A little clarification, if anyone might be able to provide me some?

In what manner is the material world/samsara considered "illusionary" In Hindu, Buddhist, et cetera, thought?

It is illusory because it isn't permanent for one thing, and also because every particular thing is created in our brains through language. The reality of it is that things are not the names we have for them, and they are not even separate things.

Perhaps, we can interprete another way:

There is only one reality - that is reality that you percieve, since you can not percieve any other and hence absolute reality is unknowable and illusory - Maya.

Imagine you are a simulation in a super computer 10,000 years from now (10,000 years of development for SONY play station?) :D

Here's some stuff from the Srimad Bhagavatam:

"12. The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: As long as the foolish spirit soul remains attracted to the material body, senses and vital force, his material existence continues to flourish, although it is ultimately meaningless.

13. Actually, the living entity is transcendental to material existence. But because of his mentality of lording it over material nature, his material existential condition does not cease, and, just as in a dream, he is affected by all sorts of disadvantages.

14. Although while dreaming a person experiences many undesirable things, upon awakening he is no longer confused by the dream experiences.

15. Lamentation, elation, fear, anger, greed, confusion and hankering, as well as birth and death, are experiences of the false ego and not of the pure soul.

16. The living entity who falsely identifies with his body, senses, life air and mind, and who dwells within these coverings, assumes the form of his own materially conditioned qualities and work. He is designated variously in relation to the total material energy, and thus, under the strict control of supreme time, he is forced to run here and there within material existence.

24. The material body made of earth is not the true self; nor are the senses, their presiding demigods or the air of life; nor is the external air, water or fire or one’s mind. All these are simply matter. Similarly, neither one’s intelligence, material consciousness nor ego, nor the elements of ether or earth, nor the objects of sense perception, nor even the primeval state of material equilibrium can be considered the actual identity of the soul.

26. The sky may display the various qualities of the air, fire, water and earth that pass through it, as well as such qualities as heat and cold, which continually come and go with the seasons. Yet the sky is never entangled with any of these qualities. Similarly, the Supreme Absolute Truth is never entangled with the contaminations of goodness, passion and ignorance, which cause the material transformations of the false ego." - (Srimad Bhagavtam 11.28)

The essence of BG is that the Universe is infinite (Bishyarupa) and you are a part of it. Nothing more, nothing less. At the time BG was written, we did not have Hubble telescope or the understanding of the Multiverse.

NO. NO. NO. NO.NO.

Dont listen to any of above stuff (No offense meant guys).

Crystal clear and simple idea form : The concept of 'i'. All objects assume the form or identity or manifest (As according to advaita) due to their throughts. 'i' exist and therefore 'i' must be different from brahman (pronounced as brahm).and therefore they manifest to form their own shape. so all in all everything here is a manifestation of brahm. even gods. the difference between we humans and gods is : gods manifest on the basis of single thought. like the god destruction of universe Shiva is personification (think if it that way; its easier to follow) of a single thought destruction. shiva exists because he's a personification of that thought and hence manifests from brahman.

got it?
Rick

so idea of samsara is also the same : 'i' the universe exist because i a different from brahman.

Yes, it is thought that all phenomenon are manifestations of brahman, thus their appearance as distinct and permanent entities is an illusion. But it is also the ego-consciousness that generates the false idea of distinct and permanent things. Abolition of the ego is a return to the original nature of things, ie. brahman. I would suggest that the ego is at least partially generated by our ubiquitous use of symbolic language.

NO. NO. NO. NO.NO.

Dont listen to any of above stuff (No offense meant guys).

Crystal clear and simple idea form : The concept of 'i'. All objects assume the form or identity or manifest (As according to advaita) due to their throughts. 'i' exist and therefore 'i' must be different from brahman (pronounced as brahm).and therefore they manifest to form their own shape. so all in all everything here is a manifestation of brahm. even gods. the difference between we humans and gods is : gods manifest on the basis of single thought. like the god destruction of universe Shiva is personification (think if it that way; its easier to follow) of a single thought destruction. shiva exists because he's a personification of that thought and hence manifests from brahman.

got it?
Rick

How does this contradict any of the above? :confused:

Also, you make it seem as if we are completely separate from Brahman

I find it rather ironic and in some ways humorous that we have this situation where the Western world typically tends to think of the non-corporal as illusionary and the Eastern world typically thinks of the corporal or material world as being illusionary.
An amazing dichotomy yes?

To deny the physical is to deny the non-physical because they are essentially the same thing. And I would argue that it is this dualism that drives the whole equation of samsara.

For example to believe that you are living is in itself premised on an assumption of knowing how to determine the difference between life and death.

To start from the premise that "I exist" and not I live would be a better starting premise yes?

"I am niether alive nor dead as I only exist"

so we can see that all pov's can be drawn as a triangle placing the unifier at the top.

...........exist..............
.........../....\..............
........../......\..............
......../.........\............
......life-----death........

The only reason I see for most positions of dualism is because we simply wish to reject suffering. That we feel that suffering is something to be removed from our lives. I guess it is natural to do so as most of our existence is spent relieving suffering.

How ever I would contend that to exist in any form requires suffering, thus dualism is no longer available. Life is sufferring and so to is death.

To reject suffering is to reject existence - is the premise. Thus even the pursuit of ending suffering by self nhilism is ultimately futile and another cause of suffering in itself.

All the past philosophy and religion doctrines do not take in to account of our new found knowledge about the reality itself. Analyzing the past without incorporating the new knowledge is like 3 blind men....

How ever I would contend that to exist in any form requires suffering, thus dualism is no longer available. Life is sufferring and so to is death.
Exactly.

"From the highest planet in the material world down to the lowest, all are places of misery wherein repeated birth and death take place. But one who attains to My abode, O son of Kunti, never takes birth again." - (BG 8.16)

The true place, of ultimate pleasure is unmanifest, immaterial, it is the true abode of Krsna.

"That supreme abode is called unmanifested and infallible, and it is the supreme destination. When one goes there, he never comes back. That is My supreme abode." - (BG 8.21)



To reject suffering is to reject existence - is the premise. Thus even the pursuit of ending suffering by self nhilism is ultimately futile and another cause of suffering in itself.

Reject material existence - yes. Your entire life is already suffering. It is better to suffer to end your suffering, than to perpetually suffer.

Most people will simply live their life filled with ups and downs, and continue this pattern forever (they are sometimes aware that something is "missing").

Most people do not realize that happiness comes from the world inside, and not the world outside, and thus condition themselves to be happy when they get something, and unhappy when they don't get something.

But we don't have to do that, we can simply choose to be happy no matter what.

"The Avadhut who has realized this mystery of all mysteries, and has risen to the state of unceasing and perfect bliss, moves about in the crowds unconcerned, radiating bliss and higher knowledge" - (Avadhut Gita 6.23)

Exactly.

"From the highest planet in the material world down to the lowest, all are places of misery wherein repeated birth and death take place. But one who attains to My abode, O son of Kunti, never takes birth again." - (BG 8.16)

The true place, of ultimate pleasure is unmanifest, immaterial, it is the true abode of Krsna.

"That supreme abode is called unmanifested and infallible, and it is the supreme destination. When one goes there, he never comes back. That is My supreme abode." - (BG 8.21)



Reject material existence - yes. Your entire life is already suffering. It is better to suffer to end your suffering, than to perpetually suffer.

Most people will simply live their life filled with ups and downs, and continue this pattern forever (they are sometimes aware that something is "missing").

Most people do not realize that happiness comes from the world inside, and not the world outside, and thus condition themselves to be happy when they get something, and unhappy when they don't get something.

But we don't have to do that, we can simply choose to be happy no matter what.

"The Avadhut who has realized this mystery of all mysteries, and has risen to the state of unceasing and perfect bliss, moves about in the crowds unconcerned, radiating bliss and higher knowledge" - (Avadhut Gita 6.23)

Unfortunately I feel you have missed my point:

Your discourse only demonstrates the desire to continue dualism in that you percieve a dualism that needs to be rejected.
to cease the rebirth process and attain nirvana, only reinforces dualism IMO.

To seek existence with out dualism [ material / non-material ] is to find oneness with existence. Thus nirvana can be found in the existence rather in the non-existence. To aspire to some sort of heavenly state is just simply reinforcing dualism.
So I am not promoting nhilstic type theosophy, that requires an escape fom samasara but I am promoting the ambition to find success within samsara.
As in another thread about the taoist trap [ Wesmorris ] there is no escape from samsara but only learning to master samsara. IMO

It is only when samsara is mastered that re-birth becomes a choice and not a samsara given.

"From the highest planet in the material world down to the lowest, all are places of misery wherein repeated birth and death take place. But one who attains to My abode, O son of Kunti, never takes birth again." - (BG 8.16)
This IMO just reinforces the dualism of material and non-material. THus Samsara is only strengthend and not defeated. As Samsara can not be defeated and only mastered.

Unfortunately I feel you have missed my point:

Your discourse only demonstrates the desire to continue dualism in that you percieve a dualism that needs to be rejected.
to cease the rebirth process and attain nirvana, only reinforces dualism IMO.

To seek existence with out dualism [ material / non-material ] is to find oneness with existence. Thus nirvana can be found in the existence rather in the non-existence. To aspire to some sort of heavenly state is just simply reinforcing dualism.
So I am not promoting nhilstic type theosophy, that requires an escape fom samasara but I am promoting the ambition to find success within samsara.
As in another thread about the taoist trap [ Wesmorris ] there is no escape from samsara but only learning to master samsara. IMO

It is only when samsara is mastered that re-birth becomes a choice and not a samsara given.

I don't quite understand what you mean. Existence and Non-existence are the samething. Duality is only an illusion of our material senses. Whether it appears that you are seeking nirvana in existence or non-existence, you are essentially seeking it in the same place.

We should go beyond the material modes of nature, beyond the duality, cause and effect, good and bad.

"Why do you call Atman personal and impersonal. Since you are neither bound nor free?"

If Buddha had succeed in defeating samsara he would still be in existence today.[by choice]...is in part, an underlying tenant to my contention.

This IMO just reinforces the dualism of material and non-material. THus Samsara is only strengthend and not defeated. As Samsara can not be defeated and only mastered.
In truth there is no duality in them. However Krsna explains that being materially inclined will only continue false-ego.

"When you see that there is nothing beyond these modes of nature in all activities and that the Supreme Lord is transcendental to all these modes, then you can know My spiritual nature.

When the embodied being is able to transcend these three modes, he can become free from birth, death, old age and their distresses and can enjoy nectar even in this life." - BG (14.19-20)

Is that what you mean by mastering the samsara?

If Buddha had succeed in defeating samsara he would still be in existence today.[by choice]...is in part, an underlying tenant to my contention.

Can you further explain what you mean? Why would he still be in existence today?

the words are "seeking to escape" or "seeking to end" or "seeking to be somewhere else" this immediately proposes a dualism of location.

It is actually IMO the seeking that reinforces the dualism.

Every where in just about all theosophy is the entrenched desire to be somewhere else or be someone else...etc.
In the west Christians spend their entire religious lives waiting for nirvana, in the East they spend their time searching for nirvana. Either way these desires are also the way of samsara and the reinforcing of samsara, which BTW I happen to think is a good thing. Because the very effort is a part of strengthening existence regardless of whether that be material or immaterial.

I tend to believe that it is the souls ultimate quest to master Samsara and not defeat it. It is only when it is mastered that nirvana is achieved whether material or spiritually the choice belongs to the master of samsara.

When the embodied being is able to transcend these three modes, he can become free from birth, death, old age and their distresses and can enjoy nectar even in this life." - BG (14.19-20)

Yes in the main I agree however I would emphasise a major distinction:

The state of nirvana can only be achieved in a state that allows achievement and that means that it can only be done whilst in the material world. It can not be achieved any where else. so to achieve must be achieved whilst living and can't be achieved whilst dead.

However as I said earlier the notion of "alive" and "dead" has to be discarded as a first priority.
I feel the Japanese Samurai had it pretty close when they developed the philosphy of living as if already dead.....certainly the closest I have heard of.

Also when one realises that suffering is a necessary thing and transends the desire to relieve suffering one has made great bounds in that soul journey. IN other words become a master of your own suffering, means to master Samsara. Once mastered it no longer holds you involuntarilly but voluntarilly.

Can you further explain what you mean? Why would he still be in existence today?
simply put:
He would have mastered his suffering including the desire to relieve his suffering and would be still in existence today in the material world voluntarilly, or by choice because once suffering is mastered living materially becomes bliss and eternal and thus nirvana is achieved in the material.
He would be a God on Earth. [ and in the flesh] and only he has the choice to seek the end of samsara but it is only a choice just like suicide is.

edit :Of course this is not mainstream thinking and just my personal view.

Yes in the main I agree however I would emphasise a major distinction:

The state of nirvana can only be achieved in a state that allows achievement and that means that it can only be done whilst in the material world. It can not be achieved any where else. so to achieve must be achieved whilst living and can't be achieved whilst dead.

However as I said earlier the notion of "alive" and "dead" has to be discarded as a first priority.
I feel the Japanese Samurai had it pretty close when they developed the philosphy of living as if already dead.....certainly the closest I have heard of.

Also when one realises that suffering is a necessary thing and transends the desire to relieve suffering one has made great bounds in that soul journey. IN other words become a master of your own suffering, means to master Samsara. Once mastered it no longer holds you involuntarilly but voluntarilly.

thus you have the choice to suffer or not. Like our choice to suffer the climb to a mountian top to see the view. To gain a clear, unfetted and absolute choice as to whether to suffer or not.

of course I am in contra to popular Buddhist thought on the issue. All though I see great value in their metaphysical enquiry.
I feel that all they have done is surcumbed to samsara and certrainly not directing their concentration to mastering it.

Given the notion that everything is in some way suffering including even merely thinking it is no mean fete to master suffering.

One last word befor I have to go and master the suffering of teh local shopping mall.......ha

To master Suffering is to master the cause of suffering.
To master the cause of suffering is to gain the choice to suffer or not.
To master the cause of suffering is to master Samsara thus gaining the choice to suffer or not.
Once the choice to suffer or not is fully achieved means that you can fully decide whether to think or not etc whether to exist or not etc... you have full mastery of your material body and all it's outputs. This includes your mortality.
Thus by mastering Samsara, it is defeated by default.

any way I am off to suffer some more.... :)

QQ,


"It is actually IMO the seeking that reinforces the dualism."

Why do people seek?

QQ,


"simply put:
He would have mastered his suffering including the desire to relieve his suffering and would be still in existence today in the material world voluntarilly, or by choice because once suffering is mastered living materially becomes bliss and eternal and thus nirvana is achieved in the material."

... but he'd be bound by QQ's criteria for what it means to master suffering ...
Maybe he still is in existence today, but you just haven't found him yet?


"He would be a God on Earth. [ and in the flesh] and only he has the choice to seek the end of samsara but it is only a choice just like suicide is."

Suicide is not a choice. Suicide happens when pain exceeds resources for coping with pain.
One can be trapped this way in any suffering, be it imposed by others (as in rape, assault, a hurricane), or be it a result of a long history of not having the resources for coping with pain (as in a general sense of unhappiness, that daily feeling bad and down).


"of course I am in contra to popular Buddhist thought on the issue. All though I see great value in their metaphysical enquiry.
I feel that all they have done is surcumbed to samsara and certrainly not directing their concentration to mastering it."

You master Katrina, please.


"Given the notion that everything is in some way suffering including even merely thinking it is no mean fete to master suffering."

Then why not just kill oneself?! It seems worth to suffer a bit, to end the suffering!

QQ,


"It is actually IMO the seeking that reinforces the dualism."

Why do people seek?
To relieve their suffering......

QQ,


"simply put:
He would have mastered his suffering including the desire to relieve his suffering and would be still in existence today in the material world voluntarilly, or by choice because once suffering is mastered living materially becomes bliss and eternal and thus nirvana is achieved in the material."

... but he'd be bound by QQ's criteria for what it means to master suffering ...
Maybe he still is in existence today, but you just haven't found him yet?


"He would be a God on Earth. [ and in the flesh] and only he has the choice to seek the end of samsara but it is only a choice just like suicide is."

Suicide is not a choice. Suicide happens when pain exceeds resources for coping with pain.
One can be trapped this way in any suffering, be it imposed by others (as in rape, assault, a hurricane), or be it a result of a long history of not having the resources for coping with pain (as in a general sense of unhappiness, that daily feeling bad and down).


"of course I am in contra to popular Buddhist thought on the issue. All though I see great value in their metaphysical enquiry.
I feel that all they have done is surcumbed to samsara and certrainly not directing their concentration to mastering it."

You master Katrina, please.


"Given the notion that everything is in some way suffering including even merely thinking it is no mean fete to master suffering."

Then why not just kill oneself?! It seems worth to suffer a bit, to end the suffering!
Unfortunately killing ones self in the common context would do nothing to end the suffering, you would simply be reborn..[buddhist context]...only to go through it all again.

In the Buddhist context means in the context of achieving an end to the cycles of Samsara. [ Godhood ]

If God committed suicide what do you think the outcome would be for him and the rest of us, regardless of religious persuasion? [ If religious ]
In the context of my post the outcome would be the end of samsara, [ end of existance and not just rebirth]