Martin
Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
Or is it: Brahman + Avidya = Maya?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Advaita questions
- Thread starter Martin
- Start date
Or is it: Brahman + Avidya = Maya?
Martin
Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
Thanks, interesting stuff. I've been chanting "AUM" as a way of connecting, and that has been productive.
I guess my current questions are an attempt to understand what it is that I'm connecting with. Though the theory is less important than the practice!
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
It is. But is there something at the base of it or it is totally false? Many Hindus believe at the base of all things is Brahman. Please note, there are Hindus who deny 'maya', the 'Dvaita' (duality) people.
Martin
Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
Sure, I realise there are different schools and interpretations, and different understandings of the terminology used. Currently I'm finding the Saguna/Nirguna distinction more useful than the idea of Maya.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
I would say 'not very far'. Of course, your actual milage may differ from mine.
Yeah IMHO. At the base of what(ever*) we perceive, which is 'maya', is Brahman.
* Unless we have realized Brahman, in which case, everything is Brahman including ourselves.
The books said "Brahma veda Brahmaiva bhavati' (One who knows Brahman, verily becomes Brahman - Mandukya Upanishad).
You don't need to + Brahman. It is always there, and Maya/adivya too (that is the default position), unless .. (as mentioned above).
Last edited:
Vidya is knowledge; avidya is ignorance.
As to what maya is, I love this parable as told by Swami Vivekananda:
A legend tells how once Nârada said to Krishna, "Lord, show me Maya."
A few days passed away, and Krishna asked Narada to make a trip with him towards a desert, and after walking for several miles, Krishna said, "Narada, I am thirsty; can you fetch some water for me?" "I will go at once, sir, and get you water." So Narada went.
At a little distance there was a village; he entered the village in search of water and knocked at a door, which was opened by a most beautiful young girl. At the sight of her he immediately forgot that his Master was waiting for water, perhaps dying for the want of it. He forgot everything and began to talk with the girl.
All that day he did not return to his Master. The next day, he was again at the house, talking to the girl. That talk ripened into love; he asked the father for the daughter, and they were married and lived there and had children.
Thus twelve years passed. His father-in-law died, he inherited his property. He lived, as he seemed to think, a very happy life with his wife and children, his fields and his cattle and so forth.
Then came a flood. One night the river rose until it overflowed its banks and flooded the whole village. Houses fell, men and animals were swept away and drowned, and everything was floating in the rush of the stream.
Narada had to escape. With one hand be held his wife, and with the other two of his children; another child was on his shoulders, and he was trying to ford this tremendous flood. After a few steps he found the current was too strong, and the child on his shoulders fell and was borne away. A cry of despair came from Narada. In trying to save that child, he lost his grasp upon one of the others, and it also was lost. At last his wife, whom he clasped with all his might, was torn away by the current, and he was thrown on the bank, weeping and wailing in bitter lamentation.
Behind him there came a gentle voice, "My child, where is the water? You went to fetch a pitcher of water, and I am waiting for you; you have been gone for quite half an hour."
"Half an hour! " Narada exclaimed. Twelve whole years had passed through his mind, and all these scenes had happened in half an hour!
And this is Maya.
The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda/Volume 2/Jnana-Yoga/Maya and Freedom - Wikisource, the free online library
Swami Vivekananda spoke at length about maya. If you have occasion, the whole linked chapter of Vivekananda's works regarding maya and freedom is worth the read, in my opinion.A few days passed away, and Krishna asked Narada to make a trip with him towards a desert, and after walking for several miles, Krishna said, "Narada, I am thirsty; can you fetch some water for me?" "I will go at once, sir, and get you water." So Narada went.
At a little distance there was a village; he entered the village in search of water and knocked at a door, which was opened by a most beautiful young girl. At the sight of her he immediately forgot that his Master was waiting for water, perhaps dying for the want of it. He forgot everything and began to talk with the girl.
All that day he did not return to his Master. The next day, he was again at the house, talking to the girl. That talk ripened into love; he asked the father for the daughter, and they were married and lived there and had children.
Thus twelve years passed. His father-in-law died, he inherited his property. He lived, as he seemed to think, a very happy life with his wife and children, his fields and his cattle and so forth.
Then came a flood. One night the river rose until it overflowed its banks and flooded the whole village. Houses fell, men and animals were swept away and drowned, and everything was floating in the rush of the stream.
Narada had to escape. With one hand be held his wife, and with the other two of his children; another child was on his shoulders, and he was trying to ford this tremendous flood. After a few steps he found the current was too strong, and the child on his shoulders fell and was borne away. A cry of despair came from Narada. In trying to save that child, he lost his grasp upon one of the others, and it also was lost. At last his wife, whom he clasped with all his might, was torn away by the current, and he was thrown on the bank, weeping and wailing in bitter lamentation.
Behind him there came a gentle voice, "My child, where is the water? You went to fetch a pitcher of water, and I am waiting for you; you have been gone for quite half an hour."
"Half an hour! " Narada exclaimed. Twelve whole years had passed through his mind, and all these scenes had happened in half an hour!
And this is Maya.
The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda/Volume 2/Jnana-Yoga/Maya and Freedom - Wikisource, the free online library
Last edited:
More like the other way round.
Martin
Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
Thanks, but I'm not sure I get the point of Vivekananda's parable. It sounds like Narada had a daydream while fetching water, but how that relate to Maya?
You're being too.... Hindu!
. You're overcomplicating things. You're not going to grok Brahman. The best you can do is project whatever features onto it you think will give you a conception you're comfortable with.Brahman is Brahman. Reality is reality. You can project endless things onto it, mold endless worlds from it, but, in the end, it's all in your head, all just a dream -- Maya; and your dreaming all just a game -- Lila.
However you conceive it, it's Not That. Nirguna Brahman is inconceivable. It can't be groked unless You Are It.
Maya's just a fancy Sanscrit word for our illusion/delusion/dream of the world. You can personify it if you want, many Hindus would, but me -- I wouldn't bother.
The "daydream" is vyavaharika (this perceived reality). In the beginning of the parable, Nârada is speaking to Krishna in Paramartika (absolute reality). When he goes to fetch water for Krishna, he becomes lost in the "daydream" of vyavaharika. This realization comes when Krishna approaches him from behind and asks where the water is.
The moral of the parable is that the relative reality experienced by humans a "daydream" of suffering caused by avidya to Paramartika.
Merily, merily, merily, merily -- life is but a dream (maya).
His daydream of householder dharma is no different from the previous daydream of devotee dharma. Both are illusions.
Last edited:
Okay. I am surprised that despite nirguna being the only truth, you still appear and discuss the nirguna too.
How so? Are we more true than the Brahman, or the Saguna Brahman?
LOL! You can't 'understand' it till you are it.
Waking-state (3rd) can't be conceived from dream-state (2nd), and 'higher' states can't be conceived from 3rd. If mantra's working for you, go for it.
Martin
Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
You're being too.... Hindu!
Brahman is Brahman. Reality is reality. You can project endless things onto it, mold endless worlds from it, but, in the end, it's all in your head, all just a dream -- Maya; and your dreaming all just a game -- Lila.
However you conceive it, it's Not That. Nirguna Brahman is inconceivable. It can't be groked unless You Are It.
Maya's just a fancy Sanscrit word for our illusion/delusion/dream of the world. You can personify it if you want, many Hindus would, but me -- I wouldn't bother.
I don't think I'm "overcomplicating" things, I'm just exploring ideas and terminology. As I said, I don't currently find the idea of Maya that useful, and Advaita is only one school.
Martin
Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
LOL! You can't 'understand' it till you are it.
Waking-state (3rd) can't be conceived from dream-state (2nd), and 'higher' states can't be conceived from 3rd. If mantra's working for you, go for it.
Why "LOL"? By all means state your opinion, but please don't patronise. And I said "connect with", not "understand".
We're all mad, and obsessed with discussing the ineffable. It's futile, we know, but... well... we're mad!Okay. I am surprised that despite nirguna being the only truth, you still appear and discuss the nirguna too.
And you'll find the same terms used differently by different schools.
Me, I like to stick to the more universal concepts, in simple English, and disentangle the convoluted theological gobbledygook. Illusion, though, is a concept I find very useful.
Forty years ago I'd pepper my exegeses with Sanskrit, but I was just showing off, and confused even myself.
I'm trying to get over that.
Apologies. But compare it to Plato's cave. Explanation is an impossible task. You have to have seen it yourself.
Define "connect with."
Last edited:
Seriously, though. Brahman's an important concept, but can't, practically, be discussed without attributing some features to it.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Useful/useless, I thought we were searching for truth.
Find our relationship with what exists.
Yeah, though we term Brahman as 'nirguna', we do associate attributes with it: Eternal, Changelss, form-independent, without desires ('vikaras', blemishes, that is a nice word, being attached to something), etc. A desire to be worshiped or a desire to help a devotee will be a 'vikara', blemish, not suiting Brahman's exalted position.
Of course, 'Nirguna' cannot have a devotee since the devotee himself/herself/itself will be none other than Brahman. If you find any other attribute which suits Brahman, add it.
Last edited: