Monday, 20 November 2017

Dropping (much of) Standing, Seated and moving straight to inversions. Asana with pranayama, entry and exit from headstand

"For people over fifty, it is enough to practice some of the easier and more useful asanas, as well as some of the pranayamas." Pattabhi Jois -Yoga Mala

But why wait till fifty?


UPDATE 2

It fascinates me how my practice always seems to settle back into the same old Ashtanga that seeped into the marrow of my bones through all those years of daily practice. It may be a Richard Freeman inspired, Simon Borg-Olivier informed, slightly Vinyasa Krama modified, soft, slow, half Primary/half Second Series Ashtanga but Ashtanga all the same.

I love the practice below and I still start my practice with Simon's Spinal movements before moving on to five sury's ( 3 A/ 2 B). Most of standing though, seems to have elbowed it's way back in and it's pretty standard fare up to Navasana (though Bharadvajrasana in place of Marichiyasana D, as Manju suggested once), before slipping into a YogaSynergy Fundamentals/Vinyasa Krama Bow half 2nd Ashtanga.

The inversion vinyasa's below are fun and I've kept them for now but suspect I'll end up going back to longer static sarvangasana and sirsasana.

Whatever I practice before pranayama strikes me as MOSTLY unimportant ( it could be tai chi, Qi Gong or a long swim just as well as Ashtanga), I'm under no illusion that this was designed as a series or particularly that old, rather a wonderful accident of circumstance but I might as well allow the practice that stole my heart all those years ago to settle back into it's rightful place.


Update 1a


Q: Did you create your own sequence?

A: NO! I didn’t ‘create’ my own individual sequence, I'm a little horrified at the suggestion (thus this update to clarify), certainly not in the sense of trying to develop my own style or teach a new sequence ( I don't teach). Pattabhi Jois mentioned in Yoga Mala that after fifty you can adapt the practice as you wish, choose the asana you find most beneficial along with how you wish to practice them. But that was ALWAYS Krishnamacharya‘s way, throughout his teaching 'career', the asana were not, it seems, fixed in a set sequence. Why wait until you are fifty.

Even though I spent a little time with Ramaswami (Vinyasa Krama), I always seemed to settle back into Ashtanga, the shape of the practice I had become most familiar with, comfortable with. I would adapt the practice, perhaps, take a more 'vinyasa krama' approach, add some extra preparation postures or more advanced versions, developments, but the shape of the practice was basically the same, it was always, to my mind at least, still Ashtanga.

As I explored, in practice for a couple of years, Krishnamacharya's old Mysore texts (following the line by line  close reading module on Ramaswami's TT) I spent longer in certain asana, exploring Krishnamacharya‘s kumbhaka options. That took more time so I cut out asana, reducing my practice down to to ten key asana from the Ashtanga series, a Rishi series if you like ( Pattabhi Jois had mentioned a Rishi series idea to David and Nancy in the 70s, choosing ten postures and practicing them for longer, 25-50 breaths each).

In blog posts I referred to that as 'Proficient Primary', not to promote my own series but rather to indicate that you didn't need to practice 'Advanced asana' to have an advanced practice, you could practice primary series in an 'Advanced' way, or rather in a more proficient way, not only in how we approached our alignment but in how we worked with the breath, with drishti. If you could only do half primary or just a few seated (perhaps in a chair), even just the supine postures you could have an advanced/proficient practice, no deep backbends, arm balances, headstands necessary.

I tended to still do most of Ashtanga standing before moving into those ten asana. Recently I explored some of Simon Borg-Olivier's spinal movements before moving into my asana and finished with some handstand variations to go into asana 'hands free' (to avoid pulling limbs into postures), but it still feels like Ashtanga to me, I personally can still see the shape but it was perhaps the furthest I moved away from straight by the book Ashtanga. It was always about my own home practice, adapting the practice to my needs and what I sought to explore in practice, never to teach to anyone else. Were I to teach (and I have NO intention to do so) it would be to encourage somebody in their own home practice. I feel strongly that a good teacher has NO students, or very few, who will move on to their own personal practice (this of course doesn't mean you can't hold a room, in which case you are not necessarily a teacher but perhaps merely a facilitator - Note: I have no intention to hold a room either).

Personally I feel we should drop the whole Parampara, guru, teacher/student model altogether and let the practice do the work. Be a facilitator, a resource, that a practitioner can reach out to if and when they so choose. The only to time to impose ourselves perhaps is to offer safer practice options, the practice will take us deeper on it's own.

In the end I settled back into a pretty standard approach to Ashtanga because ultimately I found that practice I had worked with for ten years, comforting, just comforting. Now I just do a quick (depending on time) Simon Borg-Olivier style spinal warm up before move into a pretty regular Ashtanga Primary plus a little 2nd, just picking one or two asana a practice to stay longer and explore the kumbhaka options?

Ashtanga is just comforting for me, no doubt because I’ve practiced it for so long now (actually, ten years is not so long), even though I may have explored it through adapting and modifying over the years. I think the potential to adapt the practice to our needs is built into the practice, it was always Krishnamacharya‘s intention. Jois lost his way a little perhaps when he introduced Led classes (madness to try and rush 80 to 300 students into Marichiyasana D on the count) and made it more and more fixed (although we might understand  if not agree with his argument for doing so). Sharath, no doubt, just tries to continue what he saw as his grandfathers legacy but perhaps really we should be going back to early Ashtanga (Manju?) or even further, to Krishnamacharya himself, we have Krishnamacharya's early texts. Pattabhi Jois may have lost his way in more ways than one, when I see video of his led advanced class in the garage on YouTube, his adjustments, on those who clearly aren’t ready for Advanced (possibly not even 2nd) are frankly insane.

Pattabhi Jois didn't invent the Ashtanga vinyasa approach to practicing asana. The instructions for practicing the asana, the drishti, the vinyasa count...., it is all in his teacher Krishnamacharya's early text Yoga Makaranda (Mysore 1934). In Krishnamacharya's Yogasanagalu (Mysore1941) we even find the asana mostly in the order Jois presented them for his four year Sanskrit college course. Pattabhi Jois merely passed along his teacher's teaching. We can question how he passed it along, how he taught, how he behaved without that necessarily questioning what it was he was teaching, the practice stands up on it's own - we can question it separately and we should. We can question Pattabhi Jois' adjustments, how extreme as well as how sexually abusive they were  at times, we can question the introduction of Led classes, how practice was speeded up to accommodate a fixed practice, how kumbhaka was lost along the way, how flexible Krishnamacharya seems to have been in his approach by contrast, we can question Pattabhi Jois' judgement. But even if we remove Pattabhi Jois from the equation altogether we still have Krishnamacharya's texts, the vinyasa, a shape/framework to practice, if not a set sequence (though the asana is presented in almost the same order as Jois, Krishnamacharya seems to have resisted teaching the asana as fixed sequences), we still have the practice as well as encouragement to explore the practice and adapt it to our own needs and preferences.

However much it may be tempting, given the allegations of sexual abuse, to airbrush Pattabhi Jois out the timeline altogether, I recognise I wouldn't have this practice that I'm so grateful for had he not opened his doors, with such generosity, to those early teachers and taught tirelessly for decades. In brushing over Jois we also brush over those who's trust was abused by him and the dynamics, the environment and power structures that allowed it to happen and that are still in place however much we may feel that Sharath, for example, would never behave in the same way. It would also ignore those whose lives were, they feel, transformed for the good through his teaching.

Krishnamacharya stressed that the practice of asana should be explored on a grounding of the yama/niyama, the moral code comes first and foremost as well as accompanying our practice to help us avoid losing our way, to be there to fall back on when we slip (and Patanjali reminds us that we will constantly), to support our practice and what arises out of it. The asana too, for Krishnamacharya, is always in the context of pranayama and pratyahara, it is always a meditative and spiritual practice of radical enquiry in which, for Krishnamacharya, and he would hope for us, God or at least Love is sought. 


UPDATE 1




My current practice, still very much work in progress (when isn't it?).  

Standing strongly influenced by Simon Borg-Olivier and Bianca Machliss' Yoga Synergy Spinal Sequence, 

Seated influenced by Ramaswami's Vinyasa Krama, 

Inversions influenced by Krishnamacharya's early shoulderstand  and headstand vinyasa...., plus ten years of Ashtanga.

Actual speed is approx 40 minutes, I spent less time in some of the asana as well as in the static versions of shoulder stand and headstand than usual, as a rule the whole practice takes about an hour.
Actual speed version to come.



Actual speed, bit wobbly in places still




It took me a long time to come around to these movements in standing, for the longest time all I saw was arm waving. THIS series of videos from Simon Borg-Olivier, where he explains what is happening anatomically, physiologically in all the movements as well as the surya namaskara and  several asana went someway to bringing me around  but even then what I was looking for was a similar explanation for the asana I was already practicing in Ashtanga or in Vinyasa Krama (which Simon has done in his 84 key asana course). In the end it takes a leap of faith, just practicing these movements for a week or two, incorporating them into your regular practice.


some blog posts
On Simon's spinal sequence and diaphragmatic breathing


On YogaSynergy fundamentals course
http://grimmly2007.blogspot.jp/2015/07/just-enrolled-on-simon-borg-olivier-and.html

On Simon's 84 key asana course
http://grimmly2007.blogspot.jp/2017/04/what-is-it-about-mudra-also-simon-borg.html


And a new Blog of mine bringing together my posts on this
https://activemovementyogaathome.blogspot.jp/



In the photos of the practice below I've shown the basic standing spinal movements then the different foot positions those spinal movements are repeated in. I've only shown the one side.

See Update note 1a above, this is not a sequence that I've developed to teach or promote in anyway, it just shows a direction my own personal practice took for a time.









***

The post below was originally from August 2017, reposting it for the sun salutation update




My Current practice

A shift (or evolution) from Proficient Primary (see page above) to a more 'Spinal/active movements' approach, inspired by Simon Borg-Olivier

I seem to be dropping most of Ashtanga Primary Standing and Seated postures altogether and moving straight from an opening Spinal sequence to inversions. The few classic seated postures with pranayama exercises I do include, I enter and exit, hands free, from Sirsasana.

Spinal movements

Surya namaskara
(Can't quite bring myself to drop these altogether)
Update:
Simon Borg-Olivier's Simplified/subtle (Method 3) sun salutation x 5, followed by Method 1 Supine sun salutation x3 - see video below

Dandasana
Paschimattanasana /Purvatanasana
bharadvajrasana
Maha Mudra/Janu Shirshasana D
(optional marichiyasana)

Sarvangasana prep
Urdhva Dhanurasana

Sarvangasana - static 5 mins,
Sarvangasana vinyasas

Sirsasana - static 5-10 mins
Sirsasana entry to seated asana inc. pranayama exercises.
- gomukhasana - 30 inhalation

- baddha konasana - 30 second kumbhaka after exhalation
- Baddha padmasana 
- Padmasana Nadi shodhana - 20 second kumbhaka after inhalation

Sit - Siddhasana


*

I've been asked where one can find more on this approach.

See this post for an intro into Simon's approach, with videos, links etc

Simon Borg-Olivier made me fall in love with my SPINE all over again


For those not sure about the arm waving, and it took me a while to come around, I recommend Simon's 84 key asana course, see this post where I include a concordance with Ashtanga.


I hear Simon has an online Ashtanga course in the editing stage, should be excellent.

I'm just about to start Simon's 13 week online Yoga Therapy course, more on that to come.



*

The videos below give an idea of my current approach to practice.

Spinal movements in different foot positions including a slower version......,

The first five minutes of the video below shows Simon demonstrating some of the spinal movements.


Below- lengthening the inhalation and exhalation, so, one inhalation for both sides of the first exercise/vinyasa, one exhalation for both sides of the second twisting 'exercise/vinyasa


I might include one or more active movement variations of standing asana



After the spinal movements I might do a couple of sury's

Update:
Simon Borg-Olivier's Simplified/subtle (Method 3) sun salutation x 5, followed by Method 1 Supine sun salutation x3 - see video below



I've started skipping standing and most seated postures altogether and am going straight into some shoulderstand preparation postures, these too perhaps from Simon which strike me as important, a revelation in fact. I'm exploring introducing the principles Simon outlined below into my inversion vinyasas - posts to come on this. See Appendix for more from Simon.



Followed by some shoulderstand prep from Vinyasa Krama that Krishnamacharya/Ramaswami recommended.


After a five minute static shoulderstand, lengthening the inhalation and exhalation to twenty seconds for each, I'm tending to include the vinyasas below from Krishnamachary's old 1938 Mysore film footage, as well as perhaps a few other of his vinyasas that may come to mind.


I finish shoulderstands with the standard vinyasas from Ashtanga Finishing, leading into padma mayurasana, followed by...

Urdhva danhurasana

Sirsasana, a five minute static headstand, lengthening the inhalation and exhalation to twenty seconds for each.... followed by the asana below entered from sirsasana and including different pranayama exercises.

The videos below don't include the pranayama.


Gomukhasana - 3 breaths each side - lengthening the inhalation to thirty seconds


Bharadvajrasana - Lengthening the exhalation to thirty seconds


Baddha Konasana A - Kumbhaka: Holding the breath out for thirty seconds


Padmasana: Nadi shodhana 12 rounds - 1:4:2:1 A twenty second Kumbhaka after the inhalation


Back up to sirsasana to stretch out the legs before lowering and entering siddhasana hands free for a twenty or forty minute Sit.



Appendix


Friday, 17 November 2017

'...the Yoga Korunta, which was written on palm leaves' - on preserving palm leaf manuscripts


A new clip from the recent documentary, Mysore yoga Traditions.

See my earlier review perhaps of the recent documentary
Mysore yoga Traditions
Trailer at the end of the post.


Preserving palm leaf manuscripts.



Stills below from the clip.










below, from an earlier post.

'...the Yoga Korunta, which was written on palm leaves'


'The method of Yoga taught at KPJAYI is that which has been told by the ancient Sage Vamana in his text called “Yoga Korunta.” Although many books on Yoga have been written, Vamana is the only one who has delineated a complete practical method. In the 1920’s, the Yogi and Sanskrit Scholar, T. Krishnamacharya traveled to Calcutta where he transcribed and recorded the Yoga Korunta, which was written on palm leaves and was in a bad state of decay, having been partially eaten by ants. Later, Krishnamacharya passed on these teachings to the late Pattabhi Jois, whose school continues to teach this method today'.

I've often wondered what a palm leaf manuscript looked like, well here they are


I'm as sceptical as the next guy about the Yoga Korunta and had pretty much decided it was a myth, a real myth not a well presented argument (whether you agree with it or not) dismissed as a myth.

However, though there is no mention of it in Krishnamacharya's Yoga Makarnada,  I noticed this in the book credits in the first Introduction of Krishnamacharya's Yogasanagalu



Introduction

I did not attempt a detailed review of all ancient yoga treatises since it will make this book very long and perhaps cause boredom to the readers.  Please forgive.  This writing is mainly based on the following texts:

Patanjalayogasutra
Hathayogapradipika
Rajayogaratnakara
Yogakuranti
Upanishads related to yoga
Learning’s from my Guru and self-experience


Certainly not looking to revisit the old Yoga Korunta discussion, not too bothered these days whether it did or did not exist, mainly wanted to show some pictures of palm leave manuscripts.


---------------------------------


See my earlier review perhaps of the recent documentary
Mysore yoga Traditions



https://www.mysoreyogatraditions.com/



Wednesday, 1 November 2017

माया māyā (Illusion) November 2017 Newsletter from Srivatsa Ramaswam

 November 2017 Newsletter from Srivatsa Ramaswami--माया māyā (Illusion)

I am planning to go to India end November and stay there for about 4 months. I am scheduled to teach two programs at Yoga Vahini in Chennai-- a 20 hr Samkhyakarika program in January 2018 and a 100 hr Advanced Vinyasakrama TT program in Vinyasakrama Yoga in February. Then a 50 hr  ten day program on Bhagavatgita at Omyoga in New Delhi in March 2018 . Then the same Bhagavatgita in Hyderabad, @ Yogavahini (March 20 to 29th  yoagavahini@gmail.com 9948312492) You may get the details of the programs in my website www.vinyasakrama.com/Events

I am also likely to do a few other programs in 2018, . I may teach a weekend workshop in Germany in May, a week long programs in Austin TX in June, a week long program on the twin subjects of Samkhyakarika and yogasutras at Loyola Marymount University ( July 28 to August 4), Yogayagnyavalkya a weekend program in Chicago in September and possibly a week long Core vinyasakrama yoga program at Yogakanda, Santiago in Chile in October 2018 (contacto@yogakanda.com). Once the details are confirmed I will have  them  listed in the Events page of my website.

माया māyā (Illusion)

Disciple: Guruji. I have been hearing that there are a few philosophers who say that the universes is not real but only an illusion.
Guruji: Yes they do
D: How can they say that this universe of bricks and mortar and me made of bones and muscles is an illusion?
G: Are you sure that what you see and feel is real.
D: Most certainly, it is obvious. Can there be any doubt?
G: Those philosophers are sure that the universe is merely an illusion just as you are sure that it is all real.
D: How can this be an illusion? It is real, can't they see that it is all real. Won't they feel the pain if hurt?
G: Just as we see they also see this universe, still they assert that it can only be an illusion. They are reasonable thinkers,truth seekers and sincere people: that is why they are called rishis. Since they also have the same experience as we have but still come to a different conclusion we must spare  some time to find out why they say so--try to find what they see that we do not seem to see.

D: What is the Sanskrit word for this illusion we are talking about?
G: There are a few but the most well known one is माया māyā

D; I find that this word is interpreted differently
G: True. It could be different due to the context but it could also depend upon how the word is broken down, analyzed. Usually this samasa (compound word) is split (vigraha) into mA plus yA. Let us restrict the interpretation to the present context which is about the universe. It is "yA mA sA mAya". It is easy to find the meaning of the word 'yA' and it would mean 'the one' in feminine gender.

D: Why feminine gender?
G: It is a peculiarity with Sanskrit . All nouns are masculine, feminine or neuter gender. One reason why the word yA is used is because it is associated with creation.. mother
D: Oh
GL Let us get to the part 'mA' now.

D: 'Yes I see now, 'mA' is mother in many Indian languages and maybe an abbreviation of maatru or mother.
G: Yes one interpretation of the word is mother, here the creatrix or universal mother, She is goddess, sakti one main form of worship, it is one of the six mathas. The word mAyA then would be the one who is the universal mother. MayA, prakriti are used to describle the creative power.

D:Yes we find mAyA a popular name given to girls. Gautama Buddha's mother's name is said to be mAyA. So Maya is the universal sakti or power of creation. But coming to our discussion how does Maya mean illusion?
G: There is another interpretation of the word mA. mA is measure or to measure. In the context of vedanta the created universe is that which is measured or limited or the one that is limited (mA). It should be so understood in the context of vedanta. In vedanta the source of the universe is Brahman which is consciousness unlimited (ananta). In comparison to it the created universe or prakriti is limited. In fact the purusha sukta, a  vivid vedic description of creation from the purusha or brahman, the purusha is said to extend beyond the universe by ten digits indicating that the brahman is unlimited and unbounded whereas the created prakriti is limited. There are references to this in a number of vedic and puranic narrations of creation. The created universe is one part or amsa of the Supreme. Even according to scientists the universe in unbounded but limited-it is limited to an immensely dense  singularity maybe the size of a dime in its origin. The Samkhyas also appear to suggest the prakriti is atomic in its mula or root stage.

D: So mAyA would represent the mammoth creation but finite. Or mAyA would mean the finite one in the context of the source Brahman which is infinite.
G: Now the other interpretation of 'mA'. It  is 'not' or an injunction  'do not' or don't

D: Then it also means who is not, am I right?
G: First let us take the interpretation of 'do not'.  Lord Krishna in the Gita tells Arjuna 'mA sochi (sucha) meaning do not worry. MAyA would mean something that one, the spiritual aspirant is advised not to get involved. Why so? Because it is full of duhkha or pain and sorrow or because it repeatedly enslaves one birth after birth with incessant karmas. This is the main theme of samkhya, yoga and vedanta and a few other Eastern philosophies. They all say that the the outside universe is productive of predominantly duhkha, of course sugar quoted with some pleasures which all creatures love and thus captivated and enslaved. Because it is full of duhkha and makes one do karmas both good and bad the consequences of which are repeated duhkha dominated universe in which one takes repeated birhts. So Patanjali says "This repeated misery-- birth after birth-- should be ended (heyam duhkham anagatam)". Fully agree the Samkhyas and vedantins. renunciates, yogis, sanyasins, vivekis bairagis who lead a completely detached life.

D; So you say Maya could indicate that which should be renounced?  Yes Maya binds everyone offering  some little pleasure for a disproportionate amount of pain and sorrow.
G: Then we have mA meaning 'not' or 'not really existing' whereby we get the interpretation that mAyA is illusion. So mAyA would mean that which does not (really) exist, though it may appear to exist.

D: Who are the scholars that say that the universe is but an illusion or mAyA
G; The most well known of this group are the vednatins who subscribe to the theory of advaita. Other non advaitic vedantins even as they agree that Brahman is the source of everything, that Brahman is 'sat' or real, also imply that the creation also is real, this would be sat vada and satkarya vada. It would mean that the source of the universe Brahman is the reality and then the creation also is a real activity. There are of course a few other non vedic philosophies which imply that the creation is not really real even as they do not subscribe to a real source as Brahman

D: What reasoning these mayavadins put forward to substantiate the assertion that it is all an illusion?
G: Several arguments-- many examples like the rope and snake and others. But one has to reason out step by step.

D: Can we go through the steps you consider helpful?
G: We have done this up to a point  in some of our earlier discussions. Ok let us start. First answer the question about how you are able to experience the universe around you. How does science explain this?

D: We experience the outside world through our senses, even though the senses do not directly experience the objects. They are experienced through sight, hearing, taste smell and the touch. According to science these sensations are transmitted by the sense organs like eyes ears etc., to different parts of the brain where they are processed, collated  analyzed, compared, emotions added and finally the picture is seen by the brain in the brain. They emphasize that the eyes do not see but only the brain sees.
G. But the universe also consists of you, the subject

D: Some scientists also indicate that there is the awareness of one's own body through the nervous system, the afferent nerves. The impulses sent to the brain by the network of nerves are also felt by the brain. Thus we have a composite picture of what we experience-- the outside world and the subject also as part of the universe. The total experience consists of “I seeing the universe”
G: Ok let us say the brain sees everything. But the brain space is limited but what we see is in front of us, say, like you sitting in front of me outside the brain even as   all are within the brain space. Further in the brain the information as processed is in the form of neurons floating around the brain. The whole information may have to be reconverted into some form like what we see.

D I see
G: So the brain after the complete processing in a split second will have to project the whole information exactly as we see, as we experience. And that projection even as it can be assumed to take place in the brain space has to take place in virtual space.

D; Ok like the dream experience taking place in our head during dream state.
G: Now this raises two conclusions. One is that what we see are only the projections of the mind even if we admit that the outside world is real.

D: So the brain  receives information as impulses through the senses then projects them in the virtual space. We see only the projection and not the object per say.
G: Yes without the brain recreating what is received through the senses it is not possible to explain how the objects are seen because the brain cells and neurons are not what is seen. The brain itself receives the information through the senses only as electrical impulses.

D: So according to science it amounts to saying that the brain projects the processed information in the virtual/mental space and it also sees what it projects.
G: But then we have a couple of issues with this. One is, if the brain projects what one sees it will amount to saying that since the brain projects also the subject that experiences the outside world, it would imply this.-- that the brain projects itself because the brain is part of the subject. Can the brain project itself and also see that. Then the question the brain the subject has, what is it, is it the organ brain or the projection? It also has another question to answer: can the brain project itself and also see

D: It also raises another question if the brain has got consciousness which is awareness as we experience is not changing, it is unwavering and experiences everything that we experience everything the brain itself is said to process and project.
G: Also the brain is made of matter, just organic matter created from the food matter taken from the outside world. How does the non-conscious matter produce a non changing consciousness. So we could say that that the view held by science that brain is the one that experiences and also is the one which processes and projects the information received through the senses may not be conclusive.

D So what does it mean I am confused
G: It amounts to saying that we do not see the objects of the outside world and can see only the projection a virtual image in virtual space. The view that the brain processes and projects the sensations received and also sees is not really convincing, tenable. So the  first conclusion we can make is that one can not ascertain that the outside universe really exists which is the default  belief because what we experience can only be virtual.  So many philosophers conclude that one cannot prove that the universe exists, and say it is anirvacaniya or indeterminate.

D: Can we say that it is just an illusion? It appears that it is equally difficult to prove that the universe is real.
G: We have to determine two things here. Since we see the universe of which the physical observer the subject also is a part, is just a projection which is all one can say. It is not the result of real objects that are processed and then reprojected as we have just seen. They can only be objectless projections which can be considered or called as an illusion . There is no creation but only a projection.

D: Yes since according to this line of approach, my world that includes me- your disciple -that I perceive is only a projection. And the brain is not the projector of this world I see because since the brain also is a part of the universe it can not project itself.. Further my brain is not the observer. It is funny, that the common belief that the brain experiences and acts itself is an illusion. Looks as though it is difficult to prove that the world is real. In that case from where this world of mine that I experience--even if it is an illusion-- comes and also who is the observer, because the brain can not see, it has no consciousness.
G: Even among those who view that the individual world is but an illusion, an appearance, differ in their answers to your question. According to a well known Indian philosophy very popular in South East Asia, this question is irrelevant. Once you know the whole thing is but an appearance, there is no purpose served in trying to find more answers using the brain. It is known now that it is but an illusion and that it is also full of misery. The only thing one has to do is to overcome this miserable illusion by proper meditation and remove all thoughts the absence of which will remove all pain and sorrow for ever. The search for the self, the observer, subject or whatever is irrelevant, unnecessary or even counterproductive they would advice.

D: It is tough
G: The other view that can be gleaned from the Bhagavat gita is also interesting. Krishna says inter alia, that He or God  (Maayin) created the universe by the power of his Maya. Maya now can be considered as real but limited creation as we have considered earlier or it can be considered as an illusion. In fact the Lord is called a Mayavi which expression is usually associated with a magician. This will amount to saying that the Lord created the universe but it is just an illusion not material. Again the subject is the Lord/Brahman Himself  which is pure unvarying consciousness who indwells in every body as the atman observing the illusion of each one individually. Ofcourse   one should understand the nature of the self, the Lord and the nature of Maya and attain salvation.

D: Are  there other views which indicate the universe is not as real as we commonly believe
G; There is another religion/philosophy which implies that God created the universe as succession of momentary impulses. Every moment He creates this universe anew-it is continuous creation-- and the individual creatures are caught up in this mammoth illusion. He is the beacon light to get out of this enslaving creation.

D: Thank you.
G: Think about this line of discussion and understand the texts like the Gita the upanishads and the advaita literature of sankara and others to know more about this mAyA. They all aver that our default understanding of the universe and our own selves are defective.

D: It is not difficult to understand why the mayavadins assert that it is all an illusion or mAyA, but it is yet another to 'feel' that it is so. The sages like Suka,  son of Vyasa is  believed  to have remained   completely oblivious to the surroundings and his own body in a state of sahaja samadhi. Gaudapada says to the effect that nobody is ever born  really(na kascit jayate jivaha) or anything is ever created really. All creatures are just organic robots activated by their karma/samskaras, like the dream self that runs around with a illusory body and appears to think with a non existing mind. All creatures appear  confused about the universe and about themselves life after life.
G: Yes

D: What about Advaita which is associated with Mayavada or the theory of Illusion?
G: It is of the vedantic school. In vedanta the source is Brahman which  is unwavering consciousness. This can be immediately identified as the individual consciousness in the subject. In us the body- brain complex, there is consciousness, distinct and uncarying. The vedantins observe that  this body/ mind that constantly changes is known due to the consciousness that as we have seen is independent and not part of the brain that is organic matter and is for ever changing. The consciousness  in us is ever aware of  whatever that goes on as a cittavritti during our childhood then adulthood then old age and according to Lord Krishana into the future lives. It is the same consciousness that is aware of the experiences during waking, dream and deep sleep stages and remains unaffected even in the yogic state of kaivalya or turiya. So all that is experienced is in this atomic brahman whose essence is pure consciousness unaffected by time or space. Everything that is experienced takes place within it ( so is unaffected by space) as a mayavritti or an illusion but appears without it and appears real. That is why in the initial stages one meditates within oneself to locate the atman. So the whole, ever changing experience I have is my world which is an illusion stream is taking place within me within the consciousness Brahman/Atman

D: One more question. Even to experience an illusion one needs eyes and ears, like watching a magic show
G: Not necessarily. Take the case of your dream experience. Dream is an illusion that appears to take place within you. At that time according to science, most motor activities are paralyzed, you forget yourself. Dream experience takes place  without the senses coming into play. The dream self sees illusory dream objects with illusory senses and thinks with a brain which is an illusion.  Similarly the whole life experience takes place within the Self, the non changing pure consciousness

D: So Brahman the source of my illusory world is the consciousness that should be called as  I
G: Yes . Ok be calm, study the texts, think deeply,internalize and  clear  all  doubts.