An Advaita Vedanta philosophy site, focusing on Realization, enlightenment, nisarga yoga, non-duality / nonduality, your original nature, dwelling as your natural state, and the teachings of Maharaj.
FROM A SITE VISITOR: If the glass I drink from is not real, then how is it that I’m able to drink water from the glass? Michael
F.: So, Michael, what you call “glass” is usually sand mixed with other elements and then fired at extreme temperatures, yet the mis-perceiving of sand as glass takes no relative toll.
Similarly, your culture has agreed to mislabel H2O as “rain” sometimes and “steam” sometimes, but false labeling will not make H2O into anything other than H2O. The appearance of the form might vary because of variations in vibrational frequencies, but that does not cause the Real to vary.
Likewise, labeling cannot make specks of consciousness into something other than specks of consciousness, but you and your culture believe something quite different. You think a speck can be re-labeled and then become “A Good Person” or “A Bad Person” or “A Spouse” or “A Not-Spouse Anymore.”
Billions can agree on their labels, and they do, but that does not make their labels or beliefs or concepts real…does not make them true.
The invitation is to ignore the glass and find where the actual relative toll of mis-perceiving is being exacted. You saw yesterday that it is mis-perceiving “the play” for “the Real” that is the core issue being addressed by Advaitin pointers. The relative toll is not paid around misunderstandings about glass or ice cubes; the relative toll is paid when persons misperceive the fiction of “The Drama of the Lie” for truth…for Reality.
The point is, therefore, to avoid a waste of time debating whether or not glass or god or a tree or a rock are “as perceived,” though they are not; more to the point, the Advaitin invites you to differentiate the non-dual, no-concept Reality from “the play” which is erroneously taken by all persons to be the Real.
With Advaitins, the focus begins not with glass or god or trees or rocks but with the play. Why? Because all mis-perceptions must be seen to be mis-perceptions and then discarded before the Real can be seen, and most mis-perceptions happen in regards to the play. Ignore the glass and focus on the play since the play is the sustainer of duality…of the not-Real.
In “The Theater of the Lie” that the relative existence is, all of the actors are trapped in duality. That is at the core of acting. All of the actors play multiple roles, and all of them can play at various times the roles of both the protagonist and the antagonist.
In one movie, George Burns played the roles of both “God” and “Satan”; in other movies, Eddie Murphy played the role of “good-hearted” Sherman Klump as well as the obnoxious Buddy Love; Mike Myers played the out-of-the-ordinary “hero” Austin Powers as well as the eccentric “Dr. Evil”; and Keanu Reeves played both “Ted Logan” and “Evil Ed.”
And that is what happens in every play in the dualistic, relative existence: every actor plays dual roles. In a show of their instability, the actors will play “good” roles at times and “bad” roles at times.
And those who continue to go into the theater—looking for a comedy to give them some happiness—will also find tragedy at times if they become so embroiled in the play that they are driven to abandon their position of witnessing only, if they feel compelled to run on stage, if they become an actor, and if they assume a variety of roles in “The Theater of the Lie.”
Two weeks ago, in answer to a site visitor who wrote, “The only reason I can think of for not wanting to Realize is that I like ‘the high part’ of the highs-and-lows of non-Realized living,” the following consideration was offered:
Your problem is that, in duality, you cannot have the “highs” only, and they will become fewer and farther between since that which makes you high will eventually make you low, and that which makes you feel the highest will eventually be what makes you feel the lowest. Whatever gives you pleasure will eventually give you pain or misery; whatever gives you the most pleasure will eventually give you the most pain or the most misery.
Yet persons will continue to stay in the play with all of those dualistic characters and will settle for a state of flux with all its low’s in order to get that occasional high. Interestingly, the persons of the planet are quite critical of addicts who follow that course, even as the population of the planet engages in that same behavior on a daily basis...suffering all of the low's because of their willingness to settle for an occasional high.
For those whose relative existence has stretched across enough years to know both the high’s and the low’s, do you not see now that all of the misery and suffering you’ve ever experienced came when you stepped onto the stage in that “Theater of the Lie” and interacted with those actors who were playing dual roles?
What woman whose relative existence has covered several decades has not gone onto the stage and played opposite “Mr. Right”? Did he not play his role so well that you—along with everyone else in the audience—became convinced that he was kind and loving and wonderful?
However, after a time on stage in the drama called “your life”—after you spent more time interacting with him on your stage—did there not come a point when his mask fell off and revealed that his character was really that of “The Villain” in disguise—the meanest, cruelest, most vicious person you’ve ever met?
Did you enjoy your time on stage with "Prince Charming"? Was that a “high”? Was it worth “the low” that came later when he tossed you off his white horse and revealed that he was also the performer playing the role of “The Sorriest Lowlife Who Ever Lived”?
And males, did you play opposite “The Sweetest Girl on Earth,” only to find later in the play that she was also billed as “The Biggest Tramp Ever Born”? Those are common characters in the dualistic, relative play. When abiding as the Absolute, no characters exist. Freedom is, among other things, freedom from belief, especially freedom from believing in the false personas that play-actors assume.
Yet what do persons do, even after their “lowest” experiences? Do they say, “Enough with the phony players and the phony play”? Of course not. They conclude that they merely had the misfortune to walk into “a really bad theater” and that they can find happiness on another stage with another actor.
So they leave that stage—or are tossed from the stage—but they do not say, “No play is really fun. None of the play-acting is really worth engaging with those phony actors who wear their masks and hide their true character.” Even after the lowest of the low’s, persons do not conclude, “I would not recommend such drama to anyone.”
They believe, instead, that they must leave that theater and leave that stage and enter into a search for a better actor that they can play their codependent roles with, this time…“forever.”
For the next play, they decide, all they need to do is choose better roles and better actors to play their parts with. So they illogically conclude: “I’m going down the street to the next theater and see what’s playing there. If I think that is a ‘good’ play and not like my last ‘bad’ play, then I’ll get a walk-on role and dedicate myself to playing my same old roles with a better actor this time.”
What most persons will never experience in their own personal dramas is their “peripetia,” that moment which was discussed in the non-duality-based-novel The Board of Directors of Wars. It is that moment when…
…the lead actor finds out that everything he thought to be true is really false; when he sees that he was misled at every turn; when those he thought he could trust the most, and who thought they were telling him the truth, were all wrong. Please enter the silence of contemplation. (To be continued)
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
