Maya

[C RAVI]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

My position regarding this would be , when you are talking about something spiritual or transcendent you do not say x is the power of the entity or y is an attribute of the entity, because there is no notion of parts or division. Anything you can think of is the enitity itself though could be a lower level reality of that entity.

In our case since nirguna brahman is ruled out for maya, saguna brahman is the other option. But you would not say it is a power of saguna brahman but saguna brahman itself. When you say, your power, it sounds as if you possess something which is not, as there is nothing other than you. You are the power and everything else. It is more of a right use of the terms that helps in better understanding.

Sri Sravna,

I could understand your points. You say that MAYA=SAGUNA BRAHMAN, as MAYA can not be something different that is acquired/possessed by Saguna Brahman, as a unique characteristics. Saguna Brahman is an absolute one level of spiritual reality and that reality in totality includes MAYA.

This seem to be right for me, Shri Sravna.

Since the mind of the jeevathmas are influenced by trigunas, it finds too hard to attain self realization. And when the absolute self realization is attained through toughest saadhana, the soul conquers the tricks of the physical mind and realizes itself similar to brahman. That is, one with the spiritual reality, that comprises of everything without any duality.

 

[C RAVI]

Shri Sravna,

Going by your last post #225 and the last of my post #226, it seem to me that there exists nothing called MAYA. MAYA is just a term used to describe perceiving illusions as realities due to Trigunas of the mind, without perfect synchronization.

All that veils the absolute spiritual reality is the random and imbalanced mix of Rajas and Tamas gunas with Satva guna. There is nothing separately exits that makes attempts towards veiling the truth.

It seem to me that, just the influences of dominant Rajas and Tamas gunas and the resultant outcome leading to recognizing illusions as realities is the phenomena that can just be termed as MAYA.

What say you??

 

[sravna]

Shri Sravna, Going by your last post #225 and the last of my post #226, it seem to me that there exists nothing called MAYA. MAYA is just a term used to describe perceiving illusions as realities due to Trigunas of the mind, without perfect synchronization.

All that veils the absolute spiritual reality is the random and imbalanced mix of Rajas and Tamas gunas with Satva guna. There is nothing separately exits that makes attempts towards veiling the truth.

It seem to me that, just the influences of dominant Rajas and Tamas gunas and the resultant outcome leading to recognizing illusions as realities is the phenomena that can just be termed as MAYA.

What say you??

Dear Ravi,

The question is what is the cause of the imbalance? How did it happen? If you want to think in simple terms think this way:

Nirguna brahman always exists. Saguna brahman is "projected" from it. From the saguna brahman is projected prakriti and consequently the jivas. The last step since it is connecting spiritual and physical realities, which are contradictory in nature, we use the term maya or " cause of illusion" , associated with that step. If you are able to make sense of what is going on , that is what finally matters.

 

[C RAVI]

Dear Ravi,

The question is what is the cause of the imbalance? How did it happen? If you want to think in simple terms think this way:

Nirguna brahman always exists. Saguna brahman is "projected" from it. From the saguna brahman is projected prakriti and consequently the jivas. The last step since it is connecting spiritual and physical realities, which are contradictory in nature, we use the term maya or " cause of illusion" , associated with that step. If you are able to make sense of what is going on , that is what finally matters.

Very well said, Shri Sravna. Thank you for your explanation.

 

[sarma-61]

Dear sravna, for a reasonable exchange of ideas, with at least a remote possibility for some agreement that crosses the threshold of agree to disagree, there must be some rudimentary rules regarding what is a rational argument, a sort of epistemological boundary if you will. In the absence of such a boundary, we can only come to an inevitable impasse, with you asserting higher level knowledge, etc., and I giving up.

As I am sure you know, three categories of knowledge are widely accepted as valid are (i) direct experience, (ii) logic, and (iii) reliable testimony. To have an argument with rigor, we have to first agree what constitutes these three, and if there is a contradiction among the three which one should take precedence.

When it comes to topics on Vedantam, (i) is what can be reliabbly observed through our fully functional sense organs and other aids, (ii) is about avoiding logical fallacies, and (iii) is prastana triyam and other ancillary texts such as itihasa puranas and commentaries and exegeses within the sampradaya, i.e. if we are discussing Advaiyta, then Sankara Bhashyam must be treated as irrefutable evidence, but not if Vedanta in general is the topic.

The order of priority in cases of contradiction among these pramanas, is, Vedas and Brhmma Sutra take precedence over all others.

These are the required parameters for a debate to be accepted as one with rigor.

Any proposition made must be supported by proper pramana. If the validity of a proposition may be verified by observation, then, a pramana that only requires observation is sufficient, nothing more is required. If a proposition can be infered with the use of logic, then a logical exposition is sufficient. But, if a proposition cannot be verified by observation, or through sound logic, then proper authority by way of mutually agreed upon testimony must be provided.

Let me give some examples -- if the proposition is Brhman exists, then we can only rely on unrefutable testimony, not observation or logic. If the proposition is Brhman is nirguna, once again the valid authority to establish it can only be unrefutable testimony. If the proposition is that there is higher level reality and lower level reality, once again logic and observation do not suffice, proper testimony must be cited.

Dear sravna, this is what I mean by rigor.

If past is prologue, then I am sure it is next to impossible for us to arrive at a mutually agreeable testimonial authority. But, for the sake of argument, purely as an academic exercise, I am willing to accept Prastana Traiyam as testimony. If this is acceptable, then, go ahead and present your proposition on Maya with proper testimonial authority. If you do, we may still have an argument with rigor.

Cheers!

Prof. Nara,

Thank you very much for the above post. As stated in my morning's post, I give below much of what I know of māyā. These may not be in accordance with any set rules, nor profound, but I do hope they will conform to the requirements enunciated in the above post of yours. If you or other members find any mistakes/defects, kindly write. I may not be coming in for the next few days.
________________________________________________________________________________________


māyā is a word which is found right from the ṛgveda. There the plural has been used more often and commentator sāyaṇa gives different interpretations in different places. Its use in ṛgveda indicated the magical powers of the asuras (asurāṇāṃ māyā) e.g., RV 8-41-8. The word tvaṣṭā māyā occurs in 10-53-9 where, the commentator interprets it as the special craft of tvaṣṭā. The word māyā has also the meaning of prajñā (RV 6-58-1 and 5-31-7). sāyaṇa states, in RV 5-40-8, that māyā is that which creates illusion of the object on which it rests.

RV 3-53-8 gives the word again and it is translated as anekarūpa grahaṇasāmarthyopetaḥ (power to assume many different forms by dint of supernatural powers). kaṭhopaniṣat II,2-9 to11 has passages alluding to this in the metaphysical context (ekastathā sarvabhūtāntarātmā rūpaṃ rūpaṃ pratirūpo bahiśca |).

The word māyā is found used as lustre (RV 3-16-7), falsity (10-54-2) and tricks of the demons (2-11-10); māyāvinaḥ is thus a synonym of demon. But in 9-83-3 the word (māyāvinaḥ) denotes the gods because māyā here is taken to mean prajñā.

Thus the very same word was used as a blemish in the case of demons (asuras) is also used to denote the supernatural capabilities of the gods. It is only in the commentary of RV10-177-1 that sāyaṇa follows thw advaita pov somewhat when he states that asurasya māyayā means asanakuśalasya sarvopādhivihīnasya parabrahmaṇassaṃbandhinyā triguṇātmikayā māyayāvyaktaṃ. Kindly note that asura here is parabrahman and maayaa is triguṇātmikā, a composite of the three guṇas veiled by which the parabrahman appears as the jīvātmā or individual soul.

aitareya brāhmaṇa I-30, V-4 and VI-36 use the word māyā in the sense of "assume an illusory form". bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣat II-5-19 uses the word māyā in the same sense as RV 3-53-8.

Thus māyā stands, in most of our sacred scriptures antecedent to ādiśaṃkara, for a skill in some craft, ability to create many illusory appearances, superhuman (supernatural) powers & knowledge, whereas in the atharvaveda it simply means magic or illusion.

According to Sankara (advaita) brahman is nirguna and is the only reality. Neither śaṃkara nor the scriptures take the effort to discuss and arrive at the conclusion that there is only one reality and that it is nirguṇa.Both take that for granted.

Being nirguṇa by definition, it has no characteristics (or is beyond the three gunas). The world, including īśvara and jīva, is an illusory phenomenon, appearing to us as real due to the effect of māyā, or avidyā (adhyāsa). The world is superimposed on the brahman due to the effect of māyā which has always been existing, just like the nirguṇabrahman and hence is anādi. It cannot be real or unreal; it is anirvacanīya, indefinable. If brahman is the only one reality, it follows that māyā is also ultimately traceable to that brahman. But it is here that the advaita vedanta starts facing criticism, which originated from the time of Ramanuja; if māyā originates in brahmana, or is a constituent of the latter, it will be tantamount to saying that brahman has some quality, viz., the avidyā present in māyā and the brahman will no longer be nirguṇa.

This māyā now acts on the individuals to create the illusion of the external world and all the related things. Where, then, does this mAyA originate? Where is it located? If māyā, a negative power, can create this illusory world, despite the brahman being nirguna, is it a different source of power and action? If so, how can we say that brahman is everything? If māyā is also part of brahman (sarvam brahmamayam), since it seems to act independently of brahman to create illusion, does it not mean that the brahman has this negative quality ingrained in it or, if that is refuted, is that māyā independent of brahman? We again come back to whether brahman can then be considered as the one and only reality.

As far as my limited knowledge goes, such criticisms did not come up during the time of śaṃkara, but his immediate sishyas themselves had perhaps to answer questions and they started giving differing interpretations of māyā; and, ever since Ramanuja's time, the advaitins and visishtadavitins have been arguing out this question, refuting each other, without any final decision so far. Thousands of books and palm-leaf granthas have come out on this particular issue in the meantime from each side, but a clear decision is not yet in sight.

śaṃkara’s attitude to the location, origin etc., of avidyā was that such enquiry itself is a manifestation of that very avidyā which has to be removed for obtaining liberation! After śaṃkara’s time, avidyA and mAyA became a tough problem for his followers and his disciples could not however take that defence.

śaṃkara described ाvidyā as anādi - beginningless. However, in order to work out the logical implications of various advaitic doctrines, his followers had to pay more attention to this issue. In course of time, two sub-schools, called the bhāmatī and the vivaraṇa schools emerged within advaita vedAnta. The bhāmatī school takes its name after vācaspati miśra’s commentary on śaṃkara’s brahmasūtrabhāṣya, while the vivaraṇa school takes its name after prakāśātman’s commentary on padmapāda’s pañcapādikā, which is itself a commentary on śaṃkara’s brahmasūtrabhāṣya.

According to bhāmatī school, avidyā or the effect of māyā at the level of the individual jīvātmā, pertains to the latter. brahman is never subject to avidyā, but controls it in the capacity as īśvara. This school postulates two functions of avidyā - its capacity to veil the Truth (āvaraṇa), and the second, its capacity to project an illusion (vikṣepa). It also describes avidyā in terms of a root avidyā (mūlāvidyā), which is universal, and is equivalent to māyā, and an individual avidyA (tulāvidyā), which disappears completely when brahmajñjānā is achieved. But, as we know, the individual jīvātmas themselves are the result of avidyā which is itself located in that very jīvātmā, then it will lead to an infinite regress; to escape from this problem, the bhāmatī school postulates an infinite number of jīvas and avidyās both beginningless.

The vivaraṇa school, originating from padmapāda and sureśvara, states that since there is only the One brahman, that brahman Itself is both the locus of avidyā and the object of it. The problem is that since brahman is of the nature of pure consciousness, if it is the locus of avidyā, that would go against the concept of omniscience of brahman. Also brahman will now have ignorance or avidyā as one characteristic which will contradict its nirguṇa aspect. This school of advaita (viz., the vivaraṇa scūl)gets around this difficulty by distinguishing between pure consciousness and valid knowledge, and a lot of suppositions based thereon.

Much more can be written on the concept of māyā/avidyā in the context of śaṃkara’s advaita but it will be more and more revealing of the strident criticism of advaita by its opponents and how the advaitin scholars shifting their stand from time to time, inventing new excuses and arguments, changing the definition of māyā/avidyā and their locii, and, in general woefully trying to put up a defence of advaita.

There is yet another māyā according to Tantrik perspective. To my limited knowledge, Tantrik schools treat māyā either as in advaita or a Goddess who symbolizes the power of the Supreme Reality for veiling the truth and projecting this illusory universe of dualities. In course of time, this māyā came to be regarded as an avatāra of śakti herself. But when māyā is alluded to in the purāṇas (like birth of children to devakī) it is only as a power within the command of God - a throw-back to RV 3-53-8 ibid.

But today this word māyā has taken on very many different hues and connotations and our increasing tribe of gurus/swamijis/ godmen/god-women, have been using the word in any whatever manner suits them at the moment. So, if we go by the usages adopted by these gurus/swamijis/ godmen/god-women, it will go astray from the strictly advaitic confines and we may even end up with the "skill-in-craft" meaning attributed to tvaṣṭā in RV.

 

[Nara]

... As stated in my morning's post, I give below much of what I know of māyā....

Dear Shri sarma-61, I have never read a more lucid, or more honest, presentation of the central objections to Advaitam. I salute you. I wish sravna and others engaged in figuring out what an elephant looks like, read your post several times.

To understand "maya", in the classical sense, one needs to look at what Lord Sri Krishna, in verse 7.14 of BG says, "mama maayaa duratyayaa", i.e. maya is under his control, and nobody can overcome its force on their own effort. Parse this anyway one likes, classical suddha advaitam is incompatible with BG 7.14.

Classic Advaitam falls flat on Vedic grounds, which, IMO, is a plus. If only we can jettison all the theism from Advaitam, and disconnect it from the Vedas, it will stand as one among the best philosophical ideas to come out of India. On the other hand, VA is perhaps most defensible from Vedic stand point, one that can boast to be a parama-vaideeka matham, but, theism is an integral and inseparable part of it, and therefore fatally flawed.

Once again I appreciate your lucid and honest presentation. I learned a lot, thank you.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

śaṃkara’s attitude to the location, origin etc., of avidyā was that such enquiry itself is a manifestation of that very avidyā which has to be removed for obtaining liberation!.

Brilliant. If you were brahman , would such a question ever arise? I would say avidya not only causing illusion is ultimately itself an illusion - the illusion of ignorance. That is maya creates the illusion of ignorance.

 

[nannilam_balasubramanian]

I would like to just say : Maya is just a Supernatural Power. It is like a riddle.
It bothers the human beings quite often.

Balasubramanian
Ambattur

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Sarma-61 Ji,

The location of Avidya has been argued to be with the Brahman forcefully by one Sri John Grimes in his doctorate thesis titled 'The Seven Great Untenables' published in 1990 by Motilal Banarsidass Press, New Delhi. I have this book, and in my opinion, it adequately answers the questions that Ramanuja Acharyal and his followers including what Sri Desikan Ji posed.

I do not think that what Professor Nara Ji wrote above is valid.

I can post excerpts on various individual doubts if required, even though the treatise itself is very detailed. In my opinion, the response is quite comprehensive and convincing.

Regards,
KRS

 

[nannilam_balasubramanian]

When we take a Gold ornament to a Shop for an exchange to get a new one,
it is evaluated by the touchstone to find out the originality and its purity.
Like that, human nature is also assessed by the God, whether one is sincere
or insincere towards HIM without our knowledge. It is also a sort of Maya.

Balasubramanian
Ambattur

 

[sarma-61]

Dear Sri Sarma-61 Ji,

The location of Avidya has been argued to be with the Brahman forcefully by one Sri John Grimes in his doctorate thesis titled 'The Seven Great Untenables' published in 1990 by Motilal Banarsidass Press, New Delhi. I have this book, and in my opinion, it adequately answers the questions that Ramanuja Acharyal and his followers including what Sri Desikan Ji posed.

I do not think that what Professor Nara Ji wrote above is valid.

I can post excerpts on various individual doubts if required, even though the treatise itself is very detailed. In my opinion, the response is quite comprehensive and convincing.

Regards,
KRS

Shri KRS,

Iwould like to know how Shri John Grimes has argued that the locus (location) of avidyA (mAyA) is the nirguNabrahman itself and has at the same time established the nirguNa character (or pure consciousness without any attributes whatsoever). In case the relevant portions are long, kindly send the same by pm.

Note:

Yesterday I thought I would not be able to access a computer today but, fortunately, I could.

 

[sarma-61]

Dear Shri sarma-61, I have never read a more lucid, or more honest, presentation of the central objections to Advaitam. I salute you. I wish sravna and others engaged in figuring out what an elephant looks like, read your post several times.

To understand "maya", in the classical sense, one needs to look at what Lord Sri Krishna, in verse 7.14 of BG says, "mama maayaa duratyayaa", i.e. maya is under his control, and nobody can overcome its force on their own effort. Parse this anyway one likes, classical suddha advaitam is incompatible with BG 7.14.

Classic Advaitam falls flat on Vedic grounds, which, IMO, is a plus. If only we can jettison all the theism from Advaitam, and disconnect it from the Vedas, it will stand as one among the best philosophical ideas to come out of India. On the other hand, VA is perhaps most defensible from Vedic stand point, one that can boast to be a parama-vaideeka matham, but, theism is an integral and inseparable part of it, and therefore fatally flawed.

Once again I appreciate your lucid and honest presentation. I learned a lot, thank you.

Cheers!

Prof. Nara ji,

I consider your appreciation of my post as a honour and shall strive to maintain that standard. Thank you once again, sir.

 

[saidevo]

namaste shrI Sarma and others.

In response to your post #230 tracing the meanings of the the word mAyA in its simple and compound forms in the Vedic texts, specially the Rg-veda, I would request you to go through this compilation from the book The doctrine of mAyA by Prabhu Dutt Shastri:
'The Doctrine of Maya' by Prabhu Dutt Shastri: A Compilation - Hindu Dharma Forums

and the original book that can be downloaded here:
http://www.archive.org/download/thedoctrineofmaa00shaauoft/thedoctrineofmaa00shaauoft.pdf

The author in his book observes:

The two chief meanings of the word maya as employed in the Rig Veda are: 'power' ('prajnA') and 'deception' ('kapaTa'). The idea of 'mystery' goes with the meaning 'power' because the power is not physical but a 'mysterious power of the will', which we would translate into such Sanskrit expressions as 'sankalpa shakti' and 'icchA shakti'.

In R.V. iii.53.8, for instance, Indra is spoken of as 'assuming many different forms,' and it is not done by his 'physical' power but simply by his wonderful and extraordinary 'will-power' (aneka-rUpa-grahaNa-sAmarthya). He wills that he may assume such and such forms and it is realized; hence Indra is very frequently termed 'mAyin' in the Vedic hymns. Ordinary human understanding with its inherent limitations is apt to be 'deceived' by such phenomena, and thus the transition from the 'mysterious will power' to 'deception' is achieved. In fact the two ideas interpenetrate each other, so much so that it seems to us rather a forced distinction to make when we speak of the transition.

From this it can be inferred that the singers of the hymns and the Indians of the Vedic age were aware of the one becoming many and the latter being a deceptive creation of a mysterious power.

The author also traces

• how the meaning of mAyA has evolved from illusion to great cosmic illusion, equated with 'prakRiti', attributed to the great Lord (as 'mAyi'), bringing about the existence of the phenomenal world and so on;

• and how the term mAyA is found fifteen times in Sankara's commentary on the BrahmasUtras (p.24);

The book also has answers to shrI RAmAnuja's refutation of advaita, which I posted sometime back here:
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/8241-advaita-scholars-5.html#post122108

 

[sravna]

Our substance is nirguna brahman. We are mere projections. The physical world and the ignorance it seems to create should be seem in this light- as mere illusions.

 

[sravna]

Consider it this way. Since when we attain moksha we become timeless so any experience of time has to be an illusion.

 

[renuka]

Consider it this way. Since when we attain moksha we become timeless so any experience of time has to be an illusion.

Even sunrise and sunset is an illusion.The sun never rises or sets.
It is the earth which revolves/rotates on its axis creating the illusion of sunrise and sunset and night and day.

Same way..we human beings are rotating on the wheel of Brahman and are experiencing the duality and illusionary nature of creation.


SVETASVATARA
UPANISHAD

The sages saw the wheel of Brahman, which has one felly, a triple tire, sixteen end-parts, fifty spokes with twenty counter-spokes and six sets of eight; whose one rope is manifold; which moves on three different roads; and whose illusion arises from two causes

 

[tks]

namaste shrI Sarma and others.

In response to your post #230 tracing the meanings of the the word mAyA in its simple and compound forms in the Vedic texts, specially the Rg-veda, I would request you to go through this compilation from the book The doctrine of mAyA by Prabhu Dutt Shastri:
'The Doctrine of Maya' by Prabhu Dutt Shastri: A Compilation - Hindu Dharma Forums

and the original book that can be downloaded here:
http://www.archive.org/download/thedoctrineofmaa00shaauoft/thedoctrineofmaa00shaauoft.pdf

The author in his book observes:

The two chief meanings of the word maya as employed in the Rig Veda are: 'power' ('prajnA') and 'deception' ('kapaTa'). The idea of 'mystery' goes with the meaning 'power' because the power is not physical but a 'mysterious power of the will', which we would translate into such Sanskrit expressions as 'sankalpa shakti' and 'icchA shakti'.

In R.V. iii.53.8, for instance, Indra is spoken of as 'assuming many different forms,' and it is not done by his 'physical' power but simply by his wonderful and extraordinary 'will-power' (aneka-rUpa-grahaNa-sAmarthya). He wills that he may assume such and such forms and it is realized; hence Indra is very frequently termed 'mAyin' in the Vedic hymns. Ordinary human understanding with its inherent limitations is apt to be 'deceived' by such phenomena, and thus the transition from the 'mysterious will power' to 'deception' is achieved. In fact the two ideas interpenetrate each other, so much so that it seems to us rather a forced distinction to make when we speak of the transition.

From this it can be inferred that the singers of the hymns and the Indians of the Vedic age were aware of the one becoming many and the latter being a deceptive creation of a mysterious power.

The author also traces

• how the meaning of mAyA has evolved from illusion to great cosmic illusion, equated with 'prakRiti', attributed to the great Lord (as 'mAyi'), bringing about the existence of the phenomenal world and so on;

• and how the term mAyA is found fifteen times in Sankara's commentary on the BrahmasUtras (p.24);

The book also has answers to shrI RAmAnuja's refutation of advaita, which I posted sometime back here:
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/8241-advaita-scholars-5.html#post122108

Sri Saidevo -

Thanks for sharing your references any time you have detailed technical information to post. I also applaud your effort to bring interesting books to readers here and by providing your notes on these rare books

 

[saidevo]

namaste everyone.

One way to understand the nature and role of, and the relationships between mAyA, prakRuti, saguNa. nirguNa brahman and jIvAtmas could be through the analogy of a computer system.

• The computer system in its dormant, switched-off state is like the state of nirguNa brahman (NB) described in the famous nAsadIya sUkta, Rg-veda 10.129 (svAmi KRShNAnanda's translation):

Then even nothingness was not, nor existence,
There was no air then, nor the heavens beyond it.
What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping
Was there then cosmic water, in depths unfathomed?
...
At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.
All this was only unillumined water.
That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing,
arose at last, born of the power of heat.


• The first 'impulse' of NB to 'arise' was 'born of the power of tapas--heat'--the flow of electricity as the life-force of consciousness, in the case of our computer system.

• The first karma--action, of NB was kAma--desire to multiply itself:

In the beginning desire descended on it -
that was the primal seed, born of the mind.
The sages who have searched their hearts with wisdom
know that which is is kin to that which is not

• Once the system was 'on', its first manifestation came in the form of prakRuti--the computer hardware embedded in the system, in our case.

• NB's 'desire' projected first the shabda-brahman--AUM the great praNava vibration--the BIOS (basic input output system) that kickstarted the creation of gods and the universe of sentient and insentient beings. Notice that this AUM/BIOS is not in prakRuti--hardware, but resides in NB's consciousness, although in creation it manifests in the internal hardware of the computer.

• Out of AUM arose the saguNa brahman (SB)--the ubiquitous operating sytem (OS), of our computer system. Using a strict and just protocol of priorities, the SB/OS creates, maintains and destroys the 'worldly life' of the other programs, playing the role of trimUrti--Trinity.

• The world of illusion of sound and color and motion created on the computer screen is mAyA--the output projected over prakRuti--hardware, by the SB/OS, using the power of consciousness of NB.

• The individual programs running in the system represent the jIvAtma--individual souls, which aggregate and create their own communal, social, political and academic worlds. In the world of multitasking, several groups of programs run on the computer system, interacting with, interpreting and even interrupting the life of other groups.

• The cycle of creation ends when NB 'shuts down' its world, preserving the state of the hardware and softwares whose life energy is withdrawn, and gets back to its dormant state--only to get switched on for another cycle.

This scenario highlights some crucial points about the relationships and interactions between the five entities of creation: NB, SB, mAyA, prakRuti and jIvAtmas--the computer system, operating system, the world created by OS, hardware and the individual programs run by the OS.

• Is the NB as the canvas on which everything is projected, just aware of the world of mAyA or also perceives it?

• Whose power originates mAyA--NB or SB? In the computer system analogy, NB originates mAyA as its power with the primordial vibration of AUM/BIOS, which in turn manifests as prakRuti--hardware. Only thereafter, NB manifests as SB/OS and creates the world of sentient beings.

• But once SB as the operating system is manifested, it has complete control of mAyA and the jIvas (as karmaphala-dAta).

• How many of the programs--jivAs that 'run' on the computer system know their intrinsic nature? That the world of pictures and sound is essentially digital matter--pixels and sound bytes that ultimately resove into the hard disk of the prakRuti; that motion as seen on the screen is only an illusion--animation by frames, in space and time; and that the ultimate happiness for the individual program resides it is essence of the life-force that manifests it, and not in the world perceived by it?