8 thoughts on “It’s all Illusion – but how?

  1. The Adwaitee view of the relation of Parabrahman as a self-luminescent mirror is so far my favorite metaphor of the ONE incognizable. For me, it proved to be the most easily understandable, having Parabrahman-Mulaprakriti as the pure, self-luminescent mirror, wich, by it’s own power, brings forth Maya in itself and yet remains untouched. In my understanding, Parabrahman and Mulaprakriti are interchangeable terms that apply to the self luminescent mirror and it’s image. However, in a more correct usage of the terms when regarding our understanding, Mulaprakriti refers to the surface of the mirror, wich serves as substance to the image in it, Parabrahman refers to the luminescence of the mirror, wich brigns forth the image and gives motion to it, Maya refers to the ephemeral image in the mirror, and Avidya refers to the ignorance of the mirror’s light to recognize itself as the ONE self-luminescent mirror, thinking itself to be the passing image. As for the Logoi, Brahmā, etc, i understand it to be all Maya, or the image. Would this representation be congruent with the theosophical view on the subject? Knowing, of course, that this depiction is serves only for instruction of beings, for Brahman is ONE, incognizable and without a second.

    1. Yes, this is a very good and nicely expressed summary of it. The only possible clarification that could be made is to again state that the Logos or Logoi DO exist but – like everything else, the Universe included – are ultimately only temporary and thus finite, Parabrahm-Mulaprakriti alone being the One True REALITY. So the Logos is Maya only in the sense of its being non-eternal in comparison with the Absolute…but this is probably what you meant anyway.

  2. Yes, It is an illusion! My husband passed away! Now, years later, his excistance and memories seems all like a distant dream! It feels so unreal, like he was never part of my life. Even all his material possessions have no power. I realize materials can not be associated to human being! We and materials come and go!

    1. I suspect the ” Maya ” Truth was brought to our understanding so as we avoid identification with objective manifestation. I open to know more about other relevance of this truth for our lives. Thanks

  3. There’s no way of proving that ‘objects’ have an independent existence outside of the mind. No one has ever experienced anything outside of the mind. (Paul Brunton)

    1. It may be true that “there is no way of proving that objects have an independent existence outside of the mind” but is this because they do NOT have any independent existence outside of the human mind or merely because nothing physically objective can be proven unless there is a conscious mind present?

      In other words, if every living being on our planet were to die today, would the planet still exist despite the complete absence of any minds to perceive or prove its existence? Some extreme “illusionists” such as the followers of “A Course in Miracles” and the adherents of the Ajativada doctrine in Advaita Vedanta Hinduism would most probably answer “No!”

      Theosophy, as explained in the article above, seems to answer “Yes!” and would most likely add “As long as the UNIVERSAL Mind is in manifestation, physical objectivity is a fact, regardless of whether or not there are any INDIVIDUAL minds to perceive, analyse, or prove it.”

      Thank you for your thought-provoking comment, which is reminiscent of the famed Zen koan: “If a tree falls in a forest and there is no-one around to hear it, does it still make a sound?”

Comments are closed.