Is calling the world an illusion only semantics?

Is calling the world an illusion only semantics?

Rupert,

When we use words like ‘illusion’, ‘imaginings’ and ‘unreal’ to express the material world, mind and body as juxtaposed to the One of non-dual realisation, are these words not clumsy and lazy semantics that do not accurately differentiate what is experienced as on-going in the shift from relative to absolute perception of the knowing presence?

They are certainly stumbling blocks (an interesting metaphor) to the seeker of non-dual clarity, when someone who is limping from a knee bruised by the sharp corner of an ‘illusory’ coffee table reads them. Knowing presence as who we are eliminates the suffering but, as you have written, not the pain.

Your ability to avoid the traps of absolute language in an argument against relative reality rings with clarity and is really enjoyed. My preference is to refer to a primary identity that we awaken to with non-dual realisation and a secondary identity as the ‘old’ identity that we previously held as ‘us’. For me, this fits with Ramana Maharshi’s ‘I’ and ‘I-I’ and avoids the use of words that may not precisely capture the nuance of Maya. Interested in your take.

Semantically sincere,
Jeff

 

Dear Jeff,

Jeff: When we use words like ‘illusion’, ‘imaginings’ and ‘unreal’ to express the material world, mind and body as juxtaposed to the One of non-dual realisation, are these words not clumsy and lazy semantics?

Rupert: No, if understood in the context in which they used, they are neither clumsy nor lazy. No word can accurately describe the reality of our experience, and yet this fact does not invalidate their use in an attempt to point towards it.

They are certainly stumbling blocks (an interesting metaphor) to the seeker of non-dual clarity, when someone who is limping from a knee bruised by the sharp corner of an ‘illusory’ coffee table reads them.

That is true only if the words are misunderstood. When it is said that the coffee table or indeed the world is illusory, it is meant that its existence independent of or separate from consciousness is illusory. There is no contradiction between this statement and the appearance of a coffee table or a pain in the leg, if properly understood.

My preference is to refer to a primary identity that we awaken to with non-dual realisation and a secondary identity as the ‘old’ identity that we previously held as ‘us’.

Everyone has their preferences, and as long as we define our terms there is no problem with the use of different words or phrases. However, all words, even the most carefully chosen and defined, will have their limitations. For instance, the example you give of a primary identity and a secondary identity could, if taken out of context, be misunderstood as suggesting that there are two different identities. If taken in context there is no reason why this misunderstanding should occur.

However, there is a deeper implication to your objection. This understanding has nothing to do with words or semantics. If the words that are spoken come from love and understanding, they will deliver that love and understanding irrespective of how ‘Advaitically correct’ they are. Likewise, if they do not come from this love and understanding, no matter how perfect they are, they will only speak to the mind and keep us forever turning around and around there.

With kind regards,
Rupert

Category

You might also like

Philosophy

Is it necessary to practice Kashmir Tantric yoga on a daily basis?

Published on 1 June 2021
Philosophy

‘Considering’ the Forms of Meaning

Published on 10 May 2022
Philosophy

Remaining as Awareness in the Presence of Thoughts

Published on 30 March 2022