You are hereForums / User Blogs / Dr V S Shankar / "The real and the illusory" by Dr. V. S. Shankar
"The real and the illusory" by Dr. V. S. Shankar
Man’s quest for the real is legendary. This particular quest is present even in the present day, which only means that his quest is not over. But, interestingly, it seems to be over for a few men and they are known as sages or the enlightened beings. What is it that they know, or do not know, that makes them enlightened beings?
Is it a matter of knowledge or realisation? If it is knowledge, what more does man need to know to render enlightenment? Does he not know enough as it is? If what he has known is not enough what more does he need to know? Does man know the limits of knowledge required for him to be enlightened? If not, then what is the guarantee that knowledge will render enlightenment?
Maybe it is not about knowledge at all. It must be a matter of realisation then. But what is it that the enlightened beings have realised that makes them enlightened? More importantly, what could this realisation be?
To man the real is confined to what he sees, speaks or thinks. But could what he sees, speaks or thinks be real? How could it be real when the known is based on duality? Without duality the known cannot exist. The known is dependent on duality, and this dependency, and any form of dependency, does not permit independency. The real is independent and not dependent and this is the quality that makes it real. Real is that which does not change and is present everywhere and is eternal. The known and any form of it is nevertheless changing and temporary: present today but gone tomorrow or, more realistically, present this moment and gone the next, since life is a process of transformation of energy.
The real, therefore, cannot be written about, spoken about or thought about: it is only the illusory that can be. So, all knowledge about the real has, paradoxically, to be illusory – a beautiful story at that, which puts man to sleep. Man is filled with such stories in his mind, which he believes are real. The real cannot be anything but his thoughts and that is why he so treasures them. There are many men in this world and so, strangely enough, the real is also wide-ranging - inevitably. The question arises whether the real could be varied. Then who is to decide whose form or version is real? It all boils down to the majority versus the minority. Could that which has the support of the majority be real? In that case the minority are left to defend the unreal and the illusory, which to them, by the way, is real.
This means that to man the real, the unreal and the illusory co-exist. But does he know with certainty the precise boundary between the real, the unreal and the illusory. Logically, the real can exist, but if real is unchanging and eternal and also everywhere - the characteristics of the real - life would be impossible. The newborn would remain as the newborn and would not be able to develop in life. Activity in any form would not be possible. Life would be at a standstill; it could never begin to begin with. The unreal cannot exist for it is unreal. How could that which is unreal ever come into existence? Therefore, both the real and the unreal cannot exist: that leaves just the illusory. The illusory does exist for it is just an appearance of the real - a reflection of the real. Since the real is light, its reflection is purely an outcome of it.
So, we have the illusory and the real to contend with and the question of the unreal does not arise at all. But the real cannot be known by the mind, for the known is always changing and the real does not change and is eternal. The real, therefore, cannot be identified by the mind. This means that whatever is known by the mind is illusory and cannot be the real.
The real is pure intelligence and it is light. Science has revealed that information is in the form of light. Everything that exists in life is energy and energy is light. So information that is present within the mind has been built up from light. It is wise to understand that prehistoric man did not have a functioning mind to begin with and yet life happened to him. Information grew in the mind slowly but steadily, spinning its web of deception through the basis of duality that man thinks, speaks and does and is responsible for the present state of sophistication.
Life was alive before the advent of the mind and has sophisticated itself without the need of the mind. The mind merely reports to man the illusory sophistication that life projects. Life is a singular, transformation process of energy, which is spontaneous, uncontrollable and unpredictable. This process of light projects an optical and auditory illusion that appears as the realistic world to man.
Actions which are real to man are nonetheless an optical illusion. Speech and thoughts that are real to him are nevertheless an auditory illusion of sound, which is light again. Therefore, every form of the known, be it general knowledge, specialised knowledge, knowledge about everyday life, spiritual and religious knowledge have to be illusory for they are a function of light, which is intelligence. The actions which man believes ‘he does, must be done and not be done’ are nothing but an intelligent growth-process, for man ages every moment. Aging is all that is happening to him and it happens in the moment, and the moment is all that is present in life. Actions require time to complete, which is absent in life, nor can they happen at the same moment when aging is taking place. Life makes man age very intelligently and this aging phenomenon, which is a process of transformation of energy, appears as actions in thought-form, as duality.
Man, his actions, his speech and his thoughts are all illusory and so is the world. Only the illusory can be enjoyed and admired and not the real. The moment this understanding happens to man he will have become the real! He cannot try to become the real. The trying too happens so that he may understand illusoriness and its futility and the intelligence involved that convinces him of its ability to deliver the real. The real cannot be achieved, performed or practised. The real reveals itself the moment the illusory is understood.
Life manifests its brilliant illusion as science, every form of knowledge, religion and spirituality, and behind this tremendous illusion is the real for, without it, the illusory cannot be reflected. Every word spoken by life is illusory - even the words that explain the illusory - for it is neither word nor action that is present in life, it is just light and sound. Such is the real and its intelligent illusion.
© Copyright V.S. Shankar, 2008
Thank you for answering my comment, Peter. I posted it before reading the discussion on the topic "Real Peace reflects the illusion etc" on which I realized that you commented pretty much on the same way as I did.
I agree with you also on being uncertain about everything but to be confortable with it - I am not sure...It is more a matter of necessity. I just can`t think in an other way.
I don`t think there is any objective "wisdom". If there were any than everybody would understand it in the same way. Than this Forum would fade away. What a pity since we like it, don`t we?
It is all in our mind, subjective concepts that are, as you said, parts of our dream.
You said: "...believing your self to be some one does tend to require some thing to become." Could you explain little
more what you mean?
"You said: '...believing your self to be some one does tend to require some thing to become.' Could you explain little more what you mean?" - Anne
Hi, Anne.
I'll be happy to try, but I have to, first, admit that I am rather poor at explaining things. I attribute this, largely, to principally treating ideas/concepts as koans... instead as concepts to be conceptualized about. So I apologize, beforehand, if my effort falls short.
The core belief/experience of "I am someone (distinct and separate from you)" is an appearance. All appearances are transient; they appear and dis-appear. Which means that time (duration) and space (locality) play a part in all appearances.
"Becoming" is an attribute of time and space. For something to become something else, time and space must be involved.
"Being", on the other hand, is not an attribute of time and space. But I won't pretend to tell you why that is the case. I can only tell you that I intuit that to be so, from
treating that specific idea/concept as a koan (meaning non-conceptually).
I warned you that I might fail, in some measure, to give you an adequate explanation, didn't I? :)
On a related note (kinda'), here is a koan that I feel is a worthy one to place your non-cognitive attention on:
"I am no one appearing as some one"
I can tell you that when I treat this idea/concept as a koan, I get to the same "place" (for want of a better descriptor) that another koan brings me to:
"be in the world (or, the dream), yet not of it".
Thanks for asking.
P.S. All of my observations are transient as well, and are subject to change. :)
Thank you again, Peter for your answer, you explained perfectly! It was of course about "being" and "becoming" and I totally agree.
I like very much your idea of koans. Why haven`t I thought of that before! That`s of course what a koan must be used for. Since I don`t have a koan of my own and since yours works perfectly to me too, I`ll keep it as a gift from you with many thanks!
"I am no one appearing as some one."
Very great, very great, would Mooji say...
If Anna is free now, after you told her that she is free and doesn't need to understand anything, I'd be happy for her. If Anna just needs to hear "You are That already. You don't need to become anything" (paraphrasing you words a little) and is happy every moment of her illusory life, then, point taken, every word, every explanation, every "understanding" would be too much.
But if this magic does not happen, Life will perhaps make "Anna" sophisticate further, not as an attempt of the ego to become something, but as part of the sophistication process of life, and an understanding of the mind will happen, so that "Anna" as "everybody else" will not just be enlightened - as the whole world is all the time of course - but will also be aware of it every moment of her illusory life and will be happy without reason and independently from everything which happens as thoughts in the mind. ("happy" not as the opposite of "unhappy"!)
And to avoid misunderstandings: "Anna" will not be there as a reality, but as illusory thoughts in the mind. What is described will not happen to the ego. Not the ego will be aware of being "enlightened", but Life itself is aware of the illusoriness of the ego, so to speak.
And no-body is there to make this happen and it is also not a goal because everything is always as it is in life, neither perfect nor imperfect! So there is no need at all for "Anna" to "sophisticate", and yet, if it happens nothing can prevent it from happening! Therefore Anna "should" be relaxed all the time, there is nothing to do.
And this "understanding" in the sense of wisdom does not happen in time, because time is seen to be illusory. Past, present and future are just happening in form of sound appearing as thought in the timeless NOW. Nowhere to go, everything is HERE and NOW.
"If Anna is free now, after you told her that she is free and doesn't need to understand anything, I'd be happy for her", said Marcus.
I never said that she was free, Marcus. Nor did I say that she doesn't need to understand anything.
I did offer a comment on what certain observations tend to lead to, as I see it.
But that is not the same thing as saying that she is free and doesn't need to understand anything.
Hope that helps.
Peter: I never said that she was free, Marcus. Nor did I say that she doesn't need to understand anything.
Response: Point taken. So you also agree that there is some need of the use of dual language (which is always based on the subject-object-duality by its very nature) to explain why the world is not what it seems to be (to "use" not as an act by man, but as part of what's happening, illusory it may be)?
And was the point you wanted to make that it has always to be clear that there is nothing to achieve for the ego (if it believes in that, the ego would be in the trap of an endless search because everything is here and now and not there and then)?
By the way, I think, that there is a need to meet a master and to have trust in his words. Otherwise everything is bound to become knowledge and the ego makes a concept out of everything instead of understanding it and just living it, so to speak. So if it happens (and of course not always it happens), the meeting with a master could be powerful.
There has to happen a deep connection to someone who is "free" for a true understanding to happen - this connection makes trust in his words possible. Explanations about the world being an illusion, koans to illustrate the absurdity of the minds attempt to understand the real, sentences like "You are That already" and so on could become very powerful spoken by a realized Being to a ripe person!!!l
And this is of course as well only part of the evolutionary process of life and not a matter of cause and effect as such. And understanding could happen in many other ways, too, don't misunderstand me in this point, please.
Marcus asks...
"So you also agree that there is some need of the use of dual language (which is always based on the subject-object-duality by its very nature) to explain why the world is not what it seems to be (to 'use' not as an act by man, but as part of what's happening, illusory it may be)?
And was the point you wanted to make that it has always to be clear that there is nothing to achieve for the ego (if it believes in that, the ego would be in the trap of an endless search because everything is here and now and not there and then)?"
*****
Permit me to address the second question first, Marcus.
As long as you are chiefly or exclusively self-identifying yourself as a separate entity from others (separate and distinct being the chief characteristics of an ego), achieving something will be a natural inclination/desire of yours. Including various interpretations and nuances of enlightenment, awakening, etc.
Becoming something other than what you are, and achieving something other than what you have, are characteristics of a fixation of attention on a separate and distinct ego. It's not the mere presence of a separate and distinct ego, mind you, that elicits the desire to become someone else or achieve something. It's the fixated attention on it.
As you well know, Marcus, attention is the creative force of creation. And you will likely generate the thoughts and feelings that accompany what your attention is placed on.
The appearance of an ego is rarely problematic, I have discovered. It's our fixed attention to it, on the other hand, that becomes problematic for us. Depression being one such example.
As for your first question, I don't know how often you dream lucidly. I hope it is often enough to appreciate the following observation.
When I dream lucidly (which is more infrequent than not), I am watching, observing, and aware of the drama that is taking place before me. I am aware without judgment or commentary. Simply watching, observing, being aware.
There is no identification with who I am in the dream. Or with the roles that I am playing or the thoughts that I'm having or the feelings too.
And, more significantly, no acknowledgment that it's just a dream (I think that that would be a form of commentary, would it not?).
Lucid dreaming, with our eyes closed, is simply awareness of the dream and our participation in it. Without commentary or judgment.
I would like to suggest, Marcus, that we are perfectly capable of dreaming lucidly... with our eyes open... similar to lucidly dreaming with them closed.
Our illusory participation in an illusion... this world... does not have to be problematic to us. If we dream lucidly, with our eyes open.
Thanks for your questions. You ask good ones.
P.S. I just realized that I offered nothing in response to your thoughts about accessing a guru in this dream of ours. Sorry for the oversight.
If it gives you value to do so, I say have at it. Access one as long as you are feeling you are getting something valuable from the exchange.
Everyone is exactly where they need to be, at the moment. Which is true for every moment as well.
You can never proceed on a wrong path, Marcus. Even if you may believe/feel that you are.
For the dream is dreaming us, though it may be tempting to believe that we are dreaming the dream.
Thank you, Peter, for your detailed contribution to this forum topic. The way you write gives me the impression that our understanding of life is quite the same, we are just using other words. So I am happy about your post.
Thank you, Marcus, as well.
For your poignant observations and questions.
And for the poignant manner in which you come up for air. :)
May poignancy continue to accompany you for the duration of our dream.
"May poignancy continue to accompany you for the duration of our dream."
Response: Life is singular, dreams are multiple. There is no common dream. Enjoy your private dream and respect other's dreams! (I'm sure you do, Peter)
Couldn`t the understanding be an illusion too? In that case we would remain totally in the unknowing...
If it is understood that everything is illusory you remain totally in the not knowing.
Understanding which leads to knowledge has to be repeated every now and then. Understanding which leads to wisdom leads to not knowing.
I mean; the understanding of the illusory could be an illusion too.
Both knowing and understanding the illusory being projections of the mind.
"real" in this context means "true", not the opposite of "illusory". "True" understanding is an understanding which leads to wisdom. An understanding as a projection of the mind leads to knowledge.
Please follow the thread on the forum topic" Real Peace reflects the illusion of peace and un-peacefulness."
The post: "Lost in concepts? Lost in "understanding"? Be around a master!" and what comes after is exactly about your question.
Thanks.
Sorry, I posted my comment without having checked out the discussion on the topic "Real Peace etc."
Hello Anna,
so you have read the topic "Real peace...". What did it mean to you? Was it in any way interesting or helpful for you? If you like to answer, I am always happy about feedback how others understand what I try to convey. I am always grateful whatever feedback it might be.
Thanks.
LOVE to all, Marcus
Dear Marcus
Yes, I`ve read the topic "Real peace..." and, like all your other topics, it is a helpful and interesting reading and so are the discussions on the topics too.
I can also tell you that since you started taking part in the Forum, it has become much alive, exciting and fun and I thank you for all your engagement and care.
I appreciate also very much the sharing and contribution of all the others, like e.g. Wisdompoint. It makes me reflect on things that are often not so elaborated in my mind, so I get the feedback and help to see them more clearly.
I think I understand quite well what you are sharing and most often I agree with you.
I like Dr Shankar`s teaching specially because, among all the other things, he emphasizes the non-doership of the person, more than anybody other teacher I know, being that the only thing I am quite convinced of.
As for the rest, being always uncertain and in doubt about everything, I am also open and receptive for the concepts of others and ready to change my mind if something which sounds true would show up.So that`s why every discussion of this kind in important to me.
So thank you again!
Much love
Anna
Dear Anna,
enjoyed reading your feedback. Happy that a deep enquiry into every belief of the mind seems to be going on, without being dogmatic as you ponder about all and everything you read.
Love to All, Marcus
I like your observations, Anna.
One reason being...
it will take your hand and lead you to the conclusion that there is nothing which needs to be understood.
And nothing which needs to be crowned as wisdom to be sought after.
An appropriate destination for no ones like us, eh?
I will admit, however, that believing your self to be some one does tend to require some thing to become.
Enter desire; enter suffering. As Siddhartha would probably remind us of.