Maya

[BostonSankara]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Sri Sravna Ji,

Sowbhagyavati Renuka is one of our most well spoken pundits her but you seem to not like engaging with her or give credence to her opinions. Is there a reason for that? Just curious.

-
Sankara

 

[BostonSankara]

Regardless of syntax and semantics Maya is our (god's own) way of experiencing and projecting divine play. It is a blessing not a curse. It is an opportunity not a prison. Our journey to the feet of god is a divine gift our experiences and karmas good and bad are our chance to give god and ourselves a palate to paint a physical picture which accompanies consciousness. This is my opinion and I believe this is truth. If it needs to be translated into Sanskrit and scribbled on olu leaves to make it valid in your eyes I cannot help you. Ignorance is an unfortunately negatively charged word. Siva both created Apasmara and dances on his back. The amnesia tying us to maya is his gift to us. Bhuloka is not a cursed land it is our current realm karma mala must be removed and that is the goal and way to slough off maya but it is in no way our plight. The "ignorance" is amnesia our forgetfull nature is our opportunity to play out the multitudes of experiences Brahman might engage in in Bhuloka whatever they may be.

-
Sankara

 

[sravna]

Dear Sri Sravna Ji,

Sowbhagyavati Renuka is one of our most well spoken pundits her but you seem to not like engaging with her or give credence to her opinions. Is there a reason for that? Just curious.

-
Sankara

Dear Shri Sankara,

Why do you think so? I always have a very healthy discussion with her. She often comes up with very good arguments. I consider her without any doubt as a very knowlegeable and intelligent person.

 

[BostonSankara]

Sri Sravna Ji,

Looking back at the conversation in it's entirety I stand corrected. Passionate discourse is healthy but easily misinterpreted. I apologize for painting you with that brush.

-
Sankara

Dear Shri Sankara,

Why do you think so? I always have a very healthy discussion with her. She often comes up with very good arguments. I consider her without any doubt as a very knowlegeable and intelligent person.

 

[sravna]

Shri Sravna sir,

I don't know where and when I said I have not read the vedas(you just say, it is not y because you have not read the vedas.). If you will kindly provide one or two links, it will be very helpful to refresh my memory.

Since you have been here for longer time than I have been, you will surely know that advaita was discussed here once or twice in the past (and possibly you also contributed to those, but I am not sure).

I am unable to give you anything from my side because I find that when I once pointed out that we are going astray from whatever was there originally in Sankara's exposition, you said you are not in favour of strait-jacketing. Now, lately when I gave what I could understand and assimilate, from some of the learned Brahmins with whom I came in contact, you threw it out saying it is cooked up by me.

I have spent some considerable time in trying to know about advaita, myself being supposed to be an adviatin smArta brahmin, and have learned certain things, may not be completely. According to what little I have understood, and as I have already said, this concept of mAyA/adhyAsa/adhyArOpa/avidyA has been the major weak point of advaita and the main point on which VIsishtadvaita emerged as its competitor.

I have earlier written more on the above, but generally I find such contributions are sidelined. I may be able to type up afresh, given some time.

Dear Shri Sarma,

I look forward to your views. And that is the whole idea of the thread. To let constructively contribute and not stifle differing viewpoints.

 

[sravna]

Sri Sravna Ji,

Looking back at the conversation in it's entirety I stand corrected. Passionate discourse is healthy but easily misinterpreted. I apologize for painting you with that brush.

-


Sankara

No problem

 

[Nara]

Waxing eloquent on māyā without reading at least the brahmasūtrabhāṣya is, imho, just a waste of time and not even "general discussion".

....I am now just enjoying all this blah blahs here. Thank you.

Dear sarma-61, I do understand your frustration with the blissful lack of rigor in much of the presentations made here. As you have observed, this is nothing new. So, I am really surprised you venture into this discussion in the first place.

........It is this "covering" or "colouring" of the untarnished Life energy or Power residing within each one of us which is, in fact, māyā. There is no way even the nirguṇa brahman can avoid the effects of this māyā when it is inside the human body except through realization of self, or ātmajnāna, as per the advice of the great śaṃkara.

I gather this is your own personal view, not one constrained by the strait-jacket of authoritative source/views. Yet, given you use terms like nirguna brhman and atmajnana, how would you reconcile the implicit but unavoidable duality, one that immediately negates nirguna?

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Dear sarma-61, I do understand your frustration with the blissful lack of rigor in much of the presentations made here. As you have observed, this is nothing new. So, I am really surprised you venture into this discussion in the first place.





I gather this is your own personal view, not one constrained by the strait-jacket of authoritative source/views. Yet, given you use terms like nirguna brhman and atmajnana, how would you reconcile the implicit but unavoidable duality, one that immediately negates nirguna?

Cheers!

Dear Nara,

It is not that one cannot argue with rigor. But this is not the platform and no one is defending a Ph.D. thesis here.Just as Shri.Sarma plans to why don't you join in the debate.

 

[Nara]

Dear Nara,

It is not that one cannot argue with rigor. But this is not the platform and no one is defending a Ph.D. thesis here.

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!

 

[renuka]

निर्धूम - smokeless
निर्धन - without money
निर्मल - free from impurities
निर्गुण - devoid of all qualities and properties

These are the authoritative (MWD) meanings pl.

Dear Sarmaji,

Thank you for your post.
I had typed what I had read before from some sanskrit text I have about the fine differences between Nir,Vi and A when used with certain words.
Anyway I stand corrected.

Thank you

 

[renuka]

You should also read "adhyAsa bhAshya" before discussing about mAyA. One url I just googled is this:

Brahma Sutra Bhashya

I must go through this soon.
thank you.

 

[sravna]

Now, In my last post I said that world is created by the will of saguna brahman, the effects separating from the cause. Speaking in a general way, we would say this is what constitutes the action of maya. I would like to cite here what Renuka mentioned in her post:
reflection of sattva in the mirror of maya is the cause of creation of saguna brahman and that of rajas and tamas being responsible for the creation of prakriti and the jivas resp. Correct me if this is wrong.

Bur here is one modification, that the reason for maya being not needed for the creation of saguna brahman

Saguna brahman can be said to be the "projection" of nirguna brahman. I see nothing wrong with this "projection" unlike physical reality being a projection of nirguna brahman because saguna brahman is also a spiritual entity and so there need not be the action of maya between two spiritual entities.

I can further add that saguna brahman is one who is full of auspicious qualities and hence pure sattvic nature. It seems to me that for maya to operate there has to be some rajas and tamas also whereas saguna brahman is pure sattva.

I even argue that maya need not be differentiated from saguna brahman:

Now when saguna brahman wills something he is willing on a cause. So that cause has to come from the pure spiritual reality. That is the raw material which we associate with maya along with the act of projection. Now we see that both emanate from saguna brahman as he has access to the spiritual reality and it is his willing that causes the projection. So why separate maya from saguna brahman?

dear shri .Nara and others forgive me for not providing any reference as I am not able to spend a lot of time on this and thus trying to provide only my own analysis.

 

[renuka]

Speaking in a general way, we would say this is what constitutes the action of maya. I would like to cite here what Renuka mentioned in her post:
reflection of sattva in the mirror of maya is the cause of creation of saguna brahman and that of rajas and tamas being responsible for the creation of prakriti and the jivas resp. Correct me if this is wrong.

Sravna,

You qouted me wrongly..
Rajas reflected =Jiva
Tamas reflected=Prakirti

 

[sravna]

Sravna,

You qouted me wrongly..
Rajas reflected =Jiva
Tamas reflected=Prakirti

OOPS ! Sorry about that. Thanks for correcting.

 

[renuka]

I even argue that maya need not be differentiated from saguna brahman:

Now when saguna brahman wills something he is willing on a cause. So that cause has to come from the pure spiritual reality. That is the raw material which we associate with maya along with the act of projection. Now we see that both emanate from saguna brahman as he has access to the spiritual reality and it is his willing that causes the projection. So why separate maya from saguna brahman?

dear shri .Nara and others forgive me for not providing any reference as I am not able to spend a lot of time on this and thus trying to provide only my own analysis.

Dear Sravna,

Maya is different from Saguna Brahman.
You know in Panchadasi there is a school of thought that says that Maya only veils the Bliss(Ananda) aspect of Brahman and not the Cit and Sat aspect.

Ok leave that alone...before that I would like to suggest that may be its high time we seek a guru and learn from a guru about all this.

I feel it will help all of us better since we are all struggling to learn.

Sravna..dont think there is no time to read more.
We all have time to think..when we have time to think that means we have time to read too cos reading is also thinking.

Works of Acharyas of yesteryears have a spiritual enlightenment effect cos their thought were revelations given to them from God to be passed down to others.

So reading these text will clear the cataract that covers our intellect after all isnt a Guru extolled as the "one who opens our eyes with the torch of knowledge previously blinded by the darkness of ignorance"

So we should all read up and seek guidance from a Guru if possible.

 

[sravna]

Sure Renuka, I am almost done May need to take some break again. I will keep your suggestions in mind.

 

[renuka]

Taken from Jnaana Vahini(Sathya Sai Baba):


Know that the Jagath is the Swaroop of the Viraatpurusha, the form imposed by Maya on the Super-soul. Brahman is that which has become or appears to have become all this, the Antharyami, the Inner Motive Force.

In the Nirguna aspect it is the Primal Cause, the Hiranya Garbha, of which Creation is the manifestation. Grasping this secret of the universe and its origin and existence - that is Jnana.

Many people argue that Jnana is one of the attributes of Brahmam, that it is of the nature of Brahmam, a characteristic of Brahmam etc.

But such opinions arise only in the absence of actual experience, of actual attainment of Jnana. Arguments and discussions multiply when there is no firsthand experience; for the realisation of Reality is individual, based on revelation to oneself.

I declare that Jnanam is Brahmam, not a mere characteristic or attitude or quality. The Vedas and Sastras announce that Brahmam is Sathyam, Jnanam, and Anantham, not that Brahmam has these and other attributes. When Brahmam is known, the knower, the known and the knowledge all become One.

Indeed, Brahmam cannot be described as such and such; that is why it is referred to as just, "Sath", "It is". Jnana too is just Sath, no more, no less.

The Sruthis use the word Vijnanaghana, to indicate Brahmam. The word means, the Sum and Substance of Vijnana, Knowledge with a capital K.

Only those who are unaware of the Sruthis and the Sastras will aver that Jnana and Brahmam are distinct. Jnanam is Brahmam; distinction is impossible. It is a sign of ignorance to posit a difference.

All knowledge that is limited by the three Gunas is Ajnana, not the Jnana of the Transcendental, which is above and beyond the Thamasic, Rajasic and even the Sathwic motives, impulses and qualities. How can such limited knowledge be Jnana? Knowledge of the Transcendental has to be transcendental too, in an equal measure and to the same degree.

It might be said that Brahmam has Form while Jnana is Formless; but both are Formless in the real sense of the word. The apparent form of Brahmam is the result of Avidya or Ignorance; Form is attributed to Brahmam only, to serve the needs of the Embodied Souls during the period of the embodiment.

The Absolute is reduced to the level of the Conditioned, because the Soul too is conditioned in the body. Not to know that this human interlude is but the conditioned state of the Atma is to be reduced to the dullness of the beast.

"Jnana is the panacea for all ills, troubles and travails". This is how the Vedas describe it. To acquire this Jnana, there are many paths, and the chiefest of them is the path of Bhakthi, the Path adopted by Vasishta, Narada, Vyasa, Gouranga and other great persons. What the oil is to the flame in the lamp, Bhakthi is to the Flame of Jnana. The Heavenly Tree of the Joy of Jnana thrives on the refreshing waters of Bhakthi. Understand this well.

It is for this reason that Krishna, who is the Personification of Prema, and who is saturated with the quality of Mercy, declared in the Gita: "I am known by means of Bhakthi", "Bhakthyaa maam abhijaanaathi".

 

[sravna]

Now, In my last post I said that world is created by the will of saguna brahman (1), the effects separating from the cause. Speaking in a general way, we would say this is what constitutes the action of maya (2). I would like to cite here what Renuka mentioned in her post:reflection of sattva in the mirror of maya is the cause of creation of saguna brahman and that of rajas and tamas being responsible for the creation of prakriti and the jivas resp. Correct me if this is wrong.

Bur here is one modification, that the reason for maya being not needed for the creation of saguna brahman

Saguna brahman can be said to be the "projection" of nirguna brahman (3). I see nothing wrong with this "projection" unlike physical reality being a projection of nirguna brahman because saguna brahman is also a spiritual entity and so there need not be the action of maya between two spiritual entities.

I can further add that saguna brahman is one who is full of auspicious qualities and hence pure sattvic nature(4). It seems to me that for maya to operate there has to be some rajas and tamas also whereas saguna brahman is pure sattva.

I even argue that maya need not be differentiated from saguna brahman:

Now when saguna brahman wills something he is willing on a cause. So that cause has to come from the pure spiritual reality. That is the raw material which we associate with maya along with the act of projection. Now we see that both emanate from saguna brahman as he has access to the spiritual reality and it is his willing that causes the projection. So why separate maya from saguna brahman?

dear shri .Nara and others forgive me for not providing any reference as I am not able to spend a lot of time on this and thus trying to provide only my own analysis.

1,2,3,4 - References available on the internet. If anyone can provide authentic sources that would be helpful.

 

[sravna]

Why maya should be saguna brahman?

1. Maya cannot be a different reality than brahman
2. Maya cannot be nirguna brahman as maya is associated with lower reality
3. Maya cannot be prakriti as prakriti is the result of maya
4. So maya has to be the power of saguna brahman or is saguna brahman.

In the case of entity that transcends space time we cannot talk about attributes just as we don't talk of attributes in the case of nirguna brahman because the reality is a non dual reality. In the case of saguna brahman, there is the mind but it is merged with the soul due to its perfection. In other words mind transcends space and time. It is a non dual reality. Therefore to call maya as the power of the mind is not correct. It is the mind. The only conclusion is maya is saguna brahman. Lastly, we can say that maya is indescribable but is there any compelling reason to not consider maya as saguna brahman?

 

[sarma-61]

Dear sarma-61, I do understand your frustration with the blissful lack of rigor in much of the presentations made here. As you have observed, this is nothing new. So, I am really surprised you venture into this discussion in the first place.

Prof. Nara sir,

I thought I was helping the discussions (about mAyA) here take the proper road through my posts and comments, but, unfortunately it has not happened. I am trying, as a last-ditch effort, to type out whatever little I know about the concept of mAyA and will post the same in a couple of days.

I gather this is your own personal view, not one constrained by the strait-jacket of authoritative source/views. Yet, given you use terms like nirguna brhman and atmajnana, how would you reconcile the implicit but unavoidable duality, one that immediately negates nirguna?

Cheers!

I may not be able to establish "advaita" or non-duality through debate with a person of the knowledge and stature such as yourself, but having been born in a smArta brahmin family which swears by advaita and Sankara, my effort was to learn what this advaita meant and then, when I found duality even in our own basic approach to God, I took the trouble of gently voicing my doubts to some aged brahmins who were well-read in scriptures and led a very religious and austere life. The explanation given above is my own version of what some of them said on different occasions (of course, they used to embellish with quotes from our scriptures, but I could not understand or retain any of them.)

I agree, basically, even the advaitin smArtas lead a life built upon duality, but whenever a chance comes they recite the lines like sarvam brahmamayam, aham brahmaasmi, Ekam satyam...etc. But after listening to the brahmins mentioned above, I feel there probably is something which is truth in Sankara's advaita. Though he was very great, because of the stage of development of knowledge and because he had to conform to the prasthAnathrayee dicta, Sankara's exposition of advaita was possibly constrained. May be there is a certain universality in all humans and that was what Sankara desired to bring out through advaita.

 

[renuka]

Why maya should be saguna brahman?

1. Maya cannot be a different reality than brahman
2. Maya cannot be nirguna brahman as maya is associated with lower reality
3. Maya cannot be prakriti as prakriti is the result of maya
4. So maya has to be the power of saguna brahman or is saguna brahman.

In the case of entity that transcends space time we cannot talk about attributes just as we don't talk of attributes in the case of nirguna brahman because the reality is a non dual reality. In the case of saguna brahman, there is the mind but it is merged with the soul due to its perfection. In other words mind transcends space and time. It is a non dual reality. Therefore to call maya as the power of the mind is not correct. It is the mind. The only conclusion is maya is saguna brahman. Lastly, we can say that maya is indescribable but is there any compelling reason to not consider maya as saguna brahman?

Dear Sravna,

I totally disagree.

Maya is NOT Saguna Brahman.

Ok lets look at this logically.

See we have an Apple and Orange.

Would we use the terms interchangeably?
No isnt it?

Apple is Apple and Orange is Orange isnt it?

Same way Sravna...Maya is Maya and Saguna Brahman is Saguna Brahman.

Now Sravna..I dont want to hear you say that apple is orange in another reality or substratum and its illusion to think that apple is different from orange etc.

I hope you get my point Sravna.

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

For a change let us not argue on this. Let's wait for other views.

 

[renuka]

Dear Sarmaji,

I was waiting for you to come online..cos I want to say that I was somewhat off the track/wrong in my explanation of Vimala,Amala and Nirmala.

So I have reproduced this from Jnaana Vahini:

The terms, Amala, Vimala, Nirmala applied to Paramatma connote the same meaning: A-mala implying absence of impurity, Nir-mala, 'without impurity' and Vimala, 'having all impurity destroyed'.


Dear Sarmaji..thank you for your correction and dear members please note the correction I have pasted.
Sorry for the error.I didnt recall everything correctly.

 

[C RAVI]

Why maya should be saguna brahman?

1. Maya cannot be a different reality than brahman
2. Maya cannot be nirguna brahman as maya is associated with lower reality
3. Maya cannot be prakriti as prakriti is the result of maya
4. So maya has to be the power of saguna brahman or is saguna brahman.

In the case of entity that transcends space time we cannot talk about attributes just as we don't talk of attributes in the case of nirguna brahman because the reality is a non dual reality. In the case of saguna brahman, there is the mind but it is merged with the soul due to its perfection. In other words mind transcends space and time. It is a non dual reality. Therefore to call maya as the power of the mind is not correct. It is the mind. The only conclusion is maya is saguna brahman. Lastly, we can say that maya is indescribable but is there any compelling reason to not consider maya as saguna brahman?

Sri Sravna,

Can't MAYA be one of the many spiritual powers of Saguna Brahman's transcendental mind? That has the influence on jeevathmas and not on Saguna Brahman himself. Like a magician can eyewash the audience with his tricks and shows the miracle BUT for him there is no miracle and nothing goes off his mind.

 

[sravna]

Sri Sravna,

Can't MAYA be one of the many spiritual powers of Saguna Brahman's transcendental mind? That has the influence on jeevathmas and not on Saguna Brahman himself. Like a magician can eyewash the audience with his tricks and shows the miracle BUT for him there is no miracle and nothing goes off his mind.

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.