Maya is not mere illusion?

[Guest guest]

Ram Chandran:

 

My immediately prior post was an accident; I hit the enter key

too early and didn't mean to re-send it as it was.

 

I just want to say I appreciate your attempt to clarify for me

that 'Maya' does not mean (in Advaita) what the English word

"illusion" is usually taken to mean. Someone else on this list

has tried to explain this as well, and I continue to ponder all

this.

 

I would like to think that we are dealing merely with problems of

language and translation here, instead of problems of conception.

But I am not yet convinced (see below for why).

 

I have always felt that Shankara and most Advaitins probably do

not believe that Maya is 'mere illusion' in the usual sense of

that English word, but I have found it more difficult to get a

sense of what they do understand by the term Maya. I hesitate

to translate it into Western philosophical terms because I fear

that would miss the mark and create new misunderstanding.

 

Dialogue and experience should gradually give shape to this,

and I have patience.

 

By the way, one of the reasons that I consider this a difficult

topic is that others more knowledgable than myself apparently

believe there are different conceptions of 'Maya' within Advaita,

and both Radhakrishnan and Aurobindo have written arguments against

"illusionist" (I get the term from Aurobindo) versions of concepts

of Maya. That this state of affairs may be present in Advaita does

not surprise me, for I have learned that great thinkers who express

deep thoughts (like Shankara) generate multiple streams of ways of

understanding those thoughts. The richness and the depth of the

thoughts just naturally give rise to multiple interpretations of

how they were meant to be understood.

 

I am convinced that Shankara should not be understood to mean what

has been described as "Illusionism," but I confess that I have not

fathomed the rich deepness of his mind, and therefore don't know

exactly what he meant.

 

Namaste,

-- Max

 

 

 

---------------------------

FREE - yourname - Visit http://www.philosophers.net

[Guest guest]

Namaskar:

 

Let me add some addtional clarifications for understanding 'Maya' or

'Mithya.' A complete understanding of 'Maya' is the same us "Knowing the

TRUTH.' Since we don't know the Truth, our confusion will remain until

we dispell all our ignorance. Since the level of ignorance is

'infinite,' we need more time and patience. Sankara's concept I fully

agree with you that the concept of 'Maya' is more complex and more

difficult to understand and require more patience!

 

The messages in scriptures are subtle but declare Maya in no-uncertain

terms. Maya, Jiva and Ego are synonymous. When I believe that I am

Jiva, my heart is filled with Maya and Ego. When the Maya vacates my

heart, Brahman occupies my heart and I will have no more Maya or Ego.

Maya the tenant doesn't pay any rent and ‘I' have to use the force of

Sadhana to free my heart from Maya.

 

Gita suggests three potential Sadhanas to vacate Maya from the heart.

If we adopt Karma Yoga, we can conduct our actions without expecting the

fruits of those actions. This Sadhana stops desires which provide the

essential services to Maya, the tenant. The tenant has no option but to

vacate our heart and allows the Lord to occupy permanently.

 

If we adopt Bhakti Yoga, we compartmentalize our heart and free the

space to the Lord and divert all our services to the Lord. The story

of a camel and the tent is appropriate for comparison. When the camel

gets a little space, it manages to fill the tent sooner and vacates all

the other occupants. The very presence of the Lord drives Maya out

forcefully from our heart.

 

The Jnana Yoga is the evolutionary process of the adoption of either

Karma Yoga or Bhakti Yoga. These three Sadhanas are synonymous and

inseparable and mathematically equivalent propositions. Developing an

abstract algebra to each of this Sadhana within a mathematical

topological space is possible. Then these three Sadhanas will become

topologically equivalent.

 

The scriptures give utmost importance to Sadhana to eradicate Maya. The

question on the evolution of Maya will always be a never-ending debate.

The seers and sages have recognized this pitfall and have avoided

falling into the endless do-loop trap. They have understood the essence

of such debates and have concluded - Life is continuous without

beginning or end. Life is an experience of living without expectation of

gain or loss. Nature is one unit and it can't ever be separated and as

such Maya (Ego) don't exist. We are part and parcel of the Nature, we

coexist and we don't have any separate identity. Maya is the appearance

of this separate identity and will appear as real when we entertain it

in our hearts!

 

An Interesting Article on the topic: ‘ Jagat Mithya' by Swami Atmananda.

=======================================================================

 

Swami Atmananda explains beautifully the meaning of the statement,

"Jagat Mithya." Swamiji correctly compares the distinction between the

permanent experience of Brahman (Self-Realization) and the transient

experience of the World.

 

URL Address: http://members.tripod.com/vedantamission/Pub/VSapr99.htm

Source: Vedanta Sandesh: The Free Monthly Electronic Magazine of

Vedanta Mission April 99: Article: The Three basic tenets of Vedanta …

by Swami Atmananda

 

" Jagat Mithya : The word Jagat embraces in itself this entire world,

this cosmos. All that which is or can be an 'object' of our knowledge.

It includes not only the gross but also the subtle 'objects'. The

thoughts, emotions, the energy all come under this word 'Jagat'. That

which is near or far, inside or outside, now or later, good or bad

everything is part of this Jagat. This word has been described as

reffering to that which is 'Jayate gachati iti jagat', i.e. that which

is born & dies is jagat. Birth & death are movements in time. That

which is in time constantly changes, there is a constant flux.

Something starts this process of activation & manifestation of time and

thus we see this dynamic flux. A realm of experience presents itself in

front of us. What exactly starts this process is a different matter,

but the point here is that all what is thus brought about is ultimately

transient, is not ultimately there. It is comparable to being in a

dream world. Something activates the process of dreaming, and when it

does get activated we see a realm of experience which is not ultimately

there. Mithya is that which is not there in all three periods of time.

That which had a birth at a particular time and that which will

certainly die at some point of time. It is there in this present moment,

because of some reason - known or unknown. The above aphorism of 'Jagat

Mithya' thus implies that all what is available for experience is

transient.

 

Mithya also implies that which does not have the capacity to give us

that which we basically seek. It is certainly beautiful,in fact very

beautiful, it is also true that 'objects' of the world alone are useful

for our worldly needs & purposes, but at the same time this is also a

fact that we basically remain where we were. It is like eating a dream

food, with which we never satiate our hunger. However much we eat the

dream food, we will still remain basically hungry. Whatever we have

sought in this world may have helped our life to get comfortable &

organised, but has certainly not helped us in eliminating the

fundamental desire 'to seek' something more. Like hunger the seeking

still remains as it is. The only difference is that it now manifests

differently. That which is Mithya does not have any independent

existence, thus it is not really dependable, for the simple reason that

it itself is perishable. What ever our heart basically seeks will never

be got from this Jagat. That is the implication of this sutra. It is

something to be seen in a detached way & not taking too seriously.

Whatever happens in the world never really matters, knowing this a

person should not plan to aggrandize & enjoy, he should rather serve &

give. This philosophical tenet, which is a fact of life provides us a

logic & basis for our religious values, culture & even the real goal of

life."

 

 

Max Harris wrote:

>

> "Max Harris" <max_harris

>

> Ram Chandran:

>

>

> I would like to think that we are dealing merely with problems of

> language and translation here, instead of problems of conception.

> But I am not yet convinced (see below for why).

>

[Guest guest]

>

>Max Harris wrote:

>

> I have always felt that Shankara and most Advaitins probably do

> not believe that Maya is 'mere illusion' in the usual sense of

> that English word, but I have found it more difficult to get a

> sense of what they do understand by the term Maya.

>

 

i quite agree with Ram: "A complete understanding of 'Maya'

is the same as "Knowing the TRUTH.' Since we don't know the

Truth, our confusion will remain until we dispell all our

ignorance."

 

we cannot possibly understand maya or jnana through the mental

faculty we're accustomed to accessing. the relative Mind simply

cannot behold the Absolute. in fact, it can't even come anywhere

near the vicinity of doing so!

 

the jnana we're alluding to here takes place in the buddhi

(yet *another* difficult word), which is in and of the Heart

of Being. this knowing appeases the reason faculty, causing

it to rest in peace, but it doesn't [and indeed cannot!] cause

any formulation of ideas that can be said, in themselves [as a

collective ideology], to reflect or define the Reality.

the same with our attempt at apprehending maya.

 

maya is comprised of mithya and sathya (unreal and real

essences). the exoteric notion of maya is the mithya idea.

the esoteric is the sathya. Sankara's "jagat mithya"

addresses the exoteric belief: the world *as such* is unreal

(where the caveat *as such* should be underlined, italicized

and emblazoned in day-glo neon, because the world is only

illusory in the *special case when* it or anything within it

is regarded as apart from [or a separate reality from] brahman.

which is impossible because brahman is ONE-without-a-second).

 

our dilemma therefore involves the ongoing habit of believing

there are realities apart from brahman (hence Sankara's triadic

formula). Self-realization is the result of breaking this habit.

 

the jnani is one who eats, sleeps, and dreams brahman.

yet if we investigate, we recognize: who *doesn't* do this?

only in our mistaken notions do we believe we don't. yet

this belief itself is so unsubstantial! how such a meagre

particle of dust can disrupt the whole sight. isn't it

absurd that it takes lifetimes of thought and energy to

locate, clasp, and remove this microscopic slither??

incidentally, how does a thread of hair clog an entire

cosmos of Being?! it only *appears* to. and this

appearance itself is the mithya portion of maya.

 

this can sound confusing. it really isn't. the problem is

that the Mind is such an ox of habit, that to cause it to be

open enough to see a new slant is in itself almost a miracle.

 

namaste

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Please excuse my ignorance in this matter, but it is of great interest to me

so if someone can help explain what appears to be a discrepancy in how

Shankara defines maya within a singular text. In the Crest Jewel of

Discrimination, Shankara writes about Maya:

 

"Maya, in her potential aspect, is the divine power of the Lord. She has no

beginning. She is composed of the three gunas, subtle, beyond perception. It

is from the effects she produces that her existence is inferred by the wise.

It is she who gives birth to the whole universe."

 

This sounds very much like Shakti philosophy in which Maya is the female

power that animates the inanimate aspect of God. Analogous to Prakriti and

Purusha, Also here it seems Shankara says that Her (maya's) "existence" is

understood or known by the wise, doesn't the term "existence" imply that she

"exists" ? then he says....

 

"She is neither being nor non-being, nor a mixture of both. She is neither

divided nor undivided, nor a mixture of both. She is neither an indivisible

whole, nor composed of parts, nor a mixture of both. She is most strange. Her

nature is inexplicable."

 

Here She sounds more like the unfathomable concept of Brahman ?

Then Shankara writes:

 

"Just as knowing a rope to be a rope destroys the illusion that it is a

snake, so Maya is destroyed by direct experience of Brahman, the pure, the

free, the one without a second....."

 

He goes on to describe how Maya is composed of the three gunas, and describes

what they are and what they do...then he writes:

 

"Maya has been defined as a composition of the three gunas. It is the causal

body of the Atman. Dreamless sleep belongs pre-eminently to the causal body.

In this state, the workings of the mind and sense-organs are

suspended.....there are the body, the sense-organs, the vital force, the

mind, the ego and all their functions, the objects of enjoyment, pleasure and

all other kinds of experience, the gross and the subtle elements, - in short

the whole objective universe, and Maya which is its cause. None of these is

the Atman."

 

This seems a bit contradictory as... if Maya causes the body of the Atman,

but is not the Atman....and She in fact really does not exist, how can She

create anything? or if the causal body of the Atman does not exist, than why

is it discussed? Why are the different parts of the universe, including the

gunas defined and described if they don't really exist? And if they don't

exist, then how can they really be defined as wouldn't their nature be

completely amorphous, just as an illusion is free to change shape as it has

no "real" attributes?

 

Finally Shankara writes:

" You must know that Maya and all its effects - from the cosmic intellect

down to the gross body - are other than the Atman. All are unreal, like a

mirage in the desert."

 

How can something which does not "exist" have an effect? If it creates an

effect, such as the "illusion" of a snake from a rope, there is an essence in

the rope that resembles a snake and there is already the idea of the snake

existing in the mind of the viewer to mistakenly perceive the rope as a

snake, how did that "idea" of the snake arise? If all is Brahman, then

wouldn't the mistaken "idea" itself have to ultimately come from Brahman as

well, and wouldn't the power of maya to "create" an illusory material world

have to ultimately come from Brahman, as how can any power exist that would

come from outside the One without a second?

 

It would seem that the power of the illusion was coming from Brahman itself,

who then, for some reason...maybe Leela, wants to play in the illusion of its

own making...at least for a while until the jeeva wakes up to its real nature.

 

If a film maker makes a film, watches it, enjoys loosing him/herself in the

story - forgetting for a moment that he/she is really in a theater watching a

filmstrip pass through a projector and then remembers at the end that it was

just a film, it does not discount the existence of the film, only its

mistaken identification with "real life" There would be no film, no

projector, nor theater if the film maker had not made the film in the first

place. The trick of the "motion picture" is simply a play of light, not

reality in the normal sense, but it still does have "existence" as well as

the power to instruct, deceive and entertain.

 

Jai Sri Mata,

Parvati

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/3/1999 7:41:36 AM Central Daylight Time,

chandran writes:

 

<< Gandhiji summarizes his impression

about Bhagavad Gita as follows. "After reading Gita, I find

discrepancies here and there. After some careful thought, I found that

the discrepancies are not in Gita but in my thought process and my

understanding of Gita!" >>

 

Namaste

Sri Ram Chandran

 

Thank you, amazingly this makes perfect sense to me. It seems that coming to

"Self-Realization" and/or "God Realization" is like unraveling a great

mystery. But the "hidden" aspect is caused by our own level of ignorance. The

Truth seems to stand before us in shinning radiating glory, but our clouded

minds keep us from seeing it. The most profound direct experiences of God

that I have had came while contemplating what appear to be the paradox's of

religious Truth. It seems Maya is one of those apparent paradoxes, therefore

through meditation and hopefully by God's grace, eventually an understanding

will be revealed. Thank you for your input on this. As you said:

>>A complete understanding of mAyA is

the same us ‘TRUTH.' Since we don't know the Truth, our confusion will

remain until we dispel our ignorance. Since the level of our ignorance

is 'infinite,' we should take more time and we need more patience.

 

 

'Wishing all of us on the advaitin list the time and patience to allow the

revelation of Truth to take root in ourselves.

 

Jai Guru Shankara,

regards,

Parvati

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Parvatiji:

 

 

Your post explains almost all aspects of mAyA with the apparent

contentions and contradictions. I will be more than happy to have your

level of ignorance (knowledge)! Your description of Sankara's

discussion of various aspects of mAyA is quite thorough and I agree

with that there are detectable discrepancies. Sankara's answer to

these discrepancies is very simple. The only way to remove these

discrepancies is to know the TRUTH.

 

One of the human weakness is to put the cart in front of the horse! We

want to know the answer before understanding the question. We want to

see Perfection everywhere before we become perfect. We want to be wise

before we dispel our ignorance. Gandhiji summarizes his impression

about Bhagavad Gita as follows. "After reading Gita, I find

discrepancies here and there. After some careful thought, I found that

the discrepancies are not in Gita but in my thought process and my

understanding of Gita!" This may partly explain the reasons for the

inconsistencies and our confusions.

 

Sages and Saints like Sankara attempts to explain the unexplainable

TRUTH using a media that appeals to human intellect. For example,

Vedavyasa explains Vedic dharma through Mahabharat. He also beautifully

implanted Bhagavad Gita in the middle of Mahabharat to explain the

philosophical significance of the Upanishads. However such

simplifications help some and confuses some. In addition, changes in

time, ideas and environment also introduce additional confusions. We

should also look back to history and understand the religious practices

during Sankara's time. Shiva- Shakti worships, Vishnu worships,

worships of other gods and goddesses, Buddhism and Jainism were

prevalent during Sankara's time. Sankara did play multiple roles, the

reformer of Hinduism, the protector of Hinduism, the philosopher and

most important - he became an institution. In order to unite and bring

back the Hindus, he explained Advaitam (Hinduism with Advaita) using

the religious language they understand. This may also explain why he

composed so many beautiful Sanskrit poems in praise of Shiva (Sivananda

Lahiri), Shakti (Soundarya Lahiri), Vishnu (Bhaja Govindham), and

others.

 

Let me stop at this point and allow others to respond. I repeat what I

have about mAyA in an earlier post: A complete understanding of mAyA is

the same us ‘TRUTH.' Since we don't know the Truth, our confusion will

remain until we dispel our ignorance. Since the level of our ignorance

is 'infinite,' we should take more time and we need more patience.

 

Regards,

 

Ram Chandran

Parvatijai wrote:

>

> Parvatijai

>

> Namaste,

>

> Please excuse my ignorance in this matter, but it is of great interest to me

> so if someone can help explain what appears to be a discrepancy in how

> Shankara defines maya within a singular text. In the Crest Jewel of

> Discrimination, Shankara writes about Maya:............

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

[ I am putting the following thoughts on mAyA, more for my

own clarification than as a response to any previous comments.

I am giving a small talk to a youth group in a few weeks time

and this forms part of the gist of the talk. I did not give

any references in the text, but this forms my understanding

of various upanishadic and advaita texts. I can give references

if anyone is interested. ]

 

mAyA is not an illusion. I like to look at it in a much more

simple way. Let us look at confusion with regard to something.

Later on, as we clear up the matter, we will see that there is

no longer confusion. Where has the confusion gone? It is simply

destroyed by the clearance of the matter and there is no longer

any confusion. mAyA, as I see it, is in exactly the same category.

If we understand (what we are), mAyA simply gets destroyed and is

no longer there. Who is the originator or the source of confusion?

We are. In exactly the same way, who is the source of this mAyA?

We are the source, the ignorant ones. That is exactly what Shri

Shankara's BrahmasutrAbhAshhya 1.1.4 says (as I understand it).

Then, is it necessary to say that mAyA is the power of Ishwara,

the Lord? The confusion, the mAyA, the misunderstanding is in us.

 

Now, let us look at somebody walking at a distance. We mistake the

person to be William, for example. When we go closely and see, we

will see it is indeed John and not William. So, what has happened

to William now? William has vanished and only John is there. We

have superposed William on John. But, after knowledge of that

person at distance, the superposed object has disappeared and

only the substratum remained.

 

Similarly, let us say we have seen a curly object at distance and

think it to be a snake. When we go closely and study that object,

we notice it is only a rope and not a snake. The superposed object

(snake in this case) has disappeared and only the real object, the

rope, remained.

 

So, superposition involves mistaking one object to be something else

and assigning the properties of one on the other. It is perfectly

simple. Uptill now, we have superposed object on an object, both

perceivable. We can also superpose a perceivable thing on something

not perceivable, like blue color on the sky and say the sky is blue.

The sky is not really blue, we have superposed blue color on the sky.

 

Now, let us apply this superposition to ourselves, i.e. what we consider

as I in vyavahArika sense. We consider, if we do not know advaita, that

I refers to this body, the embodiment limited by our physical form. In

our magnanimity, we will include in this I, the various thoughts we have

and also the decision-making faculty of us and call the total entity

as I. Is that I real? Or is it simply a superposition which we have

discussed earlier? Shri Shankara says that it is only a superposition

just as we analyzed as one object on the other.

 

Shri Shankara says that this is all a superposition on the fundamental

Consciousness. Let us see how it is. We say this is my body, my mind,

my intellect, my ego, my action and so on. What does this "my" refer to?

It means, either knowingly or unknowingly, we are looking at ourselves

as something deeper than this body, thoughts, and the decision-making

capability. We are referring to the soul here, the jeeva. Is that jeeva

real or is it a superposition like the superpositions we looked at

earlier? Shri Shankara says it is a superposition, on the substratum,

the Consciousness. Without the substratum, the superposition is not

there. The substratum + the superposition of body, mind and intellect

becomes the jeeva. The substratum is the real I. One of the lakshaNams

of the substratum are the substratum, the Consciousness, the Atman

does not participate in any activity. So, we are certainly wrong in

referring to as my body, my thought and so on. There is nothing beyond

that Consciousness and that Consciousness is the only thing there is.

Everything is superposed on that Consciousness. But, just like we ascribe

the properties of William to John, properties of snake on the rope,

property of blueness on the sky, we also ascribe the properties of the

superposed I on to the Consciousness. When we know the truth about the

substratum, the superposed disappears. Similarly, when we know the truth

of Consciousness, the superposed (body-mind-intellect complex) disappears

and only the substratum remains.

 

We know that the pleasures and pains which we go through is not really

us or ours but is only for the superposition. The superposition is not

real and the pleasures and pains are also not real. We also know

(intellectually) we are wrongly superposing the body-mind-intellect

complex on the substratum Consciousness, but still do it intermixing

the properties of the superposed and the substratum without any care.

One is the subject and the other is the object. We still superpose

unknowingly the subject on the object and vice versa. Why do we do it?

It is because of our ignorance, avidyA.

 

So, mAyA is only a mechanism through which this superposition takes

place. There is no need to study mAyA because mAyA vanishes when we

have the clear knowledge. How mAyA operates and whose is this mAyA

are questions to satisfy only intellectual curiosity. Further, we can

never understand how mAyA operates because, the intellect, which tries

to understand, is itself a product of mAyA. But, is mAyA anything more

than the confusion which I referred in my first paragraph above?

It is not. As the mAyA is cleared, all the superpositions will melt

and only the substratum, the pure Consciousness remains.

 

We can never intellectually understand the substratum, the Consciousness

either. Why? Two reasons: 1. Intellect and the substratum are not on the

same plane. Whenever the substratum appears, the intellect disappears.

Let us look at our earlier example of our mistaking John to be William.

William cannot understand John because William vanishes when John is

known to be John. William and John cannot be together at the same time

or place. 2. The superposed is trying to understand the substratum.

>From the substratum's perspective, the superposed is not there. The

superposed does not really have an existence apart from the substratum.

Thus, how can the superposed study and understand the substratum?

 

Now, I said earlier Consciousness is the only thing there is. However,

the multi-farious jagat appears in front of us and we cannot deny this

duality. So, is there a contradiction? No. The basis for all this

multifarious jagat, the substratum for all this multifarious jagat is

the Consciousness. Appearance of this multifarious jagat is not mAyA.

But, taking this multifarious jagat to be real is a result of mAyA.

Why this multifarious jagat appears this way is not of concern to us,

but is a concern of intellectual curiosity only. That question is not

any diffferent from questions like why are the various limbs on this

body different? We say it is all Ishwara's creation. Another way to

say it is: we do not really know. But, that is a question,

investigation of which does not take us anywhere. That question is

apart from the fundamental understanding that the Consciousness,

the substratum is all there is, and everything we see, perceive

and infer is all a superposition.

 

So, if the intellect cannot logically understand mAyA (mAyA vanishes

at clear understanding) and if the intellect cannot comprehend Atman

(intellect being a superposition on Atman due to mAyA), then what is

the role of the intellect in our knowing ourselves? Mind and intellect

are essentially vr^ttis (modifications) of the internal sense organ,

antahkaraNa. Mind is an impurity. If the impurity is gone, mind

dissolves itself and there will be no more antahkaraNavr^tti. If

there is no antahkaraNavr^tti, Knowledge (recognition of ourselves

as only a superposition) dawns on us. So the intellect can keep

itself to be pure and to be a fertile ground for dawning of Knowledge.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

This is a continuation of my previous post on this topic of September 19.

In that post, I have argued that mAyA is simply a larger phenomenon of

the confusion which we sometimes feel. The locus of mAyA is in the jIvA

and it is not necessary to take mAyA as the power of Ishwara. Lest

someone feels that, if mAyA is simply like confusion then it may be a

simple matter to overcome it, I give below how powerful is this mAyA.

Even Ishwara is a product of this mAyA. Shri Shankara in five verses,

called mAyA pa~ncakam, recognizes the very potent effect mAyA has on

humans. It is interesting that Shri Shankara did not ascribe this as

a tool of Ishwara to make the humans go through this. Here are the

mAyA pa~ncakam verses with a rough translation that I attempted. If

anyone has a better translation or if I had made a mistake in the

translation, I would be most grateful if they post it in this thread.

 

 

mAyA pa~ncakam

 

nirupama nitya niraMshake'pyakhanDe

mayi citi sarva-vikalpAdishUnye

ghaTayati jagadIshajIvabhedam

tvaghaTita-ghaTanA-paTIyasI mAyA 1

 

I am nitya, uncomparable, without any amsha, I am without parts,

I am jnAnam. I am without saMkalpa and vikalpa. In such Atman,

mAyA is creating the three-fold difference of jagat, Ishwara and jIva.

MAyA is capable of creating that which cannot be created.

 

shruti-shata-nigamAnta-shodhakA na

pyahaha dhanAdi-darshanena sadyah

kaluShayati catuShpadA dyabhinnAm

stvaghaTita-ghaTanA-paTIyasI mAyA 2

 

Many hundreds of words in the vedAs and the mahAvAkyAs of the

upaniShads teach tattvajnAnam. Yet, mAyA, by showing the wealth etc,

is corrupting the minds of the humans into behaving like animals.

It is a wonder. MAyA is capable of doing that which cannot be done.

 

sukhacidakhanDavibOdha madvitIyam

viyadanalAdivinirmite niyOjya

bhramayati bhramasAgare nitAntam

tvaghaTita-ghaTanA-paTIyasI mAyA 3

 

Atman is without parts, is sat-cit-Ananda and is non-dual. Yet,

mAyA pushes the Atman into an ocean of illusion made up the five

elements and whirls It in that ocean of illusion. MAyA is capable

of doing that which cannot be done.

 

apagata-guNa-jAti-varNa-bhede

sukhaciti vipravidAdyahaMkr^tim ca

sphuTayati sutadArageham

tvaghaTita-ghaTanA-paTIyasI mAyA 4

 

Atman is without the differences of guNa and jAti and is mass of

Ananda. Yet, mAyA creates in such Atman the ego of thinking that

I am Brahmin, I am kshatriya etc and also the delusion that this

is my wife, my children and my house. MAyA is certainly capable

of doing that which cannot be done.

 

vidhi hara hari vibheda mapyakhaNDe

bata viracayya budhAnapi prakAmam

bhramayati hari hara bhedabhAvA

naghaTita-ghaTanA-paTIyasI mAyA 5

 

In the Atman that is without parts and that is sat-cit-Ananda,

mAyA is creating the feeling of difference like brahma, vishnu

and maheshwara. Even in the well-learned, it is creating the

delusion that I am shivabhakta, I am vishNubhakta etc. MAyA is

certainly capable of doing that which cannot be done.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

Hari Om!

I am sure Mr Murthy is also aware of the famous sloka in Vivekachudamani,

also by Adi Shankara, where in the first line of the definition of Maya

(Verse 108- easy to remember!) says is it is "paramesha saktih". I suppose

the confusion that Murthy correctly mentions is confounding enough to even

hide the hands of the Iswara who is behind it!

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 RajuAteam wrote:

> RajuAteam

>

> Hari Om!

> I am sure Mr Murthy is also aware of the famous sloka in Vivekachudamani,

> also by Adi Shankara, where in the first line of the definition of Maya

> (Verse 108- easy to remember!) says is it is "paramesha saktih". I suppose

> the confusion that Murthy correctly mentions is confounding enough to even

> hide the hands of the Iswara who is behind it!

>

 

namaste.

 

Yes, mAyA is capable of such confounding, as mAyApa~ncakam verses reveal.

 

But, let me explain. The role of paramesha is not discounted here.

It is paramesha (in conjoint with shakti) who creates this dualistic

jagat, and it is He (conjoint with shakti) who creates this manas,

buddhi and the feeling of karma and the feeling of individuality in

a jIvA. Also, it is paramesha who lets us get out of this web and see

things clearly and destroy the confusion.

 

But where is this paramesha? This paramesha is situated in the

mAyA-generated mind of a mAyA-generated jIvA. If this mAyA-generated

jIvA breaks out of this AviccharaNa called mAyA (no doubt with

paramesha's grace), mAyA is no longer there. Well, the objective

jagat would still be there, but the subjective interpretations that

we put on the jagat will no longer be there and our perception of

the jagat would change.

 

Coming to VivekachUDAmaNi verse 108, yes, it mentions paramesha-shaktih.

I am not sure if paramesha refers here to nirguNa Brahman or saguNa

Brahman. If shaktih refers to power, nirguNa Brahman does not have

power and hence, I think paramesha here refers to saguNa Brahman.

SwamI TurIyAnanda's translation of that verse is: There is One -

(describing mAyA)- undifferentiated and undivided. Nobody can define

what it is, but it *has the power of God* (my emphasis). Beginningless

and yet, also called ignorance, it has three qualities......

 

MAyA has the power of God (It did not say it *is* the power of the Lord).

Swami Chinmayananda's translation of VC says in this context it (mAyA)

is the power of the Lord. My preference is for SwamI TurIyAnanda's

translation in this context. The difference, in my view, is subtle,

but important.

 

My interpretation of parameshashaktih in VC-108 is to take it as not

Ishwara's power or tool. It (mAyA) has the power of the God.

SaundaryalaharI-1 (Shiva shaktyAh ...) says that Ishwara without Shakti

(the divine Mother) cannot even stir. Only when united with the divine

Mother, can Ishwara create this jagat. I would prefer VC-108

interpretation consistent with SaundaryalaharI-1. The divine Mother is

asheshajanamohinI (one who mesmarizes the whole jagat).

 

Let us understand what is mAyA. MAyA is not the dualistic jagat we see,

but the delusion that what we see is real. There are two lines of thought

in this that I came across.

 

In one: the jagat (both objective and subjective) is created by the Lord

by his power of mAyA. He is mAyAvI, the wielder of mAyA. The products of

mAyA are both the objective and subjective jagat. By Ishwara's grace, if

avidyA is removed for an individual jIvA, the jagat will no longer be

there for the jIvA and the jIvA attains moksha.

 

In the other (which is my understanding): the objective jagat is created

by Ishwara, conjoint with shakti. The objective jagat is not due to mAyA.

The subjective jagat which the jIvA imposes on the God's creation is the

result of mAyA. This subjective jagat is the result of avidyA of the jIvA.

The objective jagat is dualistic in appearance, but what is important is

the Brahman, the substratum of this objective jagat. That is non-dual.

The dualistic appearance of the jagat is not the result of mAyA but for

us to think that the dualistic appearance of the jagat is real is the

result of mAyA. And that delusion in the jIvA is the result of mAyA,

with its locus right in the avidyA of jIvA itself. The dualistic

appearance of the objective jagat is not any different from the

difference in the left and right hands of a jIvA. Somehow, we wrongly

ascribe the dualistic appearance of the jagat to mAyA and we do not

question the latter. But, they are both in the same category. MAyA

is the subjective interpretation we put on the jagat, due to our avidyA,

that is in us. Shri Shankara answers in BrahmasUtrAbhAShya to the question

"To who does this avidyA belong?" is: to the person who asks this

question.

 

In this context, I notice that we have not yet utilized the presence

for a short duration of Swamini Sharadapriyananda on our list. I would

request if the Swamini would like to expand on this discussion a bit

more and clarify these concepts: Particularly, I would like her to

address:

 

1. Is mAyA the power or tool of Ishwara? In all my readings, I have seen

Ishwara described as mAyAvi, but describing Him as the wielder of power

is more a dvaitic or vishiShTadvaitic interpretation rather than an

advaitic interpretation. Am I wrong in thinking that avidyA is in the

jIvA and is not that with which Ishwara toys with the jIvAs? Getting

rid of avidyA in jIvA is by Ishwara's grace, but still avidyA's locus

is in the jIvA.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 RajuAteam wrote:

> RajuAteam

>

> Hari Om!

> I am sure Mr Murthy is also aware of the famous sloka in Vivekachudamani,

> also by Adi Shankara, where in the first line of the definition of Maya

> (Verse 108- easy to remember!) says is it is "paramesha saktih". I suppose

> the confusion that Murthy correctly mentions is confounding enough to even

> hide the hands of the Iswara who is behind it!

>

 

namaste.

 

On further reflection on paramesha-shaktih in VC-108, it seems to me

that paramesha here refers to nirguNa Brahman, described in the shruti

by neti, neti and as avyaktam etc. That is ungraspable by the sense

organs, uninferrable and incomprehensible to the mind. Shaktih refers

to the primordial energy latent in the all-pervading consciousness.

It is this energy that manifests itself after each praLaya and transforms

into creation. The reference to paramesha-shaktih here is to indicate

that mAyA is anAdi, without beginning, but is not to indicate that it

is a power-tool in the arsenal of Ishwara, the saguNa Brahman.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Murthygaru:

 

Your observation that "it is ungraspable by the sense organs, uninferrable and

incomprehensible to the mind" is quite right. You said it so beautifully and I

whole heartedly agree.

 

To be consistent with this observation, "paramesha-shaktih" should imply that

Brahman alone has the capacity (power) to grasp the Truth behind Maya. All

theories that we postulate are our own creation which should be negated at the

end when we become aware of our SELF.

 

Nirguna Brahman, Saguna Brahman are also notions created by the human mind to

rationalize the events of our life using our limited knowledge. Every thing that

we want to thank again comes back with the same unanswered question, "Who Am I?"

Our intellect has the ability to capacity to negate "Who I am not?"

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

--

Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

>namaste.

>

>On further reflection on paramesha-shaktih in VC-108, it seems to me

>that paramesha here refers to nirguNa Brahman, described in the shruti

>by neti, neti and as avyaktam etc. That is ungraspable by the sense

>organs, uninferrable and incomprehensible to the mind. Shaktih refers

>to the primordial energy latent in the all-pervading consciousness.

>It is this energy that manifests itself after each praLaya and transforms

>into creation. The reference to paramesha-shaktih here is to indicate

>that mAyA is anAdi, without beginning, but is not to indicate that it

>is a power-tool in the arsenal of Ishwara, the saguNa Brahman.

>

>Regards

>Gummuluru Murthy