Brahman maya conversations

[renuka]

Share:

Facebook Twitter WhatsApp Email Share Link

Sorry to jump in to this high philosophy talk between two stalwarts.
Can Maya be equated to "ignorance of truth", it is opposite of truth. So ignorance can not have ignorance. There has to be a percepter to be ignorant of truth for maya to function. When we take away the jiva there is no maya IMO.

Dear Prasad Ji,

I am just learning like anyone else here not really a stalwart...anyway I will paste what I posted sometime back in forum...its on the same lines as what you had written.
I had taken it from Sathya Sai Speaks Q and A.

//www.tamilbrahmins.com/literature/3851-maya-prakriti-cosmic-deluder.html

Dear all,

i will put a Q & A taken from Sathya Sai Gita.

Q)Is it possible to discover the begining or the end of Maya?
Can anyone know when Maya will end?

A)None can discover the begining of Maya.neither the personalized God(Easwara),nor the individual self(jeeva) nor the objective world(Prakrithi) can ever suceed in discovering the begining of Maya which brought them into existence and started the chain of
"act--consequence-act'
Nevertheless one can suceed in discovering when Maya will end!
When will it end?

When the objective world is ignored,set aside,denied or discovered to be immanent in the Divine,the jeeva is no more.
Easwara(personalized God) is also superflous and disappears.And when the Easwara has faded out,the Brahman alone is.
When a personalized God,jeeva and prakrithi(the objective world) are non existent in the developed consciousness of man,Maya the progenitor of all three cannot persists.

before that :Maya is the Will that caused The Personalized God(Easwara),Jeeva and the objective world(Prakriti).
Maya is like a mirror....
When the Sattvic nature is reflected in it...Personalized God(Easwara) results....
When Rajasic nature is reflected in it....Individualized Self(Jeeva) results...
When the Tamasic nature is relected in it....The Objective world(Prakriti) results...



all inputs taken from Sri Sathya Sai Gita..Q & A

 

[sravna]

Sorry to jump in to this high philosophy talk between two stalwarts.
Can Maya be equated to "ignorance of truth", it is opposite of truth. So ignorance can not have ignorance. There has to be a percepter to be ignorant of truth for maya to function. When we take away the jiva there is no maya IMO.

Dear Shri Prasad,

IMO maya is something that stands on its own. It is my view that the jiva itself is a product of distorted reality or the action of maya. Jiva itself being a product of maya perceives the reality as distorted. When it becomes spiritual it is freed from maya and the reality becomes clear.

 

[renuka]

Dear Shri Prasad,

IMO maya is something that stands on its own. It is my view that the jiva itself is a product of distorted reality or the action of maya. Jiva itself being a product of maya perceives the reality as distorted. When it becomes spiritual it is freed from maya and the reality becomes clear.

Dear Sravna,

You are right in your view..doesnt it match this?

Maya is the Will that caused The Personalized God(Easwara),Jeeva and the objective world(Prakriti).
Maya is like a mirror....
When the Sattvic nature is reflected in it...Personalized God(Easwara) results....
When Rajasic nature is reflected in it....Individualized Self(Jeeva) results...
When the Tamasic nature is relected in it....The Objective world(Prakriti) results...



all inputs taken from Sri Sathya Sai Gita..Q & A

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

You are right. It does. I understand it better now than when I first read it.

Dear Sravna,

You are right in your view..doesnt it match this?

Maya is the Will that caused The Personalized God(Easwara),Jeeva and the objective world(Prakriti).
Maya is like a mirror....
When the Sattvic nature is reflected in it...Personalized God(Easwara) results....
When Rajasic nature is reflected in it....Individualized Self(Jeeva) results...
When the Tamasic nature is relected in it....The Objective world(Prakriti) results...



all inputs taken from Sri Sathya Sai Gita..Q & A

 

[sarma-61]

Respected members,

As a tamil brahmana smarta (supposed to be) advaita follower, I have had the good luck of learning a few things about advaita.

The first impression I get on going through the OP by Shri Sravna (who, it seems to me has his own unchangeable and finalistic views about advaita, Brahman, mAyA, etc., reading some of his old threads from the archives) and also the many posts subsequent to that, is that this advaita topic has been converted into something like a temple bell - anyone may and can ring the bell whichever manner one wishes to do that. I feel sad for myself, advaita and feel Adi Sankara will not have dreamt such treatment of a philosophy for which he spent his entire, but short, life.

I am not qualified to say anything in the sense of comments or of finding fault with the various views expressed here. But Sankara himself never seems to have used the word "mAyA" in his BSB or the other bhAShyas; he used the word "adhyAsa" and/or "adhyArOpa" and in any hair-splitting analysis, the popular mAyA concept will not be Sankara's adhyAsa or adhyArOpa, I think. Sankara was himself very frugal in describing exactly what his concept of the adhyAsa/adhyArOpa was.

Like what I wrote a few days ago in another post, according to Sankara's advaita, the Supreme Reality or Brahman, just is ......... and nothing more can be said about it including that it is brhat, because then it will go away from nirguNa parabrahman to something else. saguNa brahman or ISwara is a product of the vyAvahArika satya and hence a product of the interaction between adhyArOpa and the nirguNabrahman.

It is not so easy to play with such concepts, nor is advaita fault-free as any well-read viSiShTAdvaitin or dwaitin member here (like s/shri sarang, govinda?, I don't know) will be able to explain. The popular and populist concept of mAyA is a subsequent import into advaitic thought, and mainly to counter criticisms against advaita.

It is ridiculous as well as ludicrous, to say the least, that topics which minds like Ramanuja, Madhwa, Appayya Deekshitar and many other giants could not dissect and come to an agreement, are being treated like ordinary mundane items and people are 'ammAna ADu-fying' with those here. I feel we are just bringing disgrace to our AcAryas and other great people by this.

I humbly request those interested in advaita to visit this web-page, download the 8 audio files, (especially the one on 27-11) understand the contents and then, perhaps, continue this charade of "learned discussions".

Hindu non-dualism (advaita) in theory and practice (eight lectures) | The Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies

 

[zebra16]

Dear Sravna:


Two groups of young men (age around 23-25), one group of Atheists and the other Believers in God, were shown individually a very voluptuous vivacious young woman. All of them showed clear sign of sexual arousal immediately.

Then they were informed quietly that she is "Your step-sister, you both have the same biological father". All of them lost the sexual arousal immediately.

Is this not a contrived "research"? If the girl happens to be a step-sister of all the guys in both groups (should be at least 4 persons - two in each group) the guys ought to be brothers, right? How come they were unaware of each other?

If the guys were not aware of their inter-se relationship, then their common father should have been a serial polygamist. Shouldn't the research have been conducted on him?

I think you are trying to pull a fast one by giving a random example and giving it a status of research.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sarma,

I understand your anguish at what you perceive as mundane and inappropriate treatment of advaita. It is a perfectly reasonable feeling to have for those who are to familiar with the subject, to see it being discussed in this way. On the other hand it is also my view that philosophy as deep as advaita should be not only be accessible to people of erudition but deserves a much wider audience and possibly adherents.

By keeping it at an untouchable distance and not putting it to scrutiny or disallowing new interpretations, is only a disservice. It is my view again that advaita will survive any amount of scrutiny and will emerge only stronger because of that. And let us also not be hypocritical here. When even more sacrosanct beliefs such as belief in God is being treated like trash, why not an earnest and well intentioned discussion to probe further into a not so well understood philosophy be considered, beyond debate?

Respected members,

As a tamil brahmana smarta (supposed to be) advaita follower, I have had the good luck of learning a few things about advaita.

The first impression I get on going through the OP by Shri Sravna (who, it seems to me has his own unchangeable and finalistic views about advaita, Brahman, mAyA, etc., reading some of his old threads from the archives) and also the many posts subsequent to that, is that this advaita topic has been converted into something like a temple bell - anyone may and can ring the bell whichever manner one wishes to do that. I feel sad for myself, advaita and feel Adi Sankara will not have dreamt such treatment of a philosophy for which he spent his entire, but short, life.

I am not qualified to say anything in the sense of comments or of finding fault with the various views expressed here. But Sankara himself never seems to have used the word "mAyA" in his BSB or the other bhAShyas; he used the word "adhyAsa" and/or "adhyArOpa" and in any hair-splitting analysis, the popular mAyA concept will not be Sankara's adhyAsa or adhyArOpa, I think. Sankara was himself very frugal in describing exactly what his concept of the adhyAsa/adhyArOpa was.

Like what I wrote a few days ago in another post, according to Sankara's advaita, the Supreme Reality or Brahman, just is ......... and nothing more can be said about it including that it is brhat, because then it will go away from nirguNa parabrahman to something else. saguNa brahman or ISwara is a product of the vyAvahArika satya and hence a product of the interaction between adhyArOpa and the nirguNabrahman.

It is not so easy to play with such concepts, nor is advaita fault-free as any well-read viSiShTAdvaitin or dwaitin member here (like s/shri sarang, govinda?, I don't know) will be able to explain. The popular and populist concept of mAyA is a subsequent import into advaitic thought, and mainly to counter criticisms against advaita.

It is ridiculous as well as ludicrous, to say the least, that topics which minds like Ramanuja, Madhwa, Appayya Deekshitar and many other giants could not dissect and come to an agreement, are being treated like ordinary mundane items and people are 'ammAna ADu-fying' with those here. I feel we are just bringing disgrace to our AcAryas and other great people by this.

I humbly request those interested in advaita to visit this web-page, download the 8 audio files, (especially the one on 27-11) understand the contents and then, perhaps, continue this charade of "learned discussions".

Hindu non-dualism (advaita) in theory and practice (eight lectures) | The Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies

 

[renuka]

When even more sacrosanct beliefs such as belief in God is being treated like trash, why not an earnest and well intentioned discussion to probe further into a not so well understood philosophy be considered, beyond debate?

I fully agree with you Sravna,

Dear SarmaJi,

Most of us here are not so learned and we are trying to pick up some knowledge by having some exchange of thoughts.
With each post here some of us read up more and interest in religion and scriptures deepen.

Thank you for the link you provided and I hope you too can contribute to this thread that Sravna started.

It does not really matter if some of our posts are not 100% correct becos we are learning by trial and error and any correction is welcome from anyone.

Hope to hear from you more soon...dear Sarmaji..

 

[biswa]

Ok now I have a question for you Sravna..many a times its asked if Jeeva or even Iswara under the spell of Maya... but is Maya under its own spell too?
What I mean is ..Is Maya immune to its own Maya?

Are we talking about Maya or M.I.A. (Maya (Mathangi) Arulpragasam)? M.I.A. (artist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia She was in the news recently (for the wrong reasons) during the American Super Bowl along with Madonna.

In that case, shouldn't we refer to "her" instead of "it"? Sorry just had to lighten the mood a bit.

 

[renuka]

Are we talking about Maya or M.I.A. (Maya (Mathangi) Arulpragasam)? M.I.A. (artist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia She was in the news recently (for the wrong reasons) during the American Super Bowl along with Madonna.

In that case, shouldn't we refer to "her" instead of "it"? Sorry just had to lighten the mood a bit.

Hey Biswa..want to hear mood enlightening stuff?
The group LMFAO who sang "I'm sexy and I know it" will be having a concert in Msia on March 29th and the venue is just 15 mins away from my home.

Cant wait to go(hope I can get the tickets).

 

[sarma-61]

Dear Shri Sarma,

I understand your anguish at what you perceive as mundane and inappropriate treatment of advaita. It is a perfectly reasonable feeling to have for those who are to familiar with the subject, to see it being discussed in this way. On the other hand it is also my view that philosophy as deep as advaita should be not only be accessible to people of erudition but deserves a much wider audience and possibly adherents.

By keeping it at an untouchable distance and not putting it to scrutiny or disallowing new interpretations, is only a disservice. It is my view again that advaita will survive any amount of scrutiny and will emerge only stronger because of that. And let us also not be hypocritical here. When even more sacrosanct beliefs such as belief in God is being treated like trash, why not an earnest and well intentioned discussion to probe further into a not so well understood philosophy be considered, beyond debate?

Dear Shri Sravna,

I am with you in as much as your aim of making advaita philosophy known to a larger audience. But do you think it was because the scholars deliberately kept it out of reach of the general public and did not allow scrutiny? I don't think so. Coming to "new interpretations", you see advaita or for that matter any stream of vedanta cannot be given new interpretation by anyone, just as any other branch of knowledge; the person concerned should have good grasp of the fundamentals and should be able to know what new interpretation, thinking, pov he is proposing and why. I do not find any such learned and sincere attempts here.

On the contrary, a good amount of irrelevant and inane material is being collected here. But, true to the nature of this forum, I feel no one, including yourself has thought it fit to visit the url given by me, I feel. Here is a forum of people who have all ascended the "sarvajna peeTham"!

My purpose is to bring out how a very sacredly held topic is being is being completely dishonoured in this guise. May the curse of the great Adisankara not fall on all you sarvajnas!!

 

[renuka]

My purpose is to bring out how a very sacredly held topic is being is being completely dishonoured in this guise. May the curse of the great Adisankara not fall on all you sarvajnas!!

Dear Sarma Ji,

None of us mind if you tell anyone if we are wrong,ill informed or even ignorant but your last line is very disheartening to read cos you really cant speak on behalf of Adishankarcharya.

Even if He decides to curse anyone... everyone of us will accept it wholeheartedly cos everything eventually has a good outcome.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sarma,

What you say is perfectly acceptable if the discussion is meant for scholarly perusal and criticism. But in an informal discussion, it doesn't make sense to use high sounding philosophical jargon, and it defeats the very purpose of the discussion which is reaching out to a larger number of people. In the olden days certain norms were followed in discussions and debates because of the settings of those era many of which are not relevant today. I think we need to give up the dogmatism about sacredness in these matters if we want the future generation including the smartas to care about Adi Sankara.

If you think the discussion is irrevelant and inane , you would be more than welcome to enlighten us with your contribution. I believe that the philosophy of Adi Sankara is better served by dissection and dissemination rather than keeping it in disuse in the name of sacredness.

Dear Shri Sravna,

I am with you in as much as your aim of making advaita philosophy known to a larger audience. But do you think it was because the scholars deliberately kept it out of reach of the general public and did not allow scrutiny? I don't think so. Coming to "new interpretations", you see advaita or for that matter any stream of vedanta cannot be given new interpretation by anyone, just as any other branch of knowledge; the person concerned should have good grasp of the fundamentals and should be able to know what new interpretation, thinking, pov he is proposing and why. I do not find any such learned and sincere attempts here.

On the contrary, a good amount of irrelevant and inane material is being collected here. But, true to the nature of this forum, I feel no one, including yourself has thought it fit to visit the url given by me, I feel. Here is a forum of people who have all ascended the "sarvajna peeTham"!

My purpose is to bring out how a very sacredly held topic is being is being completely dishonoured in this guise. May the curse of the great Adisankara not fall on all you sarvajnas!!

 

[renuka]

Dear Sravna,

Whats your opinion on this?

The Master Course The lesson of the day from Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami's trilogy: Dancing with Siva, Living with Siva andMerging with Siva

Lesson 304 Sloka 149 from Dancing with Siva What Are the Differing Views on Evil? For monistic theists, the world of maya is Siva's perfect creation, containing each thing and its opposite. For pluralistic theists, the world is tarnished with evil; thus maya could not be the creation of a perfect God. Aum. Bhashya Pluralistic Siddhantins hold that the world of maya is intrinsically evil and imperfect, for it is clearly full of sorrow, injustice, disease and death. The soul, too, is beginninglessly tainted with anava, or limitation. Pluralists contend that if God had created maya--the material of the world--or the soul, surely He would have made them flawless, and there would be no evil, for imperfection cannot arise out of Perfection. Therefore, they conclude that anava, karma and maya have always existed and the soul has been immersed in darkness and bondage without beginning. Monistic Siddhantins hold that when viewed from higher consciousness, this world is seen as it truly is--perfect. There is no intrinsic evil. God Siva has created the principle of opposites, which are the means for the soul's maturation--beauty and deformity, light and darkness, love and hate, joy and sorrow. All is God Siva Himself, in Him and of Him. A perfect cosmos has issued forth from a perfect Creator. The Tirumantiram says, "All manifestations of nature are His grace. All animate and inanimate are His pure grace. As darkness, as light, the Lord's grace pervades." Aum Namah Sivaya.

 

[renuka]

Just to add on..

taken from Ashtavakra Samhita its sorts of matches with the statement in the above post about "There is no intrinsic evil".

Chapter 13 Stanza 7

Observing again and again the inconstancy of pleasure and pain under different circumstance,I have renounced good and evil and I live happily


Bhasya:

Good and evil are associated in our minds with happiness and sorrow.
We seek good and avoid evil in order to be happy.

But one who has realized that happiness and sorrow are really products of circumstances, changing with their changes,and are not of the eternal Self, no longer cares for good or evil and remains established in the Self in which alone there is real and absolute happiness.

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

As ever I agree with the monistic view. According to me evil is a necessary evil that makes one grow up. An important purpose of maya is to delude you into thinking that evil will triumph. Once you learn your lessons and sober up you will not again fall into the trap of maya.

Nothing at all in my opinion is without purpose. Everything that is concerned with a soul contributes to its journey towards liberation. It is against this backdrop of liberation everything should be viewed.