Is Religion Itself Maya?

[sangom]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Sravna,

Isn't that like throwing a person in prison for a crime he had not yet committed so that he will learn that in future he should not commit crime?

I guess the only way to escape from the prison would be recite this???

Om Asato Maa Sad-Gamaya |
Tamaso Maa Jyotir-Gamaya |
Mrtyor-Maa Amrtam Gamaya |
Om Shaantih Shaantih Shaantih ||

Smt. Renuka,

When you talk of or recommend reciting of "asato maa .... etc.", you are in effect endorsing the religious viewpoint only, because it implies appeal to some higher agent outside of yourself. There is as of the present, no evidence of any such "external god". All that we have are assertions - without any proof - by religious authorities and scriptures. Hinduism may boast of having at least a set of philosophies which perceive this world as illusory or as the exact opposite thereof. I think most other religions proceed on the assumptions of this world bring very real and a creator god having created it.

As I have said on a few occasions earlier also, we humans have absolutely no idea about what was - before the present birth, and what will be - after death; all that we have is the present life or janma. This is so because this "I" exists only for the present lifetime. Charvakas philosophized on this basis. But orthodox hinduism could not afford such a philosophy to grow except at its own peril and it (vedic hinduism) exterminated the Charvaka philosophy. Buddhism also converged towards a similar view, but, somehow there has been lot of doubts on account of the jaataka tales. Sankara was the best known and highly respected philosopher to propound the "jaganmithyaa" claim; yet, he also had to accommodate the inerrancy of the vedas and so, in his effort to do that, he also had to accommodate much of the day-to-day hinduism, perhaps.

The truth seems to me to be that each one of us is 'experiencing' this world and this jagat, as some short-term lease holders and once death terminates this lease, there is neither the "I" nor the 'jagat'. Those who continue to live continue to percieve this 'jagat' as though it is real, does not prove the continued reality or "sat" nature of the world. It is more like a mirage which each person feels as though he/she sees but it does not exist. And, Sankara did not use the word maaya; he said it is 'adhyaasa' - something that influences or covers with.

We have to see through this covering (and Sankara recommends deep contemplation for this) in order to understand the real nature of "I".

 

[auh]

Dear Renuka,

Let me explain..I am not denying the existence of a Universal Consciousness.

One thing while engaging in a critical analysis is to keep beliefs aside, however strong may be our faith in them.

My thoughts and questions are shaped as I go on exploring..

That is the way it should be...

BTW if I want to deny the existence of anything I need to be very sure before I make any judgment or statement.

Precisely, but this should apply to denial as well as acceptance.

How am I supposed to believe any religious text is 100% right in that case??... after all it was compiled by humans.

Well, to be honest, we wouldnt know if it is even 25% right... or 10%...

...my question about Maya..you see I am not rejecting any theory here..I am being logical and going step by step.

Then you have to come out of the bundle of religious assertions and definitions and analyze them in an impartial manner, considering the feasibility of alternatives as well.

Regards,

 

[amoghvarsha]

Respected Renukaji,
Usually the concept of " Maya" is misunderstood. Maya is not illusion. It is illusion for only those people who see a person's state only as soul( which is basically correct) and see body only as a illusionary fabric without any importance. Maya a power of The God( Lord MahaVishnu) which is "jada" ( Static) in nature. It can be reffered as "Nature" or "material force" by which material world( which can be percieved by our 5 karmendhriya, 5 Jyanendriya and mind) is created. So, we donot have to shun it. We don't have to get entangled in maya( only material world). Shunning maya is as if shunning ur own material( Body) existence which is impossible in the present case until u achive Moksha( Kaivalya, Nirvana, BrahmaVidya, Parampada, Parabhakti, Shunyata, Salvation,etc). This was the theoritical and Theological explaination of "Maya".
Now, coming to religion which is translated to "Dharma", then in Indian Philosophical context there are two Dharmas 1) Shreya- Higher one regarding "soul" which is eternal and never changes( Ideally to be followed to get Moksha) and 2) Preya dharma- one for ur survival on material plane-regarding body which changes according to conditions. Varnashram dharma and "Religious Rituals"comes in Preya category as they deal with material aspect and can change with course of time. For more details" Refer Kathopanishad-YamaRaja & Nachiketas samvad.....
Thus, both materialists and spritualists are wrong in catching only one aspect of life.
If u r a materialist only, u r just a slave of Nature's dictates, as u r not doing anything for ur soul-that which is ur real identity. If u r only a spritualist then u r even in worse condition coz u r denying the very basis of ur life. How can u live in a world which is dualistic in nature just by being Non-dual( only u) and declaring everything as illusion. Truth is this world is real and we should strive to live ideally in this very world.
In The End, I would I to one of the best mantras from ShuklaYajurVeda( Isavasyopanishad-Seer Dadhyach Atharvan)
"Into blinding darkness enter those whoworship the unmanifest and into still
greater darkness, as it were, those who
delight in the manifest." - SYV 40.12

"He who understands the manifest and
the unmanifest both together, crosses death
through the unmanifest and attains life
eternal through the manifest." - SYV-40.14

 

[renuka]

Smt. Renuka,

When you talk of or recommend reciting of "asato maa .... etc.", you are in effect endorsing the religious viewpoint only, because it implies appeal to some higher agent outside of yourself.

Dear Sangom ji,

When I replied Sravna with the "Asato Maa" ..my post was not endorsing religious view point.

In fact I will be honest enough to admit that was with some hint of sarcasm.

I was just picturing a person in "Alcatrez" who had given up hope to escape and then coins a stanza to make him believe there is a Savior to lead him and rescue him.


The human mind can react differently to situations..under severe depression or extreme euphoria one might want to mentally create a Savior.That is the the extreme way to survive in mentally hostile situations.

Many saints of the past did display euphoria which many people called Samadhi.

Both depression and euphoria can bring out linguistic skills and many people come up with wonderful poetry and stories.

So I was just wondering if in a frenzy of a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde situation was religion created???

 

[renuka]

Dear Auh ji,

Answers in blue.

Dear Renuka,One thing while engaging in a critical analysis is to keep beliefs aside, however strong may be our faith in them.
That is the way it should be...

I view anything as point of view till proven otherwise..whether its philosophy or science..so I have an open mind when it comes to analysis.

Precisely, but this should apply to denial as well as acceptance.

True..right now I am just exploring..but I am still holding on to the concept of Universal Consciousness...I dont want to rush cos I could be right or wrong or even both.


Well, to be honest, we wouldnt know if it is even 25% right... or 10%...

Yes you are right.

Then you have to come out of the bundle of religious assertions and definitions and analyze them in an impartial manner, considering the feasibility of alternatives as well.

As I said..I am the in process of exploring..so to explore something I have to be in it too.. in an impartial manner though.. for example to know an full blown orgasm one needs to have sex.

Regards,

 

[tks]

I have been a member of this site since 2008. What is *MAYA* to me is that there have been umpteen number of threads and discussions on this topic without any one even attempting to give a broad-line, leave alone a definition, of what maya or reality or the grey area in between these two entities is.

Hi Narayan

I assume you made this comment to all the readers.

Since you quoted my statement let me provide a reaction to your comment. It is not a satisfactory answer because that is not possible in a forum of any kind in my view. If someone differs from me they are welcome to go ahead.

A simplified definition of Maya is 'that which is not real'.

Maya is not an attribute or an item as it is used sometimes in some threads. Maya is not an explanation for what we perceive as the world. It is merely a definition (of unreality). There are no equivalent words in English or any other language to express it though many teachers have made superb attempts. The reason is because to define Maya one has to understand what is reality.

Question such as Why Maya, how Maya are meaningless. This can become apparent only when 'what is Maya' is understood with more context (which will require deep dive into vedanta as whole).

===========

I know there are serious readers and posters of messages with good intention. However in my view, the most one can get here are knowing some references to specific questions, getting to know some people, debating activity mostly unconnected to our 'self growth' and derivation of fun while debating for entertainment using Vedantic terms.

 

[tks]

.
.

Ok let me get very simple..Most revered Swamijis of the past including deified ones went with the theory of the Aryan race as a separate race from the rest of the Non Aryan inhabitants of the Indian Subcontinent and majority of people believed it.

I still remember a very famous Swamiji..I cant remember whom whether it was Swami Vivekananda or Swami Sivananda who once wrote that while travelling in Kashmir he happened to see a young Kashmiri girl in a field and he remarked that this was the Aryan race in the purest form whose complexion was as white as milk with a drop of blood in it.He clearly saw Aryan as a race and not a definition which just meant "Noble one".

Now after scientific advancement with DNA and all..now everyone is singing a different tune.

Ok you see..if these Swamiji's are supposed to be spiritually advanced..how come they did not get direct revelation from God that the Aryan Dravidian theory is some so called White man made up theory?

Why only after DNA studies came into being that this was disproved??

So if those so called spiritually advanced Gurus did not get this right....that only shows that their knowledge is from text books just like anyone of us isnt it?

So what is the difference between us and the so called spiritually advanced?

How am I supposed to believe any religious text is 100% right in that case??... after all it was compiled by humans.

Next..my question about Maya..you see I am not rejecting any theory here..I am being logical and going step by step.

I am not picking and choosing either..I am not unhappy with anything..otherwise I wont spend so much time daily reading up text etc to aid my understanding.

I want to know more and not just accept anything just becos some guy said so and be a Ba Ba Black Sheep and just echo Yes Sir Yes Sir Three Bags full.

I hope you understand that I want to know more and not pick or choose.

I believe in the All or None Phenomenon..that is it either makes sense or it does not.

Hence my question "Is Religion Itself Maya?"

Dr Renu

Do you see this rethinking your understanding & beliefs changing over time gradually or there was an event that triggered a phase transition ..Was there a triggering event?

Why believe in any Swamis however exalted status they are given? If what they say makes sense then and only then we can follow. If someone talked about some theory with conviction without any qualification and they are shown wrong they have to learn in order to be taken seriously next time. The people I have listened have never asserted areas they knew nothing about even for an example.

Do not believe any text - religious or otherwise ...They have to be understood in the context of very few 'self evident' information and they cannot contain self contradictory information. In the end the text has to be useful

The purpose of useful religious practice is for you to help outgrow it.. without going beyond religion there can be no progress.

Regards

 

[renuka]

Dr Renu

Do you see this rethinking your understanding & beliefs changing over time gradually or there was an event that triggered a phase transition ..Was there a triggering event?


The purpose of useful religious practice is for you to help outgrow it.. without going beyond religion there can be no progress.

Regards

Dear TKS ji,

There is no triggering event..no Eureka moment too..it is just that some questions and thoughts come to our mind as we read and explore.

I do find some contradictions most of the time.

When I read some works..mostly females are thought as an "enemy" of a man who wants to progress spiritually..the famous Kamini and Kanchana advise to Brahmacharins....this makes me wonder..the very word nArI itself denoting a female means na(not) ari(enemy)..which translates as Not an Enemy(a friend)..so why choose to call her enemy when nArI means friend?

Couldn't ancients decide what they really wanted to say?? Why was everyone so bipolar?

Brahmacharins should be taught that desire is our own enemy and the sexual instinct is one of the most difficult desire to get over..and they should be taught how to handle it and not taught to view a woman with contempt..when we have contempt or hatred for anything we only create another stumbling block for ourselves..that is after getting over sexual desire..now we have to get over hatred.

The blame game seems the name of the game everywhere..very few text ask us to rectify ourselves..remember the story where the sage steals from a house he ate in and the next day the servant is blamed for it cos the servant used to be a thief before and since she had cooked the food for the sage...the sage got influenced by her bad thoughts...why didnt the sage blame himself for the theft when it was him who stole at that time and not the servant?

If that theory of bad thoughts holds good that the servant being an ex thief could influence a sage by just preparing his food..then why no one becomes a highway robber after reading Ramayan? After all Sage Valmiki was once upon a time the infamous highway robber Ratnakara.

So you see there is a lot of discrepancy and contradictions and very less emphasis on self introspection and only the blame game is played..now if this is truth..I really do not know how to even spell untruth.

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangom ji,

When I replied Sravna with the "Asato Maa" ..my post was not endorsing religious view point.

In fact I will be honest enough to admit that was with some hint of sarcasm.

I was just picturing a person in "Alcatrez" who had given up hope to escape and then coins a stanza to make him believe there is a Savior to lead him and rescue him.


The human mind can react differently to situations..under severe depression or extreme euphoria one might want to mentally create a Savior.That is the the extreme way to survive in mentally hostile situations.

Many saints of the past did display euphoria which many people called Samadhi.

Both depression and euphoria can bring out linguistic skills and many people come up with wonderful poetry and stories.

So I was just wondering if in a frenzy of a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde situation was religion created???

Smt. Renuka,

Well, the sarcasm did not show off well enough for me. Hence excuse me.

You will definitely know much more and much better than I do, about euphoria state. But my own layman impression is that except when it is drug-induced, the euphoric state is short-lived and may not last more than a few minutes maximum. Pl. correct me if I am wrong. Hence, the chances of people composing poetry and/or stories etc., while under euphoria, is minimal. I know some people spinning out lovable songs or lines of original poetry when in the beginning stages of alcohol. But some lapse into crying and grief as well !

Our Swamijis - at least many of them - use Charas (Cannabis) or some such drug so as to remain in a state of happiness. But religon or religions cannot be said to be created in such fits of euphoria. AFA my reading tells me, religions are carefully designed business proposals and each one of the religions appeals to one or another group of people. In reality, however, religions were spread by using many ruthless measures also and this applies to the old vedic hindu religion also. (I am not sure of any violence having been used to spread hinduism after the medieval times, i.e., after buddhism was practically razed out.)

 

[Vaagmi]

Dear Sangom ji,

This is what I was thinking about...that when our very existence itself is cloaked by Maya starting right from the Big Bang..then how come only words of Vedas etc is real?

How can there be even a fraction of "Real" in this apparent Unreal?

If this is true that Vedas /Religion/Matam/Words of Rishis etc is real and it leads to Self Realization that would only prove that Maya does have some exceptions and does not cloud everything from us..so doesn't that itself goes against the function of Maya?

Imagining the Unreal as Real would not make me any different from a person with delusion..the more one reads..the more one senses discrepancy..so finally all we have is our own self to fall back upon... a man can only help himself and no one else can help him realize.

Dear Renuka,

While my intention is not to be assuming a superior intellectual ground, I can not but tell you what I feel. You have taken the first few faltering steps in understanding the reality. The journey is not going to be a short one. I wish you all the best.

 

[sangom]

Dear TKS ji,

There is no triggering event..no Eureka moment too..it is just that some questions and thoughts come to our mind as we read and explore.

I do find some contradictions most of the time.

When I read some works..mostly females are thought as an "enemy" of a man who wants to progress spiritually..the famous Kamini and Kanchana advise to Brahmacharins....this makes me wonder..the very word nArI itself denoting a female means na(not) ari(enemy)..which translates as Not an Enemy(a friend)..so why choose to call her enemy when nArI means friend?

Couldn't ancients decide what they really wanted to say?? Why was everyone so bipolar?

Brahmacharins should be taught that desire is our own enemy and the sexual instinct is one of the most difficult desire to get over..and they should be taught how to handle it and not taught to view a woman with contempt..when we have contempt or hatred for anything we only create another stumbling block for ourselves..that is after getting over sexual desire..now we have to get over hatred.

The blame game seems the name of the game everywhere..very few text ask us to rectify ourselves..remember the story where the sage steals from a house he ate in and the next day the servant is blamed for it cos the servant used to be a thief before and since she had cooked the food for the sage...the sage got influenced by her bad thoughts...why didnt the sage blame himself for the theft when it was him who stole at that time and not the servant?

If that theory of bad thoughts holds good that the servant being an ex thief could influence a sage by just preparing his food..then why no one becomes a highway robber after reading Ramayan? After all Sage Valmiki was once upon a time the infamous highway robber Ratnakara.

So you see there is a lot of discrepancy and contradictions and very less emphasis on self introspection and only the blame game is played..now if this is truth..I really do not know how to even spell untruth.

Smt. Renuka,

Kindly permit me to express my views on some of the points you touch upon in your above post.

When I read some works..mostly females are thought as an "enemy" of a man who wants to progress spiritually..the famous Kamini and Kanchana advise to Brahmacharins....this makes me wonder..the very word nArI itself denoting a female means na(not) ari(enemy)..which translates as Not an Enemy(a friend)..so why choose to call her enemy when nArI means friend?

The word nAri or nArI comes from nAra = belonging to/proceeding from Man, human, and I have yet to see the vigraha as na +arI. Our hindu religion has been consistent in viewing woman as man's chattel.

Brahmacharins should be taught that desire is our own enemy and the sexual instinct is one of the most difficult desire to get over..and they should be taught how to handle it and not taught to view a woman with contempt..when we have contempt or hatred for anything we only create another stumbling block for ourselves..that is after getting over sexual desire..now we have to get over hatred.

We must remember the state of the society which existed in those days. Brahmacharis, i.e., the boys belonging to the three Dwija castes/varnas (if you so think) had to spend their teenages in the Gurukulam and learning at least their respective veda for a minimum of 12 years. This meant that the Gurus were having a number of young and virile teenaged males. According to the customs, the Guru could not afford to live without a Dharmapatni which alone would make him eligible to perform many of the religious rites enjoined on him. Even when a Guru might have become a widower, he would have married another and I am not very sure about how far monogamy was strictly followed in the ancient periods. Plus, the vedic scholars who performed the elaborate yajnas for the kings could even get nubile young girls as Dakshina for such priestly work done.

In these circumstances, it was possibly of utmost importance to emphasize that illicit sex with gurupatni was one of the most abominable sins and hence, as in many other things, our ancients adopted the extreme technique and painted woman itself as the source of the greatest sin, etc. I am told that among the buddhist priests also same method is adopted even now.

The blame game seems the name of the game everywhere..very few text ask us to rectify ourselves..remember the story where the sage steals from a house he ate in and the next day the servant is blamed for it cos the servant used to be a thief before and since she had cooked the food for the sage...the sage got influenced by her bad thoughts...why didnt the sage blame himself for the theft when it was him who stole at that time and not the servant?

If that theory of bad thoughts holds good that the servant being an ex thief could influence a sage by just preparing his food..then why no one becomes a highway robber after reading Ramayan? After all Sage Valmiki was once upon a time the infamous highway robber Ratnakara.

This is just yet another instance of the extreme technique and in the overenthusiasm to paint one thing as very, very bad, our writers forgot that there can be other finer facets But if you ask any of the religious believers even today, they will take only the moral which is supposed to be taken and may go on calling others as "negative souls" or things like that. You have to understand that in religion such stories have only the morals which are intended, neither more, nor less!

Ramayana is not eaten and it is not absorbed (even by the brain - just loud reading, blah, blah, to impress others! ha, ha) by the body. But even then it has its effects; why do you think most of our self-proclaimed too religious fellows are, in reality, rogues - much worse than robbers?

 

[Anand Manohar]

Post # 34

Wow! Great enlightening words from one who (supposedly) has gone the distance !!

Yay Yem

 

[Vaagmi]

Dear Renuka,

I wanted to answer your question. I found sri sangom's post quite handy. So I have taken it and used it to present my views on this complex topic. Hope sangom won't mind.

post #7 by Sangom:

Now you seem to have come to a milestone in the correct path—i.e., you have got this doubt whether "religion itself is delusion or

māyā? My sincere answer is a resounding YES.

1.If maya is taken to mean delusion-as it appears to be the case here-then I differ with this perception. Religion is not maya. If you and I are real, if the questions that come to you and me in our minds are real and the answers we get are also real then religion is also real. If this point itself is not acceptable please do not read further. If you are maya or delusion and I am maya to you then every thing will be delusion to you(not to me) and there is no use going further into this discussion with a delusion. Religion is not a delusion because it speaks about objects that exist. This will take you immediately to God and the question as to whether He/She/It exists at all. That is a different topic and can be discussed separately. For the present it is enough if we take that religion speaks about God and

One definite characteristic of all (man-made) religions - because we don't have any proven god-given religion - is that there is a god outside yourself and that god does practically everything which the priesthood says that IT does or will do. And these are (to be) accepted without question. One other example of similar unquestioning trust which the religionists often used to cite was the paternity of anyone which is accepted from one's mother's words, blindly; but today there is genetics coming to help if someone has a doubt in this regard.

2.There may be religions which are man-made. But Hinduism is not one of them. A religion is a belief system. It is a chronicle in which generations of thinkers over millions of years have recorded the answers they found to the questions that arose in their thinking. It is the quintessence of what they realised and intuited. The God idea answers many of the questions that arise in our mind about the universe and our existence. So it becomes the centre of these belief systems. When we are troubled by the questions that arise in our mind, we do not go about inventing the wheels again. We quickly get to know what ancestors have found and then start from tnere our own exploration.The priesthood interprets these recorded ideas for the benefit of those who approach them for their help. If you can interpret it yourself you dont need the help of a priest. Only because you have questions you approach a priest Priesthood consists of good and not so good elements as they are just human beings. Moreover a belief is just a belief arrived at after a lot of questioning.

This blind, unquestioning belief is what most religions want and those religions do not insist on this just for philosophical debates; they want the believers to shell out their hard-earned money to the establishment called religion so that places of worship and their managers fatten themselves on such exploitation.

3.If you are in your senses you would never shell out your hard earned money unless you see benefits accruing to you in exchange for the money shelled out. Priests never hold a gun to your head and demand acceptance of what they say or payment for their services.

If you calmly contemplate, this whole world, nay this universe itself, is

māyā and we experience this universe more or less uniformly because the principle of LIFE which makes us living entities, works the same way through very similar apparatuses called physical bodies. If all that we experience, is itself a kind of make-believe or fantasy, then how can religion, god, etc., be the exceptions? No, not possible.

4.I calmly contemplated and i got this:

The whole world nay this universe is real just as I am real and you are real. We experience this universe uniformly because our equipments are similar. We are all finite entities and are real. The objects we see are also real and there is no delusion about that. We are real and our experiences are real. What we perceive is subject to one qualification. What I see as red in color may be really blue(my blue) for you and what you see as green may be 'my yellow' because we are finite entities contained in a body and there is no common denominator for the impact of colors on our mind. Red, green and yellow are all impacts on the viewers mind. Even science is able to only tell us the wavelength/frequency of the component of the light. As the colors are the attributes of the object seen which is real there is no confusion and we are able to communicate meaningfully about the objects. So objects are real and their attributes too are real. When I see the green color in a raw mango and yellow color in a ripe mango it is not a fantasy. It is not similar to the fantasizing that happens due to a mind expanding opiate taken.

The mystery lies in the feeling of "I" and "mine" vs "you" and "not mine" which, due to reasons yet unknown, automatically arise in the living being. If you, Smt. Renuka, are able to contemplate deep into this then I am sure you will come to realize that religion, gods, etc., just like everything else in this world

​

is essentially unreal but we have to behave as if these are all realities, finish our acting - guided by our inner light - and then the bubble of life bursts and there is only a decaying corpse left. The more you realize, the greater will be your amazement at the inner god which is one and the same in the Rishi, Svapaaka etc.
​

5.My understanding is this. This life is just a chapter in a long narrative with many chapters and we are unable to see the whole script as we remain within this chapter. It is here that the belief system comes in. The God idea, the scriptures, the wisdom passed down through generations etc.,

This has become quite lengthy. Please read the next post in which I am posting a kavithai which I wrote about what I have said in para 4 above. It is in Tamil. I wrote it down 15 years back when I was troubled by many questions and was in search of answers for them. The kavithai is in Tamil and please get it translated. Thanks.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

. You have taken the first few faltering steps in understanding the reality.

Dear Vaagmi ji,


It is understandable for anyone too feel that I have taken a few faltering steps...when I asked my husband the same question he was totally shocked!LOL

Even till now he is asking me "hey are u becoming an atheist or a Buddhist??is this anything to do with the Boddhisattva incident in the museum?"

So you see I can totally understand if you feel I am faltering.

But all I can tell you that is as long a person does not harm anyone or themselves mentally,verbally and physically he/she can never falter.

 

[renuka]

2.There may be religions which are man-made. But Hinduism is not one of them.

Dear Vaagmi ji,

How are you so sure??

 

[Vaagmi]

Dear Vaagmi ji,

How are you so sure??

Dear Renukaji,

Please enlighten me as to who made Hinduism?

 

[Vaagmi]

Dear Vaagmi ji,


It is understandable for anyone too feel that I have taken a few faltering steps...when I asked my husband the same question he was totally shocked!LOL

Even till now he is asking me "hey are u becoming an atheist or a Buddhist??is this anything to do with the Boddhisattva incident in the museum?"

So you see I can totally understand if you feel I am faltering.

But all I can tell you that is as long a person does not harm anyone or themselves mentally,verbally and physically he/she can never falter.

A child takes it's first few steps falteringly. No one in his senses would ever think it is harming itself or anyone else mentally, verbally or physically. Every one is delighted about the faltering steps. Poets have even written beautiful kavithai about the unsteady, faltering steps taken by a child. So do not worry.

 

[Vaagmi]

This kavithai was written by me about 15 years back. I dont know whether this can pass as a kavithai because I have not bothered to subject it to the strict test of grammar of prosody. I wrote it when I was touring Nepal (when I had a minor health problem and was trying to explain it to a doctor there) just keeping in mind only the chandam (rhyme). Please bear with me if you are a tamil scholar and you find it grammatically not passing the test.

ஊமையன் கண்ட கனவு

ஊமையன் ஒரு கனவு கண்டால் அதை
யாரிடம் எப்படிக்கூறிடுவான்?
வீணை மீட்டும் விரல்களையிழந்த
வைணிகன் எவ்வாறுணர்ந்திடுவான்?
எல்லாம் உணர்வுகள் உணர்வுகளே
வெளிப்பாடில்லா உணர்வுகளே.

பொங்கிவருது பெருநிலவு
பூத்து நிற்குது புதுமலர்.
பச்சைப்பசேலென
பரந்துகிடக்குது புல்வெளி
"நதியில் விளையாடி கொடியில் தலைசீவி"
நடந்து வருது இளந்தென்றல்.

"ஆயிரம் பாதசரங்கள் கிலுக்கி"
ஆழமாய் தெளிவாய் ஆறாய்
அழகாய் சுழியாய் அருவியாய்
ஓடையாய் ஒழுகுது நதி--
இவையெல்லாம்
காண்பவர் மனதில் தோற்றுவதென்ன?

நிலவின் தண்மை, மலரின் மணம்,
புல்லின் பச்சை, தென்றலின் வருடல்,
ஆற்றின் அழகு எல்லாம் என்ன?
தண்மை என்ன? வெப்பம் என்ன?
பச்சை என்ன? நீலம் என்ன?
மணம் என்ன? வீச்சம் என்ன?

உனக்குள் நீயும் எனக்குள் நானும்
உணரும் இந்த அனுபவமென்ன?
மொழிகட்கப்பால் நின்றிடும் இந்த
புதிருக்கான விடை தான் என்ன?

 

[prasad1]

What is religion:
Religion originates in an attempt to represent and order beliefs, feelings, imaginings and actions that arise in response to direct experience of the sacred and the spiritual. As this attempt expands in its formulation and elaboration, it becomes a process that creates meaning for itself on a sustaining basis, in terms of both its originating experiences and its own continuing responses.

In Hindu religion, in the advaita philosophy there is this term "maya" used to define un-knowledge. So how can that word be used to define Religion?

I am reading a book about some mythical character. I do not have knowledge about the characters with mystical power, so that can be maya, but the book itself is not maya as it is a physical thing that I bought.

So in my opinion the OP is not clear as to what she wants to express.

I can understand that anything written on spoken at any period can be outdated. So the practices may have to change, but that does not make the religion a maya.

Maya is simply our "understanding" about a concept. Maya can not exist without a person's ignorance. If you remove the maya with "right knowledge" you see the truth.

 

[amoghvarsha]

Respected Renukaji,
Usually the concept of " Maya" is misunderstood. Maya is not illusion. Rather its a power of God( Lord MahaVishnu) which is "jada" ( Static) in nature. It can be referred as "Nature" or "material force" by which material world( which can be percieved by our 5 karmendhriya, 5 Jyanendriya and mind) is created. So, we donot have to shun it. We don't have to get entagled in maya. Shunning maya is as if shunning ur own material( Body) existence which is impossible in the present case until u achive Moksha( Kaivalya, Nirvana, BrahmaVidya, Parampada, Parabhakti, Shunyata, Salvation,etc). This was the theoritical and Theological explaination of "Maya".
Now, coming to religion which is translated to "Dharma" , then in Indian Philosophical context there are two Dharmas 1) Shreya- Higher one regarding "soul" which is eternal and never changes( Ideally to be followed to get Moksha) and 2) Preya dharma- one for ur survival on material plane-regarding body which changes according to conditions. Varnashram dharma and "Religious Rituals"comes in Preya category as they deal with material aspect and can change with course of time. For more details" Refer Kathopanishad-YamaRaja & Nachiketas samvad.....
Thus, both materialists and spritualists are wrong in catching only one aspect of life.
If u r a materialist only, u r just a slave of Nature's dictates, as u r not doing anything for ur soul-that which is ur real identity. If u r only a spritualist then u r even in worse condition coz u r denying the very basis of ur life. How can u live in a world which is dualistic in nature just by being Non-dual( only u) and declaring everything as illusion. Truth is this world is real and we should strive to live ideally in this very world.
In The End, I would like to quote one of the best mantras from ShuklaYajurVeda( Isavasyopanishad-Seer Dadhyach Atharvan)
"Into blinding darkness enter those who
worship the unmanifest and into still
greater darkness, as it were, those who
delight in the manifest." - SYV 40.12


"He who understands the manifest and
the unmanifest both together, crosses death
through the unmanifest and attains life
eternal through the manifest." -SYV-40.14

 

[C RAVI]

Dear Auh ji,

Next..my question about Maya..you see I am not rejecting any theory here..I am being logical and going step by step.

If Maya can be logically & scientifically presented to convince each and every rational mind that can accept Maya only by its derivation through equations, algorithms, formula etc..etc, than, there can be nothing called "MAYA" - forming cloud of ignorance/Illusion". How can one even step into exploring the concept of Maya that is totally a different phenomena, that seem to be ridiculing human senses BUT interestingly leading them towards realizations?

I am not picking and choosing either..I am not unhappy with anything..otherwise I wont spend so much time daily reading up text etc to aid my understanding.

I want to know more and not just accept anything just becos some guy said so and be a Ba Ba Black Sheep and just echo Yes Sir Yes Sir Three Bags full.

You say Ba Ba Black Sheep and just echo Yes Sir Yes Sir Three Bags full etc..etc. or don't say, does not differ at all with your intentions with true interest to read scriptures, sutras, slokas, mantras etc.etc, that all were exhaustively prepared by great sages, whom you are now attempting to consider just some mere human like any x, y, z, including yourself; as a logically growing individual, enlightened enough to think rationally, step by step.

I hope you understand that I want to know more and not pick or choose.

I believe in the All or None Phenomenon..that is it either makes sense or it does not.

Hence my question "Is Religion Itself Maya?

Through whom you want to know more about Religion and Maya? From the members here? When you doubt the caliber and the veracity of great sages who compiled many scriptures, slokas, mantras, moola mantras etc..etc., in what way you are expecting true enlightenment through the members here?

Religion, God, Spirituality - all these are shared, accepted and followed Only to the extent of one's heartfelt liking, personal experiences and level of satisfaction. There can be nothing in them that can prove that these are adopted by evaluating them rationally and been logically proved.

 

[renuka]

[video=youtube_share;Al-Vt6SgdpQ]http://youtu.be/Al-Vt6SgdpQ[/video]

When you doubt the caliber and the veracity of great sages who compiled many scriptures, slokas, mantras, moola mantras etc..etc., in what way you are expecting true enlightenment through the members here?

.

Dear Ravi,

Havent you seen Chennai Express?

Dont you remember Shah Rukh Khan's Punch Dialogue?

He said ...."Don't Underestimate the Power of a Common Man"

 

[renuka]

So in my opinion the OP is not clear as to what she wants to express.

Dear Prasad ji,

In a way you are right..actually at first I thought I wanted to name the thread as 'Is religion Mannanggatti?"

Then I thought 'No No..that is not so correct..Mannangatti is not a recognized word in Philosophy..then I was searching for a word with starts with M that matches the meaning I wanted to convey and then I thought of Maya!"

See... no one really knows Maya mumbo jumbo..so that means Maya can be anything..hence on technical grounds I am not wrong to replace Mannangatti with Maya!LOL

 

[renuka]

Dear Renukaji,

Please enlighten me as to who made Hinduism?

I know it wasn't me..so do you have any idea whom??

 

[Nara]

....In a way you are right..actually at first I thought I wanted to name the thread as 'Is religion Mannaggatti?"

If you mean மண்ணாங்கட்டி I think you are missing an "n". But then, at least மண்ணாங்கட்டி is used as analogy for explaining difficult concepts. On the other hand, religion, at best has been an escape from the grim realities of life and at worst a tool in the hands of the wicked to separate people and make them hate each other. On balance, humanity would have been better off without it.