Help
Sign In
defining it
June 2009 
An illusion you say?
Posted on Jun 12th, 2008
by 
Domi333
Domi333
I'm constantly struck with the thoughts on illusion and reality,
our dreams are said to be illusions and yet within them is an aspect of truth...
i am here on the computer, looking at visual structures that have been formed into something comprehensible, my computer has its own optical illusion(2D but it's not), the sage sri ramakrishna took a book and shook it...we learn from it but it itself does not make rain or have a palpable effect on the weather...sometimes i feel its the same with my computer...
i also realise that my eyes gain information from the world yet filter the information into what i can see and use acknowledging my abilities as a contemporary human...
is the illusion of the illusion, something real? I guess that would depend on what illusion, I think I looked at this earlier with the mirror(maybe not), we see something that looks and seems like us, moves like us...but yet an illusion of an illusion cannot ultimately exist, can it? that would make the first illusion real, would it not?
where am i going with this? we really don't know if is something is an illusion until it can be proved that the predecessor which makes it an illusion is itself actually real?(this is my spin on duality)...like marmalade's RAW normal blog looked into, there is no normal, reality and normality aren't they really two sides of the same coin?
Regarding Hindu philosophy: a common assumption about advaita vedanta(nondual hindu philosophy) is the 'world is an illusion' theory, he(shank.) specifically meant relative reality...for me of course this world has a real side of it,(the Sri Aurobindo pers.) which has not been experienced but then i'm tempted to ask is that eternal? will that world end, impermanence is a perceived fact(depending to what limits you attribute to a permanent object-infinite space?) this 'existence' is nevertheless a spiritual and yet physical reality without illness(kind of like gebser's magical stage where 'mana' or life force was evident to humanity yet this would be like a collective development of humans and the earth to a state of supreme understanding and existence(maybe i'll put sri aurobindo as my next blog)
our dreams are said to be illusions and yet within them is an aspect of truth...
i am here on the computer, looking at visual structures that have been formed into something comprehensible, my computer has its own optical illusion(2D but it's not), the sage sri ramakrishna took a book and shook it...we learn from it but it itself does not make rain or have a palpable effect on the weather...sometimes i feel its the same with my computer...
i also realise that my eyes gain information from the world yet filter the information into what i can see and use acknowledging my abilities as a contemporary human...
is the illusion of the illusion, something real? I guess that would depend on what illusion, I think I looked at this earlier with the mirror(maybe not), we see something that looks and seems like us, moves like us...but yet an illusion of an illusion cannot ultimately exist, can it? that would make the first illusion real, would it not?
where am i going with this? we really don't know if is something is an illusion until it can be proved that the predecessor which makes it an illusion is itself actually real?(this is my spin on duality)...like marmalade's RAW normal blog looked into, there is no normal, reality and normality aren't they really two sides of the same coin?
Regarding Hindu philosophy: a common assumption about advaita vedanta(nondual hindu philosophy) is the 'world is an illusion' theory, he(shank.) specifically meant relative reality...for me of course this world has a real side of it,(the Sri Aurobindo pers.) which has not been experienced but then i'm tempted to ask is that eternal? will that world end, impermanence is a perceived fact(depending to what limits you attribute to a permanent object-infinite space?) this 'existence' is nevertheless a spiritual and yet physical reality without illness(kind of like gebser's magical stage where 'mana' or life force was evident to humanity yet this would be like a collective development of humans and the earth to a state of supreme understanding and existence(maybe i'll put sri aurobindo as my next blog)
Access: Public
I don't know if I'm following your thinking here, but let me give you my response anyways.
“I guess that would depend on what illusion, I think I looked at this earlier with the mirror(maybe not), we see something that looks and seems like us, moves like us…but yet an illusion of an illusion cannot ultimately exist, can it?”
The mirror and the reflection are real. They aren't mediated realities even though the mirror can be used to mediate our perceptual experience. The reflection is just factual information. It doesn't deceive us, it doesn't claim to be anything other than what it is.
Perception is reality even when we seemingly misinterpret it. Claiming something to be an illusion is just an interpretation. I don't know what Illusion of an illusion means… what does it mean to you?
“we really don't know if is something is an illusion until it can be proved that the predecessor which makes it an illusion is itself actually real?(this is my spin on duality)…”
It seems to me that “reality” and “illusion” are terms relative to eachother. What is considered real is determined by your perspective and your interpretations.
From the perspective of some ideal Reality, this world is an illusion. And from the perspective of this world, an ideal Reality is an illusion. My perspective is that neither perspective is inherently real, and rather the fact that many perspectives exist is the the most real reality.
No perspective is absolutely illusory and no perspective is absolutely real. The closest we can come to a semblance of reality is discovering a perspective of perspectives.
lao tsu also explained that perceived opposites are relative to eachother…
I was trying to go deeper by finding an illusion with its own illusion(but that's difficult it doesn't properly make sense) and seeing how that goes in defining reality.
funnily enough in feuerstein's introduction on gebser he quotes him saying that humans obviously had the gift at one time of mana and other vision…
in the end it's also how we personally see reality
An illusion with its own illusion would lead to the paradox of infinite regress. The frame of “reality” would keep being pushed back. And we could never be sure of discovering a final true frame. For instance, Monotheists say God the Creator is the ultimate reality. But Eastern religions tend to see such a God as a higher form of illusion beyond which is ultimate reality. And then this leads us to wonder what is beyond this beyond.
This would go along with lucidity in dreams when we are able to consciously question our perceived reality of what we feel is a dream. But if we are lucid enough to ask the question, then what is dreaming? Most of the time when dreaming we don't wonder if our dream is real or illusory and yet the same goes for most of the time when we're awake. In that case, how do we differentiate? When we're “dreaming” we don't usually remember our “waking” life. And when we're “waking” we don't usually remember our “dreaming” life. So, how can either be the true reality that acts as the context for the other?
Yes,
we have to take each state as a reality in its own context…I've started to think about the actions taken in each reality, an action taken in my dreams may not directly continue into the waking state but its issues and actions might serve as an understanding for one's inner motives and a reflection on or against one's actions in daily life.