Why Does Illusion Not End?

by Robert Wolfe on July 22nd, 2014

QUESTION: I understand that the very nature of the Absolute must mean that everything is That, including me. It could not possibly be otherwise, otherwise the Absolute would be something less than absolute. So the world which I am experiencing is not a world of separate forms, but a world which just appears as separate forms. And yet even after I contemplate this, and understand that it must be the case, there is the continued perception of separation. There is no shift in perspective that gives a first-hand experience of this being the truth/reality. My moment-by-moment experience remains one of separation.

If the illusion is seen as an illusion, then why does it not end immediately?

Nosheen, UK
  
  

"…Including Me"

Your query is well-stated. It is perhaps the most prominent of the quanderies posed. Every explanation, or response (a roshi pounds his staff on the floor) is directed to it. All of my books speak directly to it.

"Everything is that, including me." If it's truly "understood," it's recognized that anything "you" say, do, or think is That doing what is done. As the Vedas say, "You are not the doer."

So, to whom is any "continued sense of separation" occuring? To whom would a "shift in perspective"—or lack of it—be perceived? By whom is an "illusion" seen—or conceived?

The concluding sentence in the main paragraph begins "My." But it's been asserted that the "me" is That. To have it both ways—That, as a premise; me, as a perspective—is duality.

Is it "the world which I am experiencing," or is the world That, and the experiencing (by the experiencer) That?

"The very nature of the Absolute must be that EVERYTHING is That." Absolutely so. If you're being absolutely consistent, and not identifying as me one moment and That in the next, there will be not two but one: then you have eradicated what "appears as separate forms."

So, if the "me" is seen through (as a separate form, leaving the Absolute which is without form) to whom will there be a "shift in perspective"? When there's a recognition that both "shifts" and "no shifts" (or any other conceivable dualistic distinctions) are included in the everything which is That, this is what is known as Realization.

Duality is the "illusion." That there is a me who would be united with That is duality. Nonduality is the realization "there are no two things" in actual truth, despite the appearance of "separate forms." Those appearances, too, are That!

The sense of "separation" is also an appearance. 

"Contemplate this…it must be the case."
  
  
  
​  


Posted in Questions    Tagged with no tags


4 Comments

Rafael - September 18th, 2014 at 3:20 PM
The question itself reflects that there is identification happening. 'That' is identified with being a particular being. When 'That' is no longer identified in this way, there is simply being ness. There is in truth only being ness now, it is merely not realized due to this identification with the body-mind. To understand this is the first step, to know it is next, then experience it directly. Then go beyond understanding, knowledge, and experience. Then there is only That being That. Which happens to be the case right now and could be no other way. Then there are no real questions and even the answers are not required. Its as obvious as tasting an orange while forgetting the name orange.
ken - November 9th, 2014 at 6:57 AM
Not two; not union, not one..n0-thing Even the idea of that is an illusion. Nothing is happenING absolutely. Fixation on happening is the great dilemma. Nothing is infinite, everlasting and omni presence. omnipotent and yet even these terms are meaningless to nothing itself.
Robert B - December 8th, 2014 at 1:15 PM
Rafael: To experience it directly requires one that experiences, thusly, playing again in the duality.
Jim Faubel - July 30th, 2015 at 9:32 AM
Just as with a mirage or in the case of a rope being mistaken for a snake, there is no need for the mirage or the rope to disappear once they are 'seen through". They were never "wrong", only misperceived.

Leave a Comment
Search


2016 (4)
2015 (2)
2014 (6)
2013 (18)
2012 (34)
January (3)
February (3)
March (8)
April (2)
May (4)
June (4)
July (1)
August (3)
September (2)
October (1)
December (3)
2011 (41)
January (1)
February (2)
March (3)
April (1)
May (9)
June (4)
July (3)
August (6)
September (1)
October (2)
November (3)
December (6)
2010 (29)
February (3)
March (2)
May (6)
June (2)
August (7)
September (3)
October (1)
November (4)
December (1)
2009 (6)