:-)
>
> Love,
> Wim

Thanks Wim, nice sharing,

Col