Flaws in Advaita - Real or Perceived?

[Raghy]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Sri.Sravana Sir, Greetings.

An inherent power of brahman called maya, is responsible for the existence of realities called jivas that are transient in nature, whose experiences are not that of the whole reality. Jivas are in essence brahman.

Maya is an illusion. Brahman is reality. Power of Brahman is not illusion, hence is not maya. Maya is not responsible for the existence of Jivas. Millions of Jivas are realised and do not live in illusion. Such jivas have nothing to do with Maya. Not all Jivas experience Maya; some Jivas do come out of Maya with in the same life time.

How are the jivas which do not experience the whole reality, in essence brahman? It is like a person who has different levels of expertise on a subject in his lifetime. The person is the same but the expertise or knowledge varies.

Learned knowledge has nothing to do with realising Brahman. Often times, we see an youngster as young as 10 or 12 years show more maturity than an elderly person of 80 plus years. Life time has nothing to do with maturity and realisation. Learning does not have levels; they are always the same. Learning of basic arithmetic by a 5 year old is exavtly same as an adult analysing and learning something complex..say, the theory of relativity. There is no difference in learning at all.

Now, If you compress the duration of his life span to zero it would seem the knowledge acquired is instantaneous or has always been there. The former is the experience of the brahman as the jiva and the latter that of pure brahman. The two levels of consciousness exist at the same time. The person corresponds to brahman and he is always the same just as brahman is unchanging.

The above explanation explains nothing, unfortunately. Realising Brahman is always instantaneous. There is no gradual learning. Realisation is like a flash. One should realise Maya first to realise Brahman. One who does not realise Maya may not understand Brahman.

The absolute truth is: brahman is the only reality. The experiences of the jivas in coming to this conclusion form the basis of the experience of brahman. Thus the knowledge of the absolute truth in brahman and its blissful experience is based on the relative realities.

Brahman is not experienced; it can only be realised. Since we are part of Brahman, we can't really experience it. I am an Australian; I am also an Indian. I have to realise these facts.. there is nothing for me to 'experience'. I am not not going to find any physical changes so as to experience... Only I have to realise (and act accordingly).

After 276 posts in this thread, after all the mis-understandings, fights, bitter feelings, I felt, even Maya and Brahman are not properly explained in lay person terms. So, I wrote down my understandings in reply to the thread initiator.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Shri Raghy,

There are so many disagreements that you seem to have with me. I can respond better if you summarize your understanding of advaita.

 

[happyhindu]

Dear KRS Sir,

I have deleted my post to yourself on Reply to Raju above. I thankyou for letting the post stay on the forum for 48 hours.

Regards.

 

[sravna]

OK Shri Raghy, here are my explanations:

1.Maya is the illusive power of brahman. You can refer to any books on advaita to confirm that
2. Jivas if they have had complete realization would indeed be released from the effect of maya and become one with brahman
3. The person analogy was to show that though his knowledge varies in the duration of his life, it is the very same person all the time.
4. The realization of the truth does occur in a flash. But only after going through innumerable expereinces and the knowledge acquired from them

 

[renuka]

OK Shri Raghy, here are my explanations:

1.Maya is the illusive power of brahman. You can refer to any books on advaita to confirm that
2. Jivas if they have had complete realization would indeed be released from the effect of maya and become one with brahman
3. The person analogy was to show that though his knowledge varies in the duration of his life, it is the very same person all the time.
4. The realization of the truth does occur in a flash. But only after going through a innumerable expereinces and the knowle

Good explanation...

Just to make a note of statement 2. Jivas if they have had complete realization would indeed be released from the effect of maya and become one with brahman


Embodied Atmas(jeevas) upon realization would be indeed not anymore under the influence of Maya and verily is Brahman.

I have used the word not anymore under the influence becos being released from the effect of Maya makes it sound that Jeevas were imprisoned.
Maya never really imprisoned any Jeeva..It has a delusional effect but to journey through the influence of Maya is an option so there no actual bound effect.

I have used the word Is verily Brahman becos by saying Becoming One with Brahman there is still certain amount of Qualified Non Dualism in that statement and we are still seeing Jeeva and Brahman as separate entities even though you meant an amalgamation here..You need two or more to amalgamate but In Advaita there is Only One and Two is just One occuring Twice.

 

[sravna]

Good explanation...

Just to make a note of statement 2. Jivas if they have had complete realization would indeed be released from the effect of maya and become one with brahman


Embodied Atmas(jeevas) upon realization would be indeed not anymore under the influence of Maya and verily is Brahman.

I have used the word not anymore under the influence becos being released from the effect of Maya makes it sound that Jeevas were imprisoned.
Maya never really imprisoned any Jeeva..It has a delusional effect but to journey through the influence of Maya is an option so there no actual bound effect.

I have used the word Is verily Brahman becos by saying Becoming One with Brahman there is still certain amount of Qualified Non Dualism in that statement and we are still seeing Jeeva and Brahman as separate entities even though you meant an amalgamation here..You need two or more to amalgamate but In Advaita there is Only One and Two is just One occuring Twice.

Thanks Renuka for the nice clarifying points

 

[renuka]

Thanks Renuka for the nice clarifying points

No probs..Bro..you are enlightening many here in this post..so what I know I will share with you..

 

[Raghy]

Shri Raghy,

There are so many disagreements that you seem to have with me. I can respond better if you summarize your understanding of advaita.

Sri.Sravna Sir, Greetings. There is no 'disagreement' per se. I posted my views to your summary in post #275. I am looking forward to see the flaws in my views, please.

It is too early to talk about Advaita. I may know nothing about Advaita. My views are expressed only about Brahman and Maya. Brahman and Maya are not explained either.

Cheers!

 

[Raghy]

OK Shri Raghy, here are my explanations:

1.Maya is the illusive power of brahman. You can refer to any books on advaita to confirm that
2. Jivas if they have had complete realization would indeed be released from the effect of maya and become one with brahman
3. The person analogy was to show that though his knowledge varies in the duration of his life, it is the very same person all the time.
4. The realization of the truth does occur in a flash. But only after going through innumerable expereinces and the knowledge acquired from them

Dear Sri.Sravna Sir, Greetings.

Firstly, Brahman should be defined. Then, Maya should be defined. Then only a realationship, if any, between Maya and Brahman can be analysed, in my opinion. பார்க்கும் இடமெங்கும் நீக்கமற நிறைந்து நிற்கும் பரிபூரண ஆனந்தம்.... is this Brahman? I would start from here to explain Brahman. Maya comes later. (all the points in the above quoted message are analysed after establishing the defenition of Brahman and Maya, in my opinion).

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Shri Raghy,

Neither brahman nor maya are describable. See this:
(there are several other good web sites that gives this information)

The Life and Teachings of Adi Shankaracharya, by Mahendra Mathur | Tattva

"Brahman is not an object, as It is Adrisya, beyond the reach of the eyes. Hence the Upanishads declare: “Neti Neti—not this, not this….” This does not mean that Brahman is a negative concept, or a metaphysical abstraction, or a nonentity, or a void. It is not another. It is all-full, infinite, changeless, self-existent, self-delight, self-knowledge and self-bliss. It is Svarupa, essence. It is the essence of the knower. It is the Seer (Drashta), Transcendent (Turiya) and Silent Witness (Sakshi).
Sankara’s Supreme Brahman is impersonal, Nirguna (without Gunas or attributes), Nirakara (formless), Nirvisesha (without special characteristics), immutable, eternal and Akarta (non-agent). It is above all needs and desires. It is always the Witnessing Subject. It can never become an object as It is beyond the reach of the senses. Brahman is non-dual, one without a second. It has no other beside It. It is destitute of difference, either external or internal. Brahman cannot be described, because description implies distinction. Brahman cannot be distinguished from any other than It. In Brahman, there is not the distinction of substance and attribute. Sat-Chit-Ananda constitute the very essence or Svarupa of Brahman, and not just Its attributes.
The Nirguna Brahman of Sankara is impersonal. It becomes a personal God or Saguna Brahman only through Its association with Maya.
Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman are not two different Brahmans. Nirguna Brahman is not the contrast, antithesis or opposite of Saguna Brahman. The same Nirguna Brahman appears as Saguna Brahman for the pious worship of devotees. It is the same Truth from two different points of view. Nirguna Brahman is the higher Brahman, the Brahman from the transcendental viewpoint (Paramarthika); Saguna Brahman is the lower Brahman, the Brahman from the relative viewpoint (Vyavaharika)."

The World—A Relative Reality

"The world is not an illusion according to Sankara. The world is relatively real (Vyavaharika Satta), while Brahman is absolutely real (Paramarthika Satta). The world is the product of Maya or Avidya. The unchanging Brahman appears as the changing world through Maya. Maya is a mysterious indescribable power of the Lord which hides the real and manifests itself as the unreal: Maya is not real, because it vanishes when you attain knowledge of the Eternal. It is not unreal also, because it exists till knowledge dawns in you. The superimposition of the world on Brahman is due to Avidya or ignorance."

 

[sravna]

Raghy,

If you force me to define brahman and maya this would be it:

Something which is complete in itself is brahman

and some power which is in the nature of brahman which causes the illusion of incompleteness
and therefore the existence of relative realities is maya.

 

[Raghy]

Raghy,

If you force me to define brahman and maya this would be it:

Something which is complete in itself is brahman

and some power which is in the nature of brahman which causes the illusion of incompleteness
and therefore the existence of relative realities is maya.

Dear Sri.Sravna Sir, Greetings. I do not wish to force you into anything, please.

Thank you for taking my queries seriously and answering them. Thanks for the link in post #285. Personally, I am not quite aggreable to the information provided in that article. I shall address them later. ( it is one step ahead of the present discussions; that's why, I like to dicuss that article later, please).

How ever, I agree with this though.

Sankara’s Supreme Brahman is impersonal, Nirguna (without Gunas or attributes), Nirakara (formless), Nirvisesha (without special characteristics), immutable, eternal and Akarta (non-agent). It is above all needs and desires. It is always the Witnessing Subject. It can never become an object as It is beyond the reach of the senses. Brahman is non-dual, one without a second. It has no other beside It. It is destitute of difference, either external or internal. Brahman cannot be described, because description implies distinction. Brahman cannot be distinguished from any other than It. In Brahman, there is not the distinction of substance and attribute. Sat-Chit-Ananda constitute the very essence or Svarupa of Brahman, and not just Its attributes.

In my opinion, it is the description of the universe or cosmos. The whole universe is Brahman. If you apply the quoted qualities to the universe, it would fit very well. We are part of the universe; that is we are part of the brahman. Our bodies are made up of elements found in the universe. In other words, our bodies contain the universe; that is, brahman in within us. I am not confusing with 'jeevatma/Paramatma' concept.. not yet.

Brahman is in the state of equilibrium; the universe is in the state of equilibrium, inspite of all the planetary movements and so much actions taking place. My learning is very limted; quite possibly there may be some subject in physics or astral physics or what ever may be dealing with these things, to show the planetary movements keeping in equilibrium.

There is no 'second' to the universe. There is just one universe. This universe just exists ( I don't know how it started; that question may not be relevant to this discussion). It actually, does nothing. One may argue, the universe expands, so does something; but the universe is expanding on its own due to the internal forces, would likely to collapse on itself at one stage.

The universe itself is real. Brahman is real.

Brahman does not cause Maya/illusion. When we see a mirage, we see a source of water. The source of water is not the illusion; it is our thinking, our mind that sees water when there is none is the illusion. A trained person will not see a mirage; when he/she actually see water, they would not ignore it thinking it is mirage.

The whole thing is lopsided, inside out. We are not real. But we say, the world is not real. The world, which is part of Brahman is very real. But we are but a blip in this world is not real.

I shall say this with one more example... Let us say, I apply for a senior scientist position in NASA where my highest qualification is borderline pass in year 12 with commerce subjects. That position is an illusion for me, becuase, I have bucley's chance of getting that with my present qualifications.

So, Maya has to be with reference to something or somebody. Maya can not exist on its own. Maya is not the same for everyone either. For a person who is qualified to become a senior scientist, that position is not an illusion.

Sir, I am not a learned person. I try to simplyfy things so that, I can understand them. I have outlined my understanding about Brahman and Maya. I may not be right. But if it is worth discussing, I request you to discuss from that level, please. Thanks.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Raghy,

I have posted my reply erroneously in the IPL cricket thread. I don't have a mouse with me now. That is making the task of making a post difficult.

 

[Raghy]

Sri.Sravna Sir, Here is the post -

Dear Shri Raghy,

Universe cannot be taken as brahman for the following reason Overall universe is not in equilibrium. Very important nature of brahman in my opinion. Is not eternal. Probably due to the above. Is not self conscious or expereincing any bliss. Brahman's expereience is probabaly due to the above equilibrium or nirguna feature. I think this nirguna feature is a very crfitical aspect if one wants to say anything more about brahman.

Entities in the physical universe are never in total equilibrium. They eventually disintegrate. Therefore physical universe will also eventually disappear probably to be followed by another physical universe and so on.

The above is very unlike what has been said about brahman and therefore physical universe cannot be equated with brahman.

Maya is the power that is operating when it makes you to live in make-believe world. You definitely do not believe that it is not real. It is very similar to the reality in a dream. While you dream you believe in the reality of the dream. The power of maya is similar. If you say it can be evaded you only mean you come out of the grip of maya by self realization

I will get beck to you tomorrow. (or later today...well past 2 AM now).

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Raghy,

Universe cannot be taken as brahman for the following reason Overall universe is not in equilibrium. Very important nature of brahman in my opinion. Is not eternal. Probably due to the above. Is not self conscious or expereincing any bliss. Brahman's expereience is probabaly due to the above equilibrium or nirguna feature. I think this nirguna feature is a very crfitical aspect if one wants to say anything more about brahman.

Entities in the physical universe are never in total equilibrium. They eventually disintegrate. Therefore physical universe will also eventually disappear probably to be followed by another physical universe and so on.

The above is very unlike what has been said about brahman and therefore physical universe cannot be equated with brahman.

Maya is the power that is operating when it makes you to live in make-believe world. You definitely do not believe that it is not real. It is very similar to the reality in a dream. While you dream you believe in the reality of the dream. The power of maya is similar. If you say it can be evaded you only mean you come out of the grip of maya by self realization

 

[sravna]

Raghy,

If you force me to define brahman and maya this would be it:

Something which is complete in itself is brahman

and some power which is in the nature of brahman which causes the illusion of incompleteness and therefore the existence of relative realities is maya.

The above definition of maya in my opinion avoids misinterpretation because of the right focus. When you say maya is something that causes illusion of ignorance instead of saying it is the cause of ignorance there is a very strong possibility the two invoke different responses. Both are right in their own way , the former which reflects the absolute truth while the latter is from the perspective of relative reality and therefore reflects relative truth.

Relative realities exist because they ultimately serve to make the realization of the absolute truth . All the experiences from the start, in the relative realities are geared towards that, till the final realization is reached. So in the interim though you appear ignorant , it is an incomplete reality or truth.

 

[Raghy]

Dear Shri Raghy,

Universe cannot be taken as brahman for the following reason Overall universe is not in equilibrium. Very important nature of brahman in my opinion. Is not eternal. Probably due to the above. Is not self conscious or expereincing any bliss. Brahman's expereience is probabaly due to the above equilibrium or nirguna feature. I think this nirguna feature is a very crfitical aspect if one wants to say anything more about brahman.

Entities in the physical universe are never in total equilibrium. They eventually disintegrate. Therefore physical universe will also eventually disappear probably to be followed by another physical universe and so on.

The above is very unlike what has been said about brahman and therefore physical universe cannot be equated with brahman.

Maya is the power that is operating when it makes you to live in make-believe world. You definitely do not believe that it is not real. It is very similar to the reality in a dream. While you dream you believe in the reality of the dream. The power of maya is similar. If you say it can be evaded you only mean you come out of the grip of maya by self realization

Dear Sri.Sravna Sir, Greetings.

Entities in the universe may not seem to be in 'equilibrium'. But the total effect is always in equilibrium. The universe on the whole is one entity. The universe is at rest. It does not do a thing.

Let us say, I am resting. Quite possibly, I am dozing off after a nice tasty lunch (howmuch I wish this to be true!). My lungs are expanding and contracting at a rate of 18 times per minute; My heart pumps blood in the systemic circulation system at the rate of 72 times per minute; My stomach churns my lunch; kidneys clean up the system; blood runs around the system; in my dream, I am making love to my wife.... I am resting, I am not doing a thing! Hope you get the drift.

Entities make up the universe will disintegrate, true. new entities would come along; that's also true. But still, the universe does not change. It may get a new look, but it's still the only universe.

In 1947 India had a population of about 300 million? or there abouts? today, the population is about 1.1 billion? or more? millions of new houses built since 1947? the face of India has changed dramatically in the 60 odd years? ...... It may look very different; but still, this is still India. Apply the same analogy for the universe, please.

Universe is just one. It is eternal. It is in equilibrium. Universe and Brahman are the same.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Raghy,

You are getting confused. Physical Universe represents the lower reality of brahman. Even according to science we are not sure whether universe is eternal or not. There is a fundamental problem in considering physical universe as eternal as we need to explain the source of energy and matter. The problem can be solved if It can only be thought of emanating from the really eternal spiritual stuff. Thus physical universes are not eternal but come and go corresponding to the lower realities of brahman.

Also pure Brahman is totally unchanging, does not possess parts and has self consciousness all important nature of it and none of that can be ascribed to the physical universe.

 

[renuka]

''Song of Creation' from Rig Veda (Chp X, hymn 129). English translation of the song by J. Muir .


' Then there was neither Aught nor Nougth, no air nor sky beyond,

What covered all? Where rested all? In watery gulf profound?

Nor death was then, nor deathlessness, nor change of night and day.

That one breathed calmly, self sustained; nought beyond it lay.

Gloom hid in gloom existed first- one sea, eluding view.

That one, a void in chaos wrapt, by inward fervor grew.

Within it first arose desire, the primal germ of mind,

Which nothing with existence links, as sages searching find.

The kindling ray that shot across the dark and dearer abyss-

Was it beneath? or high aloft? What bard can answer this?

There fecundating powers were found, and mighty forces strove-

A self supporting mass beneath, and energy above.

Who knows, who ever told, from whence this vast creation rose?

No gods had then been born-who then can e'er the truth disclose?

Whence sprang this world, and whether framed by hand divine or no-

Its Lord in heaven alone can tell, if even He can show?

 

[Raghy]

Dear Shri Raghy,

You are getting confused. Physical Universe represents the lower reality of brahman. Even according to science we are not sure whether universe is eternal or not. There is a fundamental problem in considering physical universe as eternal as we need to explain the source of energy and matter. The problem can be solved if It can only be thought of emanating from the really eternal spiritual stuff. Thus physical universes are not eternal but come and go corresponding to the lower realities of brahman.

Also pure Brahman is totally unchanging, does not possess parts and has self consciousness all important nature of it and none of that can be ascribed to the physical universe.

Dear Sri.Sravna Sir, Greetings. Thanks for your input.

It is true we do not know everything about the universe; what little we know itself boggles one's mind. When I started my inputs, I opted to stay out of the question "how the universe started?"; I still wish to stay out of that question for now. For discussion purposes, shall we just say, the universe is here now, please?

I notice, you are using 'universes' as in plural form. There are no 'universes'; universe is singular. Universe contains everything. Even if we have multi layers of cosmos set up, all the layers combined together is 'universe'. Universe just includes everything. So, there can not be a plural to universe.

I don't understand the 'lower reality' or 'higher reality' of brahman. In my opinion, Brahman is "The Reality", just one. I don't see higher/lower/physical/spiritual realities. If we differentiate reality as absolute reality and relative reality, one of the 'realities' may become 'unreal' at one stage. But that is not true. So, there can be just one 'reality'.

Energy and matter contained within the universe would be the same, at all times. That's how the universe is kept in equilibrium. Let us suppose, in 2012 Nibiru slams on the Earth; quite possibly, earth may disintegrate into small asteroids, forming one more asteroid belt; But that cosmic event in the universe may not even be felt, because earth is but a tiny dot in the universe.

I am still only talking about 'Nirguna Brahman'. Actually, in my opinion, only Nirguna Brahman may be present in the form of the universe.

I beg to disagree with you when you say 'pure brahman' does not have parts; we don't know that. No one has seen the brahman as explained in Hinduism scpirtures.

If you say 'pure brahman' does it mean there can be an 'applied brahman'? I don't think so. There can be but just one brahman.

This Brahman does not cause Maya in any way. Maya can not exist on its own. For an illusion to take place, there have to be three entities in consideration. A subject experiencing the illusion; an object causing the illusion; and something known to the subject whose presence is imagined by the subject. Of the three entities, the reality is the object viewed by the subject. That object did not cause the illusion, but the subjects imagination caused the illusion.

Let us consider the example of a mirage. Let us also consider a person who was born in a desert and never left that desert. Let us say, that person had never seen a lake or ocean; that peson is unlikely to see the mirage, because, that person would not imagine watching a lake in the mirage, since that person can not identify a lake when he/she sees one.

So, Maya is not a constant; it changes from person to person. Also, Maya can not exist on its own; it needs a subject to have an illusion.

Maya can be easily beaten. Maya is not that hard as explained in the Hindu scriptures. Brahman has nothing to do with Maya in anyway. Brahman did not cause Maya; we caused Maya and blame Brahman for that!

Sri.Sravna Sir, I am not really keen on any of the philosophies namely Advaita, dwaita or vishishtatdviata. Unless one does not understand Brahman and Maya properly, what is the point of discussing those philosophies?

It is very easy to say, I am confused. But I have not seen anyone explaining Brahman in a layperson term, with easy to understand explanations and examples.

In our discussion so far, I have shown Brahman in an objective way; related all the attributes of Brahman in an objectve way that can be seen by everyone. I have touched Maya; I have not got into the details yet. But I have shown objectively, why Maya is not any part of Brahman; shown objectively why Maya can not exist on it's own.

Kindly comment on this post, please. Thank you.

Cheers!

 

[renuka]

Brahman and Maya by Swami Dayananda Saraswati


http://www.discovervedanta.com/downloads/articles/brahman-and-maya.pdf

 

[Raghy]

Brahman and Maya by Swami Dayananda Saraswati


http://www.discovervedanta.com/downloads/articles/brahman-and-maya.pdf

Sowbagyavathy, Dear Renuka, Greetings. Thank you for the link.

I refer to the first paragraph in the article, please. Brahman is formless, shapeless; agreed. There is no need for Brahman accompany 'Maya' to be able to become 'the world of forms'.

Two questions crop in my mind; What forms are we talking about? I don't see any form or shape around me. Still I see this world as 'formless'. That's why I prefered the whole universe; certainly no shapes or forms; all the entities within included in the equation.

second question is, if the brahman has to 'couple with Maya', then Maya exists on its own. Brahman is the reality; so, Maya has to be a part of the reality, even in some applications. But, Maya is an illusion, imagined by a confused mind. Such illusions change from person to person. Brahman does not change from person to person; Brahman is not confused; so, Maya can not be any part of Brahman.

Cheers!

 

[renuka]

Sowbagyavathy, Dear Renuka, Greetings. Thank you for the link.

I refer to the first paragraph in the article, please. Brahman is formless, shapeless; agreed. There is no need for Brahman accompany 'Maya' to be able to become 'the world of forms'.

Two questions crop in my mind; What forms are we talking about? I don't see any form or shape around me. Still I see this world as 'formless'. That's why I prefered the whole universe; certainly no shapes or forms; all the entities within included in the equation.

second question is, if the brahman has to 'couple with Maya', then Maya exists on its own. Brahman is the reality; so, Maya has to be a part of the reality, even in some applications. But, Maya is an illusion, imagined by a confused mind. Such illusions change from person to person. Brahman does not change from person to person; Brahman is not confused; so, Maya can not be any part of Brahman.

Cheers!

Dear Raghy Ji,

1)Why do you feel "There is no need for Brahman accompany 'Maya' to be able to become 'the world of forms" ?
Then how do you suggest world of forms came into being from the spiritual point of view?

2) When we say form..most of us view it as rigid and not interchangable.Nothing is ever rigid and not interchangable in this world.Even water changes form gaseous,liquid and solid and everything disintegrates to the 5 elements eventually biodegradable or not.
So here when the word formless is used..its denotes a state that is beyond change..Nirvikara.

3)Yes illusion is not fix either(Thats whats Maya is all about)..it does change from mind to mind..its not imagined by a confused mind but rather what the mind precepts and interprets.
Brahman is beyond confusion as you correctly put but you make Maya sound like as if its Confused on its own.Maya is not confused..its just an illusionary projection.

Brahman does not change in anyway with or without Maya.
When we talk about Brahman and Maya here we are just discussing interelated states that in no way change the actual "source"that is Brahman.

So why do you think Maya cant be part of Brahman?

What is NOT part of Brahman? Can you enumerate?

Brahman + or - anything is still verily Brahman.(In reality there is no addition nor subtraction)

Om pUrNamadah pUrNamidaM pUrNAt pUrNamudacyate
PUrNasya pUrNamAdAya pUrNamEvAvashiSyate

 

[sravna]

First I will start with maya because it is easy to relate. You see the physical world around you. You perceive them through your five senses and then through your mind. You deduce something about it Now the thing, is the knowledge you gain this way is in no way related to the real knowledge. What you gain this way is false knowledge. This is because your perceptions are misleading you. They make you see reality in a certain way which is far from the truth. The physical world exsts for you to learn and realize what false knowledge is and then lead you to the correct knowledge. Maya is the term used to refer to the cause of this false perception.

Since the physical reality disppears after self realization by the jiva ( I am simplifying a bit) there is an absolute reality beyond that which exists forever. That reality is sheer experience and is called brahman. Since brahman is the absolute reality it has to be in the nature of brahman which is responsible for this "illusion" of physical universe or in other words the power of maya should be in the nature of brahman.

Just as you want me to take for granted the beginning of the universe, I rely on the scriptures when I say certain things about brahman and maya. At this point I am more concerned in showing that advaita is a consistent philosophy

 

[Raghy]

Sowbagyavathy Dear Renuka,

1. Brahman can and would be on its own. Brahman need not couple with Maya or anything else. When everything is Brahman,such Brahman can only be alone. The world of forms are included in the Brahman. Any learned person would see the world of forms as brahman; such person would not attribute shapes and forms to Brahman. All the 'world of forms' are not permanent. Face of the earth changes all the time, but still stays as earth. So does this universe. Nothing really changes. That's why I said, 'Brahman need not accompany Maya' to be able to become the world of forms (as seen in the first paragraph of the article). I don't see any forms at all. So, there is no question of 'brahman accompanying Maya' at any stage. Brahman is real. It's power has to be real; it can't be an illusion. So, Brahman's power can't be Maya.

2. I don't see any changes around me; I don't see any forms. The world and the universe is formless, in my opinion. All that seems to change, are changing within presribed formulae. I see everything in order. So, I skip the point number two. Does not apply to me, really.

3. I am not saying Maya is confused on it's own. I am saying Maya can't exist on it's own. Maya is the result of the imagination of a confused mind. Yes, it is the confused mind that projects the illusion. If not for the confused mind of the subject, Maya can not exist. Why do you say, Maya is the perception and interpretation of the mind, in general? It is not. The mind has to imagine something unreal for Maya to exist. When I see the rope in the dim light, if my mind interprets the object as rope without any imagination of snake at all, there is no Maya. When when I mistake the rope to a snake, Maya creeps in.

Try this for size - when I don't differentiate between a rope and a snake, I don't suffer from Maya either. When I step on it, I don't care it stays still since it is rope, nor I care if it bites me since it is a snake. Can you imagine such a condition? That is the condition where you are free from Maya.

Cheers!