Two meanings for the word 'MAyA'

[Guest guest]

ShrIgurubhyo namaH

 

Namaste,

 

In the course of reading, nay, studying, the Shankara Bhashya, we

come across the word 'MAyA' being commented upon in different ways

by the Acharya, in different contexts of the occurrence of the

term. Thus, for example, in the Gita Bhashya 14.3 we have (for the

verse 'mama yonir mahad-brahma...):

 

//My womb (yOniH), My own Prakriti, i.e., the Prakriti which

belongs to Me, the MAyA made up of the three GuNas, the material

cause of all beings. This Prakriti is spoken of as great because it

is greater than all effects; and as the source and nourishing energy

of all its modifications, it (MAyA) is termed Brahman. In that

Great Brahman I place the germ, the seed, bIjAm, of the birth of the

Hiranyagarbha, the seed which gives birth to all beings. I, who am

possessed of the two potencies (shaktis), the two prakritis of

kshetra and the kshetrajna, unite the kshetrajna with the kshetra,

the kshetrajna onforming Himself to the upadhis of avidya

(nescience), kama (desire) and karma (action). This act of

impregnation gives rise to the birth of all beings through the birth

of the Hiranyagarbha.//

 

The above bhashya is instructive in more than one way:

 

1. It gives the meaning of Maayaa as a synonym of Prakriti, the

moola-kAraNam. The Shvetashvatara shruti too says this: Maayaam tu

prakritim vidyAt...(know the maayaa to be prakriti). Shankara is

using the word 'mAyA' to comment on the word 'yoni'(womb); the

word 'mAyA' itself is not in the Gita verse under reference. (the

word 'Brahma' itself has the meaning of 'mAyA', yoni, womb, here)

 

2. ShrI Mahadevadvaita had, in an old post, asked for clarification

on Gita 15. 18 where the words 'kshara' and 'akshara' are present.

The Shankara Bhashya for these words are what have been correctly

interpreted by Sw.Dayananda Saraswati. 'akshara' is MAyA, prakriti,

defined now in this 14.3 as: //the Prakriti which belongs to Me, the

MAyA made up of the three GuNas, the material cause of all beings.

This Prakriti is spoken of as great because it is greater than all

effects; and as the source and nourishing energy of all its

modifications,// It is 'akshara' because it does not perish even

when the 'kshara', its products, become unmanifest. (the

Purushottama, the Shuddha Brahman, of the 15th Chapter, is beyond

these two, the kshara and akshara. just an aside point.)

 

3. The word 'avidya' in the bhashyam above is used in the sense of

an upadhi of the jiva, a delimiting one that gives rise to further

karma, etc. It is not used in the sense of 'superimposition' or

adhyasa/error by Shankara here. It is the basic ignorance

pertaining to one's true nature that persists in the jiva, the

kshetrajna. Note the words: avidya...upadhi...conforming to the

kshetrajna..' in the bhasya.

 

Now, let us see another meaning of the word 'MAya' as Acharya

Shankara uses it:

 

In the bhashya for the Kathopanishad mantra: II.iii.1 (Urdhva-

mUlo'vAk-shAkhaH...' He says: mAyA-marIchyudaka-gandharva-

nagaraadivat dRShTa-naShTa-svarUpatvAt....' [magic, water in a

mirage, a city in the sky, etc. ..no sooner is it seen than its

nature is destroyed...]

 

Thus, in the above, it is quite clear that the Acharya uses the

word 'maayaa' in the sense of a magic, a deliberate make-belief

(not an error for the conjurer, although an uninformed spectator

might believe it, even for the time being, to be true.) The usage

of the word 'mAyA' in the sense of a magic by the Acharya is not

uncommon; there are several instances of this all over the prasthAna-

traya bhAshyam.

 

To conclude: Acharya Shankara uses the word 'mAya' in at least two

senses, specifically:

1. Moola prakriti, the material cause of the universe. This

prakriti is commonly termed as mAyaa, avidyaa, shakti, mahAsuShuptiH

(the Great Sleep), akshara, aakaasha, avyakta, avyAkrita

(unmanifest) etc. variously.

 

2. Magic, make-belief, appearance, error, adhyAsa, etc. As such, it

would be a mistake to restrict the meaning of the word 'mAya' to

mean only an appearance or adhyasa/error that takes place owing to a

pre-existing ignorance of the reality.

 

With warm regards,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

An elaborate treatment of Maya and it's various meanings across the

Upanishads and Sankara's works is done in the book "The Doctrine of

Maya" available on archive.org at

http://www.archive.org/details/thedoctrineofmaa00shaauoft

 

It also has excellent references to Gaudapada's Karikas. The members

might find the book useful.

 

Regards,

Ravi

[Guest guest]

Pranams Subbu-ji

 

--- subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v > wrote:

> 1. Moola prakriti, the material cause of the

> universe.

 

A clarification.

 

When you say prakrti is the material cause of the

Universe, do you mean prakrti is the material cause

independent of brahman or dependent on brahman?

 

As an advaitin, the only answer (I presume) is that

you mean - prakrti dependent on brahman, the satyam.

 

Well then in that case it is not prakrti but in

actuality brahman which is the material cause of the

universe.

 

An example can be taken to understand this.

 

A ray of white light passes through a prism and is

seen to break into seven glorious colours.

 

Now each of these colours is nothing but white light.

To someone looking at the rays of the seven colours

emanating from one prism it may seem that the prism is

the cause of the rays.

But if you examine the "stuff" that the rays are

composed of, it is clearly nothing other than the ray

of light.

 

How can one be sure?

Take the prism out - the ray of white light remains.

it may not have an "appearance" of seven colours.

but whether seen as seven or seen as one, its material

basis is unchanged.

 

On the other hand take the ray of light out.

Let the prism be.

 

There is neither a ray nor colours - nothing.

 

In a similar vein maya or prakrti is incapable of

anything becuase it lacks satta or existence.

 

SOmething that in itself lacks any existence cannot be

the material cause for anything.

 

Brahman alone is both the efficient as well as the

material cause and in so doing does not itself undergo

any change - vivarta nimitta upadaana karanam brahman.

 

What Maya "does" is creates an appearance of duality

when none exists, a sense of separation when none

exists, seemingly makes the impossible possible - and

that is the power of maya - that is its magic, its

wonder.

 

There is of course no end to the Shruti in support of

this

 

T.Up. 2.1

>From the Atman was born akasa; from akasa, air; etc

 

Ait.Up 1.1

In the beginning all this verily was Atman only, one

and without a second. There was nothing else that

winked. He bethought Himself: "Let Me now create the

worlds." He created these worlds:

 

Mundak.Up

This is the Truth: As from a blazing fire, sparks

essentially akin to it fly forth by the thousand, so

also, my good friend, do various beings come forth

from the imperishable Brahman and unto Him again

return.

He is the self—luminous and formless Purusha,

uncreated and existing both within and without. He is

devoid of prana, devoid of mind, pure and higher than

the supreme Imperishable. From Him are born prana,

mind, all the sense—organs, Akasa, air, fire, water

and earth, which supports all.

 

Thus it would not be in my humble opinion correct to

assign maya or prakrti to be the material "cause" of

the universe - doing so is giving it an existence it

is bereft of.

 

Humble pranams

Hari Om

Shri Gurubhyo namah

Shyam

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

> Pranams Subbu-ji

>

> --- subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v wrote:

> > 1. Moola prakriti, the material cause of the

> > universe.

>

> A clarification.

>

> When you say prakrti is the material cause of the

> Universe, do you mean prakrti is the material cause

> independent of brahman or dependent on brahman?

>

> As an advaitin, the only answer (I presume) is that

> you mean - prakrti dependent on brahman, the satyam.

 

 

Namaste Shyam ji,

 

Many thanks for that brilliant presentation of the Advaitic position

on causality. As you have stated above, it is prakriti dependent on

Brahman that is the cause of the universe.

 

 

> Well then in that case it is not prakrti but in

> actuality brahman which is the material cause of the

> universe.

>

> An example can be taken to understand this.

>

> A ray of white light passes through a prism and is

> seen to break into seven glorious colours.

>

> Now each of these colours is nothing but white light.

> To someone looking at the rays of the seven colours

> emanating from one prism it may seem that the prism is

> the cause of the rays.

> But if you examine the "stuff" that the rays are

> composed of, it is clearly nothing other than the ray

> of light.

>

> How can one be sure?

> Take the prism out - the ray of white light remains.

> it may not have an "appearance" of seven colours.

> but whether seen as seven or seen as one, its material

> basis is unchanged.

>

> On the other hand take the ray of light out.

> Let the prism be.

>

> There is neither a ray nor colours - nothing.

>

> In a similar vein maya or prakrti is incapable of

> anything becuase it lacks satta or existence.

>

> SOmething that in itself lacks any existence cannot be

> the material cause for anything.

>

> Brahman alone is both the efficient as well as the

> material cause and in so doing does not itself undergo

> any change - vivarta nimitta upadaana karanam brahman.

 

 

Response:

 

The example very aptly proves the point. But Advaitins, while

holding Brahman as the vivarta upAdAna kAraNam (transfiguring

material cause), also hold prakriti (mAyA) as the pariNaami

upaadaana kAraNam (transforming material cause). This distinction

is made with the sole purpose of accounting for the continued

existence of the universe along with its internal changes. To

explain, srishti, sthiti and pralaya happen cyclically. Creation

has to be 'brought out', maintained and withdrawn, only to be

brought out again. This activity is possible only in an entity

which is capable of such transformations. Brahman is NirvikAri,

immutable, and as such no transformations of bringing forth the

creation, etc. is possible there. Prakriti, made of sattva, rajas

and tamas, is capable of this transformation. It itself transforms

itself into the created universe and stays and withdraws and comes

forth again.

 

> What Maya "does" is creates an appearance of duality

> when none exists, a sense of separation when none

> exists, seemingly makes the impossible possible - and

> that is the power of maya - that is its magic, its

> wonder.

 

Yes. When we consider the rope appearing as snake, this possibility

of the passive rope 'becoming' the illusory snake is only due to the

intervention of ignorance, of the perceiver, of the real substance

there: rope. It is this ignorance that 'brings forth'and maintains

the snake for as long as the delusion continues. Similarly, the

passive Brahman cannot by itself appear as the world unless the

instrumentality of Maya is admitted. That is the reason for holding

that though it is the rope, the substratum, that is there even while

the snake persists, it is the ignorance that is the cause of all

this confusion. Thus we have 1. Brahman as the substratum-material

cause of the universe and 2. Maya as the assumed transforming-

material cause of the universe.

 

 

> There is of course no end to the Shruti in support of

> this

>

> T.Up. 2.1

> From the Atman was born akasa; from akasa, air; etc

>

> Ait.Up 1.1

> In the beginning all this verily was Atman only, one

> and without a second. There was nothing else that

> winked. He bethought Himself: "Let Me now create the

> worlds." He created these worlds:

>

> Mundak.Up

> This is the Truth: As from a blazing fire, sparks

> essentially akin to it fly forth by the thousand, so

> also, my good friend, do various beings come forth

> from the imperishable Brahman and unto Him again

> return.

> He is the self—luminous and formless Purusha,

> uncreated and existing both within and without. He is

> devoid of prana, devoid of mind, pure and higher than

> the supreme Imperishable. From Him are born prana,

> mind, all the sense—organs, Akasa, air, fire, water

> and earth, which supports all.

>

> Thus it would not be in my humble opinion correct to

> assign maya or prakrti to be the material "cause" of

> the universe - doing so is giving it an existence it

> is bereft of.

>

> Humble pranams

> Hari Om

> Shri Gurubhyo namah

> Shyam

>

 

True. In all the above Shruti passages, the understanding of the

Advaitins is that the Brahman spoken of as the material cause above

is the Brahman (already) coupled with MAyA; it is not the shuddha

Brahman. Advaitins give it a name: mAyA-shabaLitam-brahma =

brahman 'tained', as it were, by MAyA.

 

Shankara speaks about it also in the BSB (I.IV.i.3):

 

//If we admitted some antecedent state of the world as the

independent cause of the actual world, we should indeed implicitly,

admit the

pradhâna doctrine. What we admit is, however, only a previous state

dependent on the highest Lord, not an independent state. A previous

stage of the world such as the one assumed by us must necessarily be

admitted, since it is according to sense and reason. For without it

the highest Lord could not be conceived as creator, as he could not

become active if he were destitute of the potentiality of action.

 

Without that latent state, the absence of birth for the freed souls

cannot be explained. Why? Because liberation comes when the

potential power (of Maya) is burnt away by knowledge. The potential

power, constituted by nescience, is mentioned by the word

unmanifest. It rests on God, and is comparable to magic. It is a

kind of deep slumber in which the transmigrating souls sleep without

any consciousness of their real nature. (Br.III.viii.11).//

 

The Acharya comments for this Mundaka mantra (II.i.1) that you haave

quoted:

 

> This is the Truth: As from a blazing fire, sparks

> essentially akin to it fly forth by the thousand, so

> also, my good friend, do various beings come forth

> from the imperishable Brahman and unto Him again

> return.

 

The commentary, in part, is: //As in the origin and dissolution of

the different cavities, space appears as a cause owing to the

presence of the limiting adjuncts, upAdhi-s, namely pots, etc., so

also in the matter of birth and death of the individuals, the

imperishable Brahman appears as the cause only owing to the PRESENCE

OF THE LIMITING ADJUNCTS, UPADHIS, namely the bodies created by name

and form.//

 

It is common knowledge that an upaadhi, in the context of Vedanta,

is something that is due to ignorance. Thus, even in the

above 'straight' case, creation cannot be explained without the

instrumentality of ignorance, avidya, in other words, Maya.

 

Trust this clarifies. The dual-material-cause theory does not give

us any problems. It is only a 'marriage' of convenience. When an

aspirant is sufficiently evolved so as to transcend the need for a

created, orderly, universe, he graduates to the exclusive vivarta

vaada. Till then the Maayaa Material causehood has to be adhered to

in his own interests. For, it is only in this realm can one speak

of Ishwara, grace, karma yoga, etc.

 

Thank you once again for creating the opportunity for a

clarification.

 

Warm regards and humble pranams,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "ravicande" <ravicande wrote:

>

> An elaborate treatment of Maya and it's various meanings across the

> Upanishads and Sankara's works is done in the book "The Doctrine of

> Maya" available on archive.org at

> http://www.archive.org/details/thedoctrineofmaa00shaauoft

>

> It also has excellent references to Gaudapada's Karikas. The members

> might find the book useful.

>

> Regards,

> Ravi

>

 

ShrIgurubhyo namaH

 

Thank you very much Ravi ji for bringing to light such a century-old

book. Let me download the same, if it is permitted, and read it in

the coming days.

 

Regards,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

 

> A ray of white light passes through a prism and is

> seen to break into seven glorious colours.

>

> Now each of these colours is nothing but white light.

> To someone looking at the rays of the seven colours

> emanating from one prism it may seem that the prism is

> the cause of the rays.

> But if you examine the "stuff" that the rays are

> composed of, it is clearly nothing other than the ray

> of light.

>

> How can one be sure?

> Take the prism out - the ray of white light remains.

> it may not have an "appearance" of seven colours.

> but whether seen as seven or seen as one, its material

> basis is unchanged.

 

Dear Shyam Prabhuji,

 

Excellent explanation. When sometime back i was contemplating on the

brahman as the cuase and substratum of the entire universe same

example came into my mind.

 

This example beautifully explains that all the colours are 'latent'

in brahman and with its association with maya, as it were seems to

divide itself into 7 colours.

 

My question is, is 'prism' also latent in the ray of light ie

brahman? Has brahman got inexplicable power which can cause maya

itself, and remain unaffected all the time?

 

What is the shankara's stand on this.

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

Dear Sri Br.Vinayaka,

It is matter of great happiness to see your ppostings after a

fairly long break. Welcome to You!

Your questions on Maya are profound .

There is another FINAL question which is the most profound one:

WHO IS THE QUESTIONER HIMSELF?

An investigation into it within oneself will end all further

questions and speculations on these matters.

 

With respectful regards,

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

[Guest guest]

Subbuji,

 

It is the rshis and the gurus, the authors and the digitization

efforts in this case, that we are all indebted to. A glimpse towards

the beauty of the brahman whether nirguna or saguna, whether we talk

at paramartika or vyavaharika, doesn't exhaust itself however many

books or scriptures.

 

It is also when these works, in this list, in learned members like

yourself and professorji, reach a certain repose. when it is ruminated

over, clarified, the subtexts highlighted, that we learn humility and

the sense of awe which pervades towards that benevolent Being that is

beyond all cognition. It is like listening to the lilting tunes of a

bhakta singing to her/his lord in the throes of effervescent divine

passion. Dhyanasaraswatiji in her inimitable style does not fail to

remind how belief and karuna is important and the beauty of bhakti is

alongside the beauty of buddhi.

 

The archive.org has also several other texts including the like of

Drg-Drsya Viveka (a translation by Nikhilananda) and the logic of the

unconscious mind by Bradby (which Subrahmanya Iyer, in the files

section of this list, seems to recommend for understanding what

Buddhi/Reason means, though the book as such doesn't have anything to

do with vedanta). I have personally have found both books enjoyable

reads and enriching (at the relevant portions).

 

Not knowing the appropriateness of ad hoc linking to such books

according to the norms of the list, i have desisted from doing so.

 

Pranam,

Ravi

 

>

> ShrIgurubhyo namaH

>

> Thank you very much Ravi ji for bringing to light such a century-old

> book. Let me download the same, if it is permitted, and read it in

> the coming days.

>

> Regards,

> subbu

> Om Tat Sat

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Ravi-ji,

 

<<Not knowing the appropriateness of ad hoc linking to such books

according to the norms of the list, i have desisted from doing so.>>

 

References, such as the one you gave to the book on mAyA, are always

welcome. It is rare to come across such excellent material, freely

available, and I am sure many members on the list will be most

grateful that you have kindly provided the link. I have already added

the reference to the pages of links to free books at my website -

http://www.advaita.org.uk/reading/free_other.htm.

 

Please do post any others that may be of interest (e.g. I would be

very interested in the dRRigdRRishya viveka one).

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis-ji,

 

Let me first extend my appreciation and gratefulness for maintaining

an excellent website on advaita. It is a veritable treasurehouse of

advaitic links, resources, articles and recommendations. Infact

recently, an article related to akhaNDa-AkkAra-VRRitti

(http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/knowingself_durga.htm)

has been quite useful in clarifying certain aspects.

 

Since it is my intent to read through several books available on

www.archive.org specifically related to advaita, I will start a new

thread and list the books I have been able to, at least give a glance

through, in case I have not been able to start reading them because of

time constraints. I will add to the thread as and when I find new

material. Others may like to add to the thread.

 

Regards,

Ravi

 

 

advaitin, "advaitins" <advaitins wrote:

>

> Dear Ravi-ji,

>

> <<Not knowing the appropriateness of ad hoc linking to such books

> according to the norms of the list, i have desisted from doing so.>>

>

> References, such as the one you gave to the book on mAyA, are always

> welcome. It is rare to come across such excellent material, freely

> available, and I am sure many members on the list will be most

> grateful that you have kindly provided the link. I have already added

> the reference to the pages of links to free books at my website -

> http://www.advaita.org.uk/reading/free_other.htm.

>

> Please do post any others that may be of interest (e.g. I would be

> very interested in the dRRigdRRishya viveka one).

>

> Best wishes,

> Dennis

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v"

<subrahmanian_v wrote:

 

Dear Subbuji,

 

Excellent clarification. I really enjoyed your and Shyamji's post on

this topic.

 

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka

 

 

> Trust this clarifies. The dual-material-cause theory does not

give

> us any problems. It is only a 'marriage' of convenience. When an

> aspirant is sufficiently evolved so as to transcend the need for a

> created, orderly, universe, he graduates to the exclusive vivarta

> vaada. Till then the Maayaa Material causehood has to be adhered

to

> in his own interests. For, it is only in this realm can one speak

> of Ishwara, grace, karma yoga, etc.

>

> Thank you once again for creating the opportunity for a

> clarification.

>

> Warm regards and humble pranams,

> subbu

> Om Tat Sat

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Advaitins,

 

Can any member give an answer to this subtle quiery? Logically this

should be true right? Has Bhagavadpada spoken on this in any of his

bhashya? There is an answer for this in some traditional view which

is irrelavant here and i dont want to bring here which may create

confusions unnecessarily. Let us try to understand this from

Shankara's perspective.

 

Eagerly waiting for Reply.

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka

 

 

> My question is, is 'prism' also latent in the ray of light ie

> brahman? Has brahman got inexplicable power which can cause maya

> itself, and remain unaffected all the time?

>

> What is the shankara's stand on this.

>

> Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

>

> Br. Vinayaka

>

[Guest guest]

Pranams Vinayaka-ji

 

Not to overextend the analogy...

 

But the "prism" in this case is our own avidya, which

makes "i", the jiva, perceive a world of plurality

"outside", and hence not realizing that "I" (the

substratum) alone am the source of the light and as

such the support of whatever is the spectrum of

plurality that "i" seem to perceive "out" there.

 

My thanks to Subbu-ji as well for his response and for

benevolently taking the time to clarify the correct

advaitic position on this issue.

 

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyo namah

Shyam

 

 

--- Vinayaka <vinayaka_ns > wrote:

 

>

> Dear Advaitins,

>

> Can any member give an answer to this subtle quiery?

> Logically this

> should be true right? Has Bhagavadpada spoken on

> this in any of his

> bhashya? There is an answer for this in some

> traditional view which

> is irrelavant here and i dont want to bring here

> which may create

> confusions unnecessarily. Let us try to understand

> this from

> Shankara's perspective.

>

> Eagerly waiting for Reply.

>

> Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

>

> Br. Vinayaka

>

>

> > My question is, is 'prism' also latent in the ray

> of light ie

> > brahman? Has brahman got inexplicable power which

> can cause maya

> > itself, and remain unaffected all the time?

> >

> > What is the shankara's stand on this.

> >

> > Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

> >

> > Br. Vinayaka

> >

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Thank you subbuji for weaving the magical thread on 'maya' the

Divine enchantress' without whose prsence we will not even be

prEsent here in this group! She is indeed the 'creative' energy in

this MAKE BELIEVE iuniverse of ! smile!

 

MAyA ALSO MEANS TO 'MEASURE ' as per monier's dictionary ! Your and

shyamji's subsequent posts more than 'measured' up to our

expectations on this 'elusive' topic! thanx for clarifying the

advaitic position on this ! But from the 'tantric' advaitic

standpoint , MAya is 'real ' as She is beautiful and bewitching ! In

fact , to great shaktha-bhaktas like sri Ramakrishna, PRAKRITI (

also known as MAy}she is the Divine Creatrix, the Universal mother

Goddess herself !

 

 

Read what Sri Ramakrishna says :

 

"Maya is of two kinds - one leading towards God (Vidya-Maya), and

the other leading away from God (Avidya-Maya). Vidya-Maya again is

of two kinds - discrimination and non-attachment. With the help of

these, individual souls surrender themselves to the mercy of God.

Avidya-Maya is of six kinds - lust, anger, avarice, inordinate

attachment, pride and envy. This kind of Maya gives rise to the

sense of 'I and mine' and serves to keep men chained to the world.

But as soon as Vidya-Maya manifests itself, all Avidya-Maya is

totally destroyed.

 

The sun or the moon cannot be properly reflected in turbid water.

Likewise the Universal Soul cannot be properly realized so long as

the veil of Maya is not removed, i.e., so long as the sense of 'I

and mine' is not gone.

 

The sun lights up the earth, but a small cloud will hide it from our

view. Similarly the insignificant veil of Maya prevents us from

seeing the Omnipresent and All-witnessing Satchidananda (Existence-

Knowledge-Bliss)

 

If you push away the weeds on a pond, the floating matter will

presently return to its old position. In the same manner, if you

push away Maya, it will return to you in a short time. But then,

just as you could prevent the return of the weeds by interposing a

piece of floating bamboo in their way, so also could you prevent the

return of Maya by the fence of knowledge and love of God. In that

case Maya could not make its way through such obstacle -

Satchidananda (Existence-Knowledge-Bliss) alone would be perceived.

 

http://www.vedantaberkeley.org/Master.htm - 17k

 

 

Yes ! to a beginner on the path of Advaita sadhana , MAya

is 'real' , to a viveki , MAyA is 'anirvachanyia'

(indescribabale) - neither real or unreal but distinct (sat -asat

vilakshana) and to ofcourse , a paramajnani or jivanmukta, she

is 'tuccha' or 'unreal.'

 

Swami vivekanda has delivered a beautiful lecture on our Lady MAyA

IN 1896- HERE IS AN EXCERPT

 

 

We've talked a little about equations; now we have to talk about

maya. What do the Vedantins mean by maya? First, we know from the

Upanishads (4) that it is made of three gunas: tamas, rajas, and

sattva. Tamas has its veiling power, avarana shakti in Sanskrit.

Rajas has its projecting power, vikshepa shakti in Sanskrit, and

sattva has its revealing power, prakasha shakti in Sanskrit. Now

this language, "veiling" and "revealing," is the language of

perception, not the language of manufacture. You can't make anything

out of a guna as the Sankhyans (5) wanted to do. These three gunas,

of which maya is said to be made, are just three aspects of a

misperception. They are not substances, like wood, stone, or gold,

out of which objects could be made. They are simply three aspects of

an apparition. In order to mistake a rope for a snake, you must fail

to see the rope rightly; that's the veiling power of tamas. Then you

must jump to the wrong conclusion; that's the projecting power of

rajas. You yourself project the snake. But the length and diameter

of the rope are seen as the length and diameter of the snake; that's

the revealing power of sattva. If you hadn't seen the rope, you

might have jumped to some other wrong conclusion.

 

But many of the Vedantins, when they write about the veiling and

projecting powers of maya, leave the revealing power out. You look

in the books -- you'll find they leave it out. But you cannot leave

it out or the theory would be lame and the Universe wouldn't run.

 

So we see from the Upanishads that maya is made of three gunas, that

it is a misperception, a kind of magic, and that the Universe is

therefore apparitional, like the snake for which a rope has been

mistaken. But why does the apparition take the form of this

Universe? Why do we see the physics that we see? Partly it is the

gunas and partly it is space and time. "

 

Swami Vivekananda said in one of his lectures (6) that the Universe

is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space, and

causation (kala, desha, nimitta). He said that time, space, and

causation are like the glass through which the Absolute is seen, and

when It is seen on the lower side, It appears as the Universe. So

not only is the Universe apparitional, it's the Absolute seen

through time and space, and that allows us to understand why the

physics of the Universe takes the form that we see. "

 

http://quanta-gaia.org/dobson/EquationsOfMaya.html

 

i would encoUrage members to read the series on 'MAyA in the Rig

vedas ' by our beloved member Ken Knight in the archives..

 

For those of us who who worship the divine mother goddess we are

not worshipping some illusory power rather but a supreme

consciousness , the para brahman itself! The shakti and the

shaktimaan are one indivisible reality !

Brahman is shakti and shakti is brahman !

 

Nair-ji, where are you hiding ? you please reincarnate to elaborate

on this 'PAKRITI', ONE OF THE 36 COSMIC PRINCIPLES! WE MISS YOUR

ERUDITE AND SCHOLARLY POSTS .

 

om shiva-shakti yuktaye namaha

 

 

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v" <subrahmanian_v

wrote:

[Guest guest]

dhyanasaraswati <dhyanasaraswati > wrote: Thank you subbuji for weaving the magical thread on 'maya' the

Divine enchantress' without whose prsence we will not even be

prEsent here in this group! She is indeed the 'creative' energy in

this MAKE BELIEVE iuniverse of ! smile!

 

MAyA ALSO MEANS TO 'MEASURE ' as per monier's dictionary !

 

 

 

Yes. Maya has got the very important connotation of measurement, which J.Krishnamurthy often used to say, in the sense of measuring, comparing, trying to become something other than the, 'What is,' in a psychological sense, which is an illusion. It is in this sense that all becoming is branded as an illusion. Etymologically also, I think that this meaning is acceptable. More than the etymology or semantics, the philosophical truth that any becoming, any entertainment of the idea of a self, a personal self, is important.

with regards

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

GMay I be permitted to make a correction or a completion of the last sentence of the earlier version. Sorry for this error.

 

Yes. Maya has got the very important connotation of measurement, which J.Krishnamurthy often used to say, in the sense of measuring, comparing, trying to become something other than the, 'What is,' in a psychological sense, which is an illusion. It is in this sense that all becoming is branded as an illusion. Etymologically also, I think that this meaning is acceptable. More than the etymology or semantics, the philosophical truth that any becoming, any entertainment of the idea of a self, a personal self, is an illusion, is important.

with regards

Sankarraman