Guest guest Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 our Saints have been the active force to take away our favorite toys from us, because it is in their nature to debunk the stickiness of the mind to any object of perception; thus was Maya coined to say "hey guys, just ease up on death and money, it ain't real!" but then, when a whole school was born to comment on the unreal and the maya-ness (not mayonaise) of the world, another saint said: "but Maya is Brahman!" eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 Let me share what Bhagavad Gita says about Maya, it is part of my e-Book: The unintelligent think of me, the non-manifest, as having manifestation, knowing not my higher, immutable and most excellent nature. I am not manifest to all as I am veiled by the Yoga Maya – the deluded world can not know me, the unborn and imperishable. - Maya is an illusion created because of the limited capacity of the senses and the intellect – the senses, intellect, and the mind together start believing that the information brought in by the senses is the entire truth - the fundamental nature of reality is that it is unborn, non-manifest, and unchanging - The Brahman is imperishable, the supreme being whose essential nature is called self-knowledge (adhyatman) - Karma causes the many life spans of beings in order to have them attain self-knowledge of – “you do not belong to yourself; yourself belongs to the totality - An Avatara may manifest his divinity or choose to hide it with his “Maya†– since they all uphold righteousness, they are God The Lord dwells (abides) in the hearts of all beings, causing all beings, by his illusive power (Maya), to revolve as if mounted on a wheel. - God and his inscrutable Maya constitute the entire universe but Maya hides God’s real nature - Maya is the manifestation-potentiality state of God, the infinite being, like that shown by a rain drop in the process of formation – the human’ s comprehension power is limited to grasping the illusive power of Maya - Maya is dynamic and makes everyone revolve; when we are at peace within ourselves, we are in the light of God – however, when the mind is restless, it is caught in Maya - Anything that leads us to our center is the grace of God, anything that tempts us away from there is the work of Maya. Pleasure, prosperity and success make us extrovert; they are the tempting baits of Maya that introduce distance between God and us. Pain, adversity and failure on the other hand bring us back to ourselves -- they are the signs of God’s grace Dave Anand www.PeopleSuperHighway.com n a message dated 12/11/2003 6:30:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, vertvetiver writes: our Saints have been the active force to take away our favorite toys from us, because it is in their nature to debunk the stickiness of the mind to any object of perception; thus was Maya coined to say "hey guys, just ease up on death and money, it ain't real!" but then, when a whole school was born to comment on the unreal and the maya-ness (not mayonaise) of the world, another saint said: "but Maya is Brahman!" eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 Hari OM! Blessed Eric, Maya means, Like we are emailing and talking like this, without understanding the basic principle of Advaita, that is MAYA! Maya never started, but there is an end to it. Yes, Without Brahman there is no Maya also. With Love & OM! Krishna Prasad advaitin, "eric paroissien" <vertvetiver> wrote: > our Saints have been the active force to take away our favorite toys > from us, because it is in their nature to debunk the stickiness of > the mind to any object of perception; > thus was Maya coined to say "hey guys, just ease up on death and > money, it ain't real!" > but then, when a whole school was born to comment on the unreal and > the maya-ness (not mayonaise) of the world, another saint said: > "but Maya is Brahman!" > eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 Hari OM Krishnaji, let the one who understands the basic principles of advaita come forth and tell us why anyone ever wanted to separate sat, chit and ananda in three concepts. love, eric advaitin, "Krishna Prasad" <rkrishp99> wrote: > Hari OM! > > Blessed Eric, > > Maya means, Like we are emailing and talking like this, without > understanding the basic principle of Advaita, that is MAYA! > > Maya never started, but there is an end to it. > > Yes, Without Brahman there is no Maya also. > > > With Love & OM! > > Krishna Prasad > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 Hari OM! Ericji, See what one who knows the principles have to say below is said by Swami Sivanandaji, of Divine life Soceity. Intelligence is not to be predicated of Brahman as its attributes but it constitutes its substance. It is its Svarupa or essence. Brahman is not a thinking being, but thought itself. He is not all- knowing but knowledge itself (self-knowledge). He is not all- powerful but power itself. He is not all-beautiful but beauty itself. He is Bliss itself. Do you see the difference now? That is termed Svarupa or essence of everything. He is absolutely destitute of qualities; whatever qualities or attributes are conceivable, can only be denied of it. But if nothing exists but one absolutely simple Being, whence the appearance of the world by which we ourselves are surrounded and in which we ourselves exist as individual beings? Brahman is associated with certain power called Maya or Avidya to which the appearance of this world is due. Oh how deep, unfathomable and marvellous is this Maya, the inscrutable (Anirvachaniya) power of Brahman! Every human being, though in essence he is really Brahman, does not—though instructed— grasp the truth "I am Brahman" but feels convinced, without any instruction, that he is such a person's son mistaking for the Atman and is only perceived like a stone or pot. Indeed, these worldly- minded persons wander in this miserable Samsara repeatedly deluded by the Maya of Brahman alone. The idea of Brahman, when judged from the viewpoint of intellect, is an abstraction, but it is concretely real for those who have the direct vision to see it (Aparoksha Anubhuti or Sakshatkara). Therefore, the consciousness of the reality of Brahman has boldly been described to be as real as the consciousness of an Amalaka fruit held in one's palm. Even intellect can grasp only a little of the Truth. Brahman has positive attributes such as Sat-Chit-Ananda, purity, perfection, Satyam, Jnanam, Anantam, etc., They are not really attributes. They are all synonymous terms for Truth or Brahman. Sat-Chit-Ananda also is a mental Kalpana (imagination). These are the highest qualifications of Brahman which the human intellect can grasp. Generally Brahman is described by negation of qualities such as Nirakara (formless), Nirguna, Nirvikalpa (without modification of mind), etc. Are we not driven to take the same course ourselves when a blind man asks for a description of light? Have we not to say in such a case that light has neither sound, nor taste, nor form, nor weight, nor resistance, nor can it be known through the process of analysis? Of course it can be seen but what is the use of saying this to one who has no eyes? He may take the statement on trust without understanding in the least what it means, or may altogether disbelieve it, even suspecting in us some abnormality. Does the truth of the fact that a blind man has missed the perfect development of what should be normal about his eye-sight depend for its proof upon the fact that a large number of men are not blind? The very first creature which suddenly groped into the possession of its eye-sight had the right to assert that the light was reality. In the human world there may be very few who have their spiritual eyes open, but in spite of the numerical preponderance of those who cannot see, their want of vision must not be cited as an evidence of the negation of the light. In the Upanishads we find the note of certainty about the spiritual meaning of existence. In the very paradoxical nature of the assertion that we can never know Brahman— but can realise Him—there lies the strength of conviction that comes from personal experience (Anubhava). The variety of experience is not real, nay even experience itself is nowhere from the point of view of the Absolute. To lead the life wherein the variety of experience does not affect, either our weal or woe, is the highest practical rule of conduct in accordance with the proper aim of existence. The variety of experience creates distinction and sets up false limits where there exists none. Pain and pleasure, good and evil, virtue and vice, merit and sin, are all conventions based on this variety of experience. But in the Absolute (Brahman) no such distinctions are possible and the Highest Bliss, which cannot be described in words other than those employing negation of everything positive known to us, consists in forgetting this source of separateness and realising that unity which is the very being and the nature of the cosmos. When the sense of separateness is killed out by intense and incessant spiritual Sadhana, you will become one with Brahman. There are seven links in the chain of bondage. Misery is the final link in the chain of cause and effect. Every link depends for its existence upon the previous link. The seven links are:—(1) Misery, (2) Embodiment, (3) Karma, (4) Raga (attachment), (5) Dvesha (repulsion), (6) Aviveka (non-discrimination), and (7) Ajnana. If the root cause Ajnana (ignorance of the Self) is removed by Atma- jnana or knowledge of the Self, the other links will be broken by themselves. From ignorance, non-discrimination is born; from non- discrimination, Abhimana (egoism); from Abhimana, Raga-Dvesha; from Raga-Dvesha, Karma; from Karma, this physical body; from the physical body, misery. If you want to annihilate misery, you must get rid of embodiment. If you want to get rid of embodiment, you must not perform actions. If you wish to cease to act, you must abandon Raga-Dvesha. If you want to free yourself from Abhimana, you must destroy Aviveka and develop Viveka (discrimination) or discrimination between the Self and non-self. If you want to get rid of Aviveka, you must annihilate Ajnana. If you want to get rid of Ajnana, you must get knowledge of the Self. There is no other way of escaping this chain. Brahman is otherwise known as `Svarupa'. "Then by what should he see whom?" (Bri. Up: 11-4-13). This passage intimates that there is neither an agent nor an object of action, nor an instrument. There is neither enjoyment, nor enjoyer, nor enjoyable, (Bhoga, Bhokta, Bhogya) in Brahman. There is neither seer, sight, seen (Drashta, Drik and Drishya) also in Brahman. There is neither knower, knowledge or knowable, (Jnata, Jnana, Jneya). Brahman is free from Triputi or these triads which pertain to sense-universe and sense- knowledge only. Svarupa is all pure consciousness, all knowledge, all-bliss itself. Brahman is self-existent (Svayambhu), self- contained (Paripurna), self-luminous (Svayam Jyoti), self-knowledge (Chit Svarupa), self-delight and independent. That is Svarupa. There are neither Indriyas nor instruments in Svarupa. Sat-Chit-Ananda is not the quality of Brahman. That is its essence or embodiment. An infinite Vastu (article)—Brahma Sarva Vastu—must be Nirakara (formless) and Vyapaka (all-pervading). It must be beyond time, space and causation also. It must be unchanging and beginningless. It must be causeless also. A thing that is beyond time, space and causation must be immortal. This infinite Vastu having no sound, etc., does not decay or suffer diminution. Therefore it is eternal, for what decays is ephemeral, but this Vastu does not decay. Being eternal, it is beginningless; that being an effect is not eternal and is absorbed into its cause as earth, etc. But this being the cause of all is not an effect and not being an effect it is eternal. It has no cause into which it could be absorbed. It is endless; therefore it is eternal. Moksha or release from Samsara is not something to be achieved. If it is a thing to be achieved by Karma it cannot be eternal. It is already there. Every thing is one with the Absolute and in fact the Absolute itself. What is to be achieved is destruction of the sense of separateness, which being accomplished, Moksha is easily attained. All Sadhanas (spiritual practices) aim at Avidya Nivritti (removal of ignorance) and the idea of separateness. When the veil is removed Brahman shines in His own glory (Niralamba state). The acquisition of Truth (Brahma Jnana) is independent of caste or any other distinction. The highest knowledge (Para Vidya) cannot be imparted by the Vedas (Apara Vidya). But a knowledge of the Vedas is necessary to prepare the mind for the highest knowledge. Just as oil is hidden in seeds, butter in curd, mind in the brain, pith in munja grass, fire in smoke, sun behind clouds, water underneath the moss in a stagnant pool of water, fire in fuel, music in gramophone record, scent in buds, gold in quartz, this Atman or Brahman or Supreme Self is hidden in this body. Just as you take the butter by churning process, so also you will have to realise the Truth by the process of meditation. When you are established in the Svarupa, where are Ishvara, Jiva and Jagat? Where is body? Where are the Prarabdha, Sanchita and Agami? Where are the Muladhara and Kundalini? Where are the heaven and the hell? Where are virtue and vice? Where are the Dvandva, good and bad, pleasure and pain, heat and cold, gain and loss, victory and defeat? Where is Shakti? Where are Maya and Avidya? Where are Guru and disciple? Where are Dharana, Dhyana and Samadhi? Where are the Vedas, the Upanishads and the Brahma Sutras? Where are Sravana, Manana and Nididhyasana? Where are the three Gunas and five Koshas? Where are the Mahavakyas `Aham Brahma Asmi' and `Tat Tvam Asi'? Where is Pranava? Where are Dharmas and Adharmas? Where are East and West, day and night, light and darkness? Some close and open the nostrils 820 times daily to attain this state. Some stand upon the head for six hours. Some try to open the Gudachakra by Asvini Mudra by opening and shutting the anus. Some remain in water upto the neck for 12 hours in winter. Some expose themselves to the hot sun in summer amidst five fires (Panchagni Tapas). Some live on offal and Neem leaves. Some roam about from Badri to Cape Comorin on foot. Some roll the beads standing on one leg. Some take one meal every third day (Kricchra Vrata). These are egoistic practices of dull persons. These are the means to purify the mind and control the Indriyas. They are not the end itself. The end is the attainment of Brahma Jnana or they knowledge of the Self. Jnana or knowledge of Brahman is purely a mental state. It is subjective. It is a state of spiritual illumination which dawns when the mind is absolutely calm, when it is free from all desires, passions, Vasanas and all sorts of thoughts. The Akhanda Brahmakara Vritti arises from the pure mind when it is perfectly Sattvic, when all the Sankalpas stop. Jnana is the fruit of pure Sattvic Vichara. `Chit' is absolute consciousness. This is the substratum for the intellect. Intellect borrows its light and power from this pure Chit. In reality you are `Chit Svarupa'—an embodiment of intelligence. This has to be realised through constant meditation. This demands self-denial, self-renunciation, self-abnegation and self-forgetfulness. This little illusory `I' must be thoroughly annihilated beyond resurrection. This is the teaching of Vedanta. One should live in the spirit of Vedanta by destroying `I'- ness, `mine'-ness, selfishness and attachment. Then alone he can be really happy even while discharging the duties of his life by remaining in the world. Then the petty life of hurry, worry, excitement and competition will seem to you as nothing when compared to the everlasting life of eternal sunshine and bliss in the Atman within. It is a great pity that almost all people have totally ignored the simpler happy inner life of introspection and have caught hold of false toys of Maya such as money, women, power, fame, name, position, etc. Sooner or later the experiences of the world, the knocks and blows of the mundane existence will force them to turn their minds inwards to realise the true everlasting happiness. Even if you live in the true spirit of a single Mantra of the Upanishads, you will attain the summum bonum of existence, viz., Immortality and Eternal Bliss of the Self! May you all enjoy the Bliss of the Eternal by realising the Supreme Tattva!! May you lead the life of a practical Vedantin in the daily battle of life!!! ---------Swami Sivanandaji With Love & OM! Krishna Prasad advaitin, "eric paroissien" <vertvetiver> wrote: > Hari OM Krishnaji, > let the one who understands the basic principles of advaita come > forth and tell us why anyone ever wanted to separate sat, chit and > ananda in three concepts. > love, eric > > advaitin, "Krishna Prasad" <rkrishp99> > wrote: > > Hari OM! > > > > Blessed Eric, > > > > Maya means, Like we are emailing and talking like this, without > > understanding the basic principle of Advaita, that is MAYA! > > > > Maya never started, but there is an end to it. > > > > Yes, Without Brahman there is no Maya also. > > > > > > With Love & OM! > > > > Krishna Prasad > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 advaitin, Danand5@a... wrote: > Let me share what Bhagavad Gita says about Maya, it is part of my e-Book: Namaste. Once, in the other list, I wrote a long essay on mAyA in answer to a question raised there. I am reproducing that post below. Its original can be seen in http://www.escribe.com/religion/advaita/m12544.html and further posts by Sadanandaji following this can be seen there. The text of that essay of mine is reproduced below for the benefit of the present discussion: ------------------------------ The following question has been raised by a member. "In advaita, is Maya considered real or imaginary. I mean if everything except for the self is unreal, then is Maya also considered unreal ?" Let me first attempt to state the questioner's viewpoint. Unless mAyA is already present, neither concealment nor projection can take place. Is mAyA then coeval with brahman? Do they exist side by side? Does this not contradict the non-dual status of brahman? Where does mAyA operate? What is its base of operation? These questions raise very profound issues. The base of activity of mAyA cannot be brahman because the latter is Absolute Luminosity and there is no place in it for ignorance or darkness. Nor can the jIva be the base of operations of mAyA. For jIva itself cannot come into existence until mAyA has operated. There seems to be an irresoluble logical difficulty here. But the difficulty will vanish once we realize that we are here making an implicit assumption that is not valid. We are actually assuming the prior reality of time and space before the appearance of mAyA. Otherwise we could not have asked the question: Where does mAyA operate? When does it come into existence? These questions are valid only if you have a frame of reference in time and space independent of mAyA. But time and space, says Sankara, are themselves creations of mAyA. (cf. `mAyA-kalpita-desha-kAla- kalanAt' in his dakshiNAmUrti-stotra, sloka no.4). In fact, this is also the answer to the physicist's question: When did time originate? Time did not originate in a timeless frame because we would then be begging the question. The very fact that we are conscious of the passage of time is a consequence of mAyA. So questions such as, `Where does mAyA operate?' and `When did it start operating?' are not properly posed. Time and space cannot claim prior existence. It is therefore wrong to ask whether mAyA is prior to jIva or later than jIva. Ultimate Reality is beyond space and time. In the words of Swami Vivekananda, time, space and causation are like the glass through which the Absolute is seen. In the Absolute itself, there is neither space, nor time nor causation. As in the field of modern physics, so in the field of vedanta, time and space are modes incidental to sense perception and should not be applied to what is trans-empirical. jIva and mAyA are both given a priori in our experience and we have to take them as such. They are anAdi (beginningless). The only relevant question that you can ask about them is about their nature and final destiny. Examination will show that mAyA is neither real nor unreal. `I am ignorant' is a common expression, within anybody's experience. Hence mAyA is not completely unreal. But it disappears with the onset of knowledge. So it is not real either. Thus it is different from both the real and the unreal. In Sanskrit it is therefore called `sad-asad- vilakshaNa', meaning that it is different from both the real and the unreal. And for the same reason it is said to be `anirvacanIya', meaning, that which is undecidable or that which cannot be defined one way or the other. It is in this sense we say that the world of perception, the common world of experience, cannot be rejected out of hand as totally false, like the hare's horn or the lotus in the sky; nor can it be taken to be totally real because it suffers contradiction at a higher level of experience. It is real in the empirical sense and unreal in the absolute sense. This is also the case with a dream. For the dreamer, the dream is real. The acceptance of the reality of the dream to the dreamer is the king-pin of Sankara's explanation of advaita. He bases many of his arguments on this phenomenal reality of the dream. This reality, called `vyAvahArika-satyaM' is in between the total unreality - `asat' – of the barren mother, and the total reality – `sat' - of brahman. The dream and similarly the perceptible universe is neither `sat' nor `asat'. It is `mithyA'. The meaning of the word `mithyA' is not falsehood but comparative unreality. It is not total non-existence like hare's horn but it is midway between the absolute truth of brahman and the absolute falsehood of hare's horn. There are actually different analogies to explain the peculiar relationship between brahman and the universe. The analogy that Sankara very often uses is the relationless relationship of the rope that is mistaken for the snake, because of poor lighting. The rope appears as a snake no doubt, but actually there is no snake there, ever. Even when it appeared to be there, it was not there. But the one who saw it did really get scared on `seeing' the snake and only when help came in the form of better lighting did the person realize that what `was there' all the time was only a rope. The second analogy that is used in the literature is the appearance of water in a mirage. And the third one is that of the dreamer and his dream. Each of these three analogies has its own limitation in explaining the relationship between brahman which is invisible and the universe which is visible. Brahman is the rope; the visible universe is the snake. What appears as the universe is not really the universe. When spiritual illumination takes place we will know that what was there all the time was only brahman. Similarly in the example of the mirage and water, the water appearance is only an illusion. What is there in reality is only sand, no water. The dream of course is totally a mental aberration, fully subjective and it vanishes the moment the person wakes up. The three analogies are not however just three analogies in place of one. There is a gradation, says Ramana Maharishi. First it may be questioned, with reference to the analogy of the rope and the snake that when the lighting situation improves the appearance of the snake is no more there, whereas, in the case of brahman versus universe, even after learning that brahman is the substratum of truth, and the universe is only a superimposition like the snake on the rope, we still continue to see the universe; it has not disappeared! For this the Maharishi wants you to go to the analogy of the mirage. Once you understand it is the mirage and no watershed, the appearance of water is no more there. But now there is another objection. `Even after knowing that there is only brahman and the universe is only an appearance, one gets certain wants fulfilled from this appearance of a universe: one gets one's hunger satisfied, thirst quenched and so on. But the water in the mirage does not quench one's thirst; so to that extent the analogy is inappropriate'. The analogy of the dream meets this objection, says the Maharishi. The dreamer has his thirst quenched in the dream. The thirst itself is a dream thirst and it is quenched by drinking (dream) water in the dream; so also the wants that one feels in this universe like hunger and thirst are also quenched by corresponding objects in this universe. Thus in this sense the analogy of the dream is reasonably perfect. Maybe that is why Sankara uses the analogy of the dream so emphatically to describe the reality or unreality of the universe. In advaita the concept of reality is always comparative. Relative to materials things made out of the materials are unreal. In other words if a bucket is made out of plastic, the bucket is unreal relative to the plastic. It is the cause that is `more real' than the effect. The cause of the world versus the world itself gives us a comparison about their relative reality. When we say that the universe is unreal, we mean that IT IS UNREAL AS THE UNIVERSE, BUT IT IS SURELY REAL AS BRAHMAN, ITS CAUSE. In order to explain this relative unreality the theory of superimposition is meticulously worked out by Sankara. While the snake is superimposed on the rope, the rope undergoes no aberration or modification in the process. It is the same rope all the time. What appears to you is only in your mind. The visible universe is just a perishable (kShara) superimposition on brahman. Brahman does not undergo any change in the process. All the time brahman remains as brahman, the imperishable (akShara) substratum. This is where the nirguNa (attributeless) character of brahman is effectively applied by Sankara to his explanation of this mysterious relationship. This phenomenon of brahman not being visible but something else, the universe, being visible, is exactly what the term `mAyA' means. It does two things. It hides brahman from you. Simultaneously it projects the universe to you. The declaration that this is what is happening comes forth from the Lord Himself in Gita IX – 5, 6. `Everything that is perceptible is pervaded and permeated by Me, who is unmanifested. All the beings are established in Me but not I in them; they are not in Me either, this is my divine yoga.'. He remains unmanifested while what is visible is basically a permeation by him. While he remains unchanged, and imperceptible, the universe is what is perceptible. Everything visible is supported by Him as the only substratum, whereas He Himself is not supported by anything. He is His own support. The snake appears on the rope, the rope does not undergo any change, but the snake is supported by the rope, (meaning, without the rope there is no snake). But in reality the snake was never there and so it is also true to say that the snake is not in the rope. To the question: Where is the snake?, the answer is: it is in the rope. To the question, Is the snake there?, the answer is, there is no snake, the snake was never in the rope. It is in this strain that the Lord gives out, almost in the same breath, what appears to be two contradictory statements. Everything is in Me; and nothing is in Me. Thisis the cosmic mystery of the existence of the Universe. It is and is not – sad-asad-vilakshaNa, mAyA! praNAms to all advaitins profvk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2003 Report Share Posted December 12, 2003 Namaste. To put it all in a nutshell in order to avoid confusion: 1. Everything other than me is mAyA simply because they are conditioned by space and time. Everything here includes my body, mind, intellect, ego etc. and also space and time which are all objectifibable or known. 2. The witness of all this is me. 3. Understanding advaita is 'realizing' I am the 'witnessing' (gerund, not present continuous) into which all the known and the witness (knower)(that again is mAyA as long it stands separate from the rest) merge irreversably into one Unity. That Unity is Sat, Chit and Ananda (translated into English as Existence, Knowledge (Consciousness) and Fullness (also called bliss), which are all verily synonyms for the one and only 'witnessing'. 4. With this 'realization', mAyA is undone. This 'realizing' is no more a knowing in the normal sense because then there is nothing to be known. One has 'become' Knowledge, which one has always been and which is Sat as well as Ananda. In other words, one is 'realization' here without divisions and without an outside, inside or beyond. And that is ineffable to normal knowing but we all discern that IT IS. PraNAms. Madathil Nair ________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2003 Report Share Posted December 12, 2003 Namaste all, Many thanks to you all for your contributions to this topic which are greatly needed to dispel the incorrect understandign of Maya so often loosely translated a 'illusion' in the West. I am attaching below something from my present study of language and ineffability in South Asian non-dual teachings. This comes from a section considering the 'power of the devas' and especially of Brihaspati, Vak and Sarasvati in the Rg Veda. It has not been edited properly and I have used different transliterations when 'copying and pasting' so I apologise for any difficulties this confusions may cause. I have not time to edit it properly at the moment and it is only a bit of writing to put down some first thoughts and requires some 'subtle chiselling'. The English translations generally come from Griffith and at some future 'chiselling' I will attempt to smooth out some of his harsh errors of translation. Best wishes Ken Knight 'As the many devaH emanate out of the single self-power, svadha, of ‘That One’ through some mysterious process, so too do the devaH and asuraH themselves assume different forms. Indra’s essential nature is as ‘protector’ but he achieves this role though various forms. páraa puúrveSaaM sakhyaá vRNakti vitárturaaNo áparebhir eti | ánaanubhuutiir avadhuunvaanáH puurviír índraH sharádas tartariiti || ruupáM-ruupam prátiruupo babhuuva tád asya ruupám praticákSaNaaya | índro maayaábhiH pururuúpa iiyate yuktaá hy àsya hárayaH shataá dásha || ‘Indra protects the men who are his people………In every figure he hath been the mode: this is his only form for us to look on. Indra moves multiform by his illusions; for his Bay Steeds are yoked, ten times a hundred.’[1] The seers similarly observed that Agni takes on many forms but remains fire in essence. There is fire in the heat of the sun, in the cool light of dawn and the cold light of the moon, there is fire in the lightning and there is fire in the flame of the sacrificial fire. Where that fire emerges from is a mystery because fire itself, in essence, cannot be traced. Yet it is that essence that has the power to manifest itself : agninAgniH samidhyate ‘By Agni Agni is inflamed.’[2] It is by accepting the process as an ultimate mystery that the Vedic seer perceived the perennial problem of how the ‘One becomes many without dimunition or any other change.’ It is through the ‘magic might’, Maya, that this differentiation takes place. In this usage then Maya is the power of differentiation while the essential unity is not lost, for example fire does not lose its essential power of fireness when it takes on the form of the flame. However, for the experiences of the senses, the essential nature of fire has been veiled by the magical appearance of the form of the flame. That is one of the central meanings of Maya in the Rgveda where the word is used more than one hundred times.[3] Maya is the power of differentiation, a power of revealing while at the same time it is a veiling. Paradoxically it is a veiling that reveals that which is hidden in the depths. Without the use of words we cannot express our deepest feelings for another person to understand our meaning but we know also that analysis of the words themselves is inadequate in their limited forms. Maya is also a form of knowledge as in the example of a skilful mathematician performing amazing acts of mental arithmetic through the knowledge of some simple formula. Ultimately it is an ‘illusion’ only inasmuch as it is the power of a single essence appearing as many. Indra and Agni are known as mAyAvat or mAyin, the latter sometimes translated as conjurer or illusionist, because of their capacity to take on many forms. They ‘measure out’, from the root mA, their essence into mental and empirical, visible forms that are transitory in their existence. In this way they echo the ability of Tad Ekam to become the many forms of the objective fields of the senses. Betty Heimann summarises this: ‘The measurability, visibility and manifoldness are a reflection of the Ultimate but never the Ultimate itself. This lies before and after all its emanations. The Summum Bonum is hidden while manifested in apparent multiformity.’[4] The later development and translations of the word mAyA as delusion and deceit is not dominant in the Rgveda. The ‘demons’ use their magic power to confuse and delude as part of the overall scheme of things but primarily it is a beneficial, magical art of appearance. For example, the Maruts are ahimAyAH, serpents’ powers, because they ‘robe themselves in the height of heaven’ as clouds which may cover the sun but also produce wealth-giving rain: nRcákSaso ánimiSanto arháNaa bRhád devaáso amRtatvám aanashuH jyotiírathaa áhimaayaa ánaagaso divó varSmaáNaM vasate svastáye ‘Looking on men, ne'er slumbering, they by their deserts attained as Gods to lofty immortality. Borne on refulgent cars, sinless, with serpents' powers, they robe them, for our welfare, in the height of heaven.’ [5] vaácaM sú mitraavaruNaav íraavatiim parjányash citraáM vadati tvíSiimatiim | abhraá vasata marútaH sú maayáyaa dyaáM varSayatam aruNaám arepásam || Refreshing is your voice, O Mitra-Varuna: Parjanya sendeth out a wondrous mighty voice. With magic power the Maruts clothe them with the clouds. Ye Two cause Heaven to rain, the red, the spotless One. That mAyA is a necessary function in the universe perceived by the seers is explained by this verse which gives it the role of guardian: dhármaNaa mitraavaruNaa vipashcitaa vrataá rakSethe ásurasya maayáyaa | Rténa víshvam bhúvanaM ví raajathaH suúryam aá dhattho diví cítryaM rátham || ‘Wise, with your Law and through the Asura's magic power (mAyA) ye guard the ordinances, Mitra-Varuna. Ye by eternal Order govern all the world. Ye set the Sun in heaven as a refulgent car.’[6] The link here with the Rta, the eternal law holding the universe in order, places mAyA at the first steps in the emanation of Tad Ekam.[7] This is further illustrated by an earlier verse in the same hymn: maayaá vaam mitraavaruNaa diví shritaá suúryo jyótish carati citrám aáyudham | tám abhréNa vRSTyaá guuhatho diví párjanya drapsaá mádhumanta iirate || Your magic, Mitra-Varuna, resteth (is fixed) in the heaven (the Father), The Sun, the wondrous weapon, cometh forth as light. Ye hide him in the sky with cloud and flood of rain, and water-drops, Parjanya! full of sweetness flow. [8] The words diví shritA have the meaning of being fixed (resteth in the Griffith) in the Father with the latter being but an expression for the primal authority. Verse 6 above begins vaácaM sú mitraavaruNaav íraavatiim, ‘refreshing is your voice’, a simple example of sound being central to the poet’s vision. However, there may be more subtle intentions here in relating the ‘voice’ with the ‘flow of sweetness’ in verse 4. This connection between fine, well crafted or revealed speech and the quality of refreshing ‘sweetness’ is made in many of the world’s societies.[9] This may be observed in the Vedic tradition in the myth of the Rbhus, those humans who were elevated to the plane of the devah through their excellent skills and craftsmanship. They are described as mAyinaH and they manifested their miraculous deeds through three ‘skills’: the power of speech, ShacIbhiH, vision, dhIyaH, and mental ability, manasA: yaábhiH sháciibhish camasaáM+ ápiMshata yáyaa dhiyaá gaám áriNiita cármaNaH yéna hárii mánasaa nirátakSata téna devatvám RbhavaH sám aanasha ‘The mighty powers (shacIbhish, the power of speech, eloquence) wherewith. ye formed the chalices, the thought (dhiyA) by which ye drew the cow from out the hide, The intellect (manasA, heart/mind) wherewith ye wrought the two Bay Steeds,-through these, O Rbhus, ye attained divinity.’[10] The essence of these three powers, seen to be the means through which the Rbhus were elevated to divinity, may be summed up in the word mAyA as in, yAbhir mAyAbhiH prátijUtivarpasaH.[11] In that context it is that subtle power capable of producing form on impulse, according to need, at the phenomenal level as well as uniting with the same power in the devaH which in turn emanates from Tad Ekam. Generally then, in the Vedic view, the concept of mAyA is that by which the seers sought to explain that fundamental problem: ‘How does the one become many without diminution?’[12] With the source of sounds and speech being elevated to divinity then we must see how mAyA functions in those domains. [1] RV. VI. 47.17,18. [2] RV I.12.6 [3] Both J. Gonda and P.D.Shastri have listed the occurrences of Maya and its derivatives in the Rgveda: ‘The Original Sense and the Etymology of the Sanskrit Maya’, Four Studies in the Language of the Veda and Doctrine of Maya respectively. [4] Facets of Indian Thought Betty Heimann, Shoeken Books, New York, 1964,90. [5] RV.X.63.4 The word ahimAyAH , with the prefix ahi meaning serpent, can be interpreted in the negative sense of the guile of the snake. However it may also refer to the wisdom of the snake. There is room for the exegete to use whichever meaning suits best the exegete’s intention. The intention of the poet is made clear in this hymn by adding the word anAgaso, sinless, so there can be no negative meaning in this context. [6] RV. V.63.6-7 [7] The word ‘emanation’ is being used in this study rather than the word ‘creation’. It fits more easily with a non-dual philosophy. [8] RV. V.63.4 [9] Psalm 119 for example. [10] RV. III.60.2 [11] RV. III.60.1 [12] Tennyson sums this up very simply in his poem The Greater Pantheism in which he clearly shares the same vision as the ancient seers: The sun, the moon, the stars, the hills and the plains Are not these, O Soul, the Vision of Him who reigns. Is not the Vision He? Tho’ He be not that which he seems? Dreams are true while they last, and do we not live in dreams? Earth, these solid stars, this weight of body and limb, Are they not sign and symbol of thy division from Him? Dark is the world to thee; thyself art the reason why, For is he not all but that which has the power to fell ‘I am I’. New Photos - easier uploading and sharing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2003 Report Share Posted December 12, 2003 One definition of mAya. "yA mA sA mAya" - That which is not is mAya. Hari Om Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2003 Report Share Posted December 13, 2003 In a message dated 12/13/2003 1:52:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, thefinalsearch writes: "yA mA sA mAya" - That which is not is mAya. Meaning: God - Not Maya Not-God - Maya All the best, Dave Anand www.PeopleSuperHighway.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2003 Report Share Posted December 13, 2003 Salutations. Yes. That's right. And it's interesting to observe that the word "maya" literally means "to measure". That is, the evaluation of the universe, of beings and things, made by thought is merely an idea about what is being evaluated. It is not the "thing" itself. The knowledge provided by thought is always incomplete and, therefore, to take the image, the measurement, the concept, for the true nature of the beings and things is to live in an illusion(from the latin "ludus" - game, to play). There is separation only in the field of ideas, of measurement – in the field of "what is not". What is the true nature of thought? What is the true nature of illusion? Again, it is the immeasurable. It's also interesting to note that the word "Vedanta" literally means "the end of knowledge", the end of the Vedas. Domingos In advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair> wrote: > Namaste. > > To put it all in a nutshell in order to avoid confusion: > > 1. Everything other than me is mAyA simply because they are > conditioned by space and time. Everything here includes my body, > mind, intellect, ego etc. and also space and time which are all > objectifibable or known. > > 2. The witness of all this is me. > > 3. Understanding advaita is 'realizing' I am the 'witnessing' > (gerund, not present continuous) into which all the known and the > witness (knower)(that again is mAyA as long it stands separate from > the rest) merge irreversably into one Unity. That Unity is Sat, Chit > and Ananda (translated into English as Existence, Knowledge > (Consciousness) and Fullness (also called bliss), which are all > verily synonyms for the one and only 'witnessing'. > > 4. With this 'realization', mAyA is undone. This 'realizing' is no > more a knowing in the normal sense because then there is nothing to > be known. One has 'become' Knowledge, which one has always been and > which is Sat as well as Ananda. In other words, one is 'realization' > here without divisions and without an outside, inside or beyond. And > that is ineffable to normal knowing but we all discern that IT IS. > > PraNAms. > > Madathil Nair > ________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.