Why maya? [was: source of thought]

[Guest guest]

Namaskar:

 

Truth can't be intellectually comprehensible. If it is so then religion will

fall into the domain of Science. Sankara and Ramanuja defines two different

models to explain the Truth. Brahman (SELF), self

(you or me) and Maya are not separate entities. In Sankara's model, SELF and

self appear two different entities due to "Maya." There is only one cause and

the question who is the cause of Maya is

inappropriate! Ramanuja's model distinguishes SELF and self as separate and

with that assumption, the question about Maya arises!

 

We can see a tree and the shadow of the tree with the sun light. With the

movement of the sun, the shadow moves along even though the tree does not move.

With the disappearance of the sun, the tree and the

shadow both disappear. We can understand the relationship between the sun, the

tree and its shadow by observing the sun, the tree and shadow. This is science.

But there is little we know about Brahman,

Ishwara (Saguna Brahman) and the souls! Shankara rightly said that only when

go beyond our intellect, we can experience the TRUTH about them. If we take

little more time think carefully, we can see the

fallacy in Ramanujam's questions!

 

However, different individuals in this universe can conceive their own

understanding (intellectual approximation) of TRUTH. Every individual can

rightfully, believe that others are wrong. Many of us do agree

that only approximation can potentially be equal to TRUTH. It is quite

possible several individuals can come up with the same approximation. The exact

amount of errors from the biased approximations will

never be known untile we know the TRUTH.

 

Everything I wrote here also comes from my intellect and I am fully aware about

my limitations and there is a greater chance that you may not agree.

 

Regards,

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

On 8/7/99 at 10:52 AM a c wrote:

>

>At 01:10 PM 8/7/99 +0100, you wrote:

>>"Jan Barendrecht" <kvy9

>>

>>....................... The question, what causes the

infinitely

>>small difference in the unmanifest to become the manifest is

>>another question to cause infinite regression: what causes

the

>>difference that causes the difference that..... So it cannot

>>be answered too.

>>

>

>Yes, I read last night that Sankara says there is no answer

to the question

>"why maya?" If Brahman is impartite, attributeless and

changeless then it

>can't be Brahman which differs one iota -- hence the need to

bring in maya

>to explain the *illusory* appearances of both Isvara (Saguna

Brahman) and

>individuals like us -- while leaving maya itself

inexplicable! That

>doesn't seem satisfactory.

 

I would give a different definition of illusory: "not being

what it seems to be". Equating Maya to matter (including

subtle matter), for the senses it seems to be solid but the

solidness is the illusion. If matter is seen as a combination

of "elementary" particles, it is almost empty space. If Maya

really is indescribable, it can be predicted that there is no

such thing as a "general unified theory", but one will only

find more and more "extras" to explain phenomena, indicating

infinite regression. "Why" questions either lead to infinite

regression or to a point where one has to say "I don't know".

 

;

>Ramanuja asks something of the same question I have been

asking... "whose

>maya is it? It can't be Brahman's because he does not err,

nor can it be

>ours because we are the result of maya". I think Ramanuja

and I prefer

>similar answers -- it is God's doing we exist and not the

result of an

>adventitious and inexplicable error (ie. maya). In

recognizing our

>complete dependence upon God for our very being we are saved

from the

>samsaric delusion of separateness from God. We are real,

God is real and

>so is the moksha of realizing the inseparable relation

between the two.

>This is more satisfying (to me personally) and totally

consonant (I'm told)

>with Upanishasds, Brahma Sutras, and Bhagavad Gita.

>

>-A.

 

A practical way out is to state, Maya is *yours*. Because,

until moksha is "attained" one will be the doer, experiencer

and therefore creator of Karma. But this view has to change

for a liberated one: It will be seen that ALL gathered

experience has been part of sadhana and the conscious practice

was only a minor part of it. So Ramanuja's answer is rather

practical: everything is Self.

 

The problem is created by separating manifest and unmanifest,

defining one as "real" and the other as "illusory". This would

be appropriate in sadhana as a goad not to go astray (siddhis,

ecstacies etc.).

 

Without the manifest, the unmanifest can't be known; knowing

and recognition require memory, memory requires matter and

matter requires differentiation. Although the unmanifest is

said to have no qualities (undifferentiated), having no

qualities could be called a quality itself: the greatest

conceivable potential for differentiation. Which makes Maya an

unavoidable development of this potential.

 

Jan