brahman/maya and choice

[Charzhino]

My first question is, does Brahman choose to create Maya or is it just his own ''nature'' hence its always there/

Secondely If Brahman does choose it (which from my research he does), Brahman at the absolute level has no attributes and is impersonal, then how can He make a concious decision to choose something to exist if he has no attributes or characterstics?


This question mainly uses Adviata Vedenta philosophy.

 

[Madhuri]

My understanding is that Maya, and the material universe, is a natural and eternal part of existence.

My approach is a mix of the concepts of oneness and difference.

 

[Cypress]

I don't think Brahman created Maya.
As far as I understand Brahman & Maya are the same, those you know the Self see Brahman only, while those you do not know the Self perceive Brahman as Maya.

 

[Akshara Dasa]

Brahman is perfect, blissful Being. Therefore it has no will, no ability to choose. So Brahman did not choose for Maya to arise. BTW, that very incident would be egotistical because there would then be a creator (The thought "I create", AKA the creator) and Brahman is free from the "I" thought.

Creation just happened, no purpose, no reason of why or anything like that. There was no creator and is not one, there was just creating. "Maya" is just a wave, a vibration, a phenomenon that is taking place within Brahman. No reason, purpose, or meaning. Just a phenomenon, a wave.

 

[Satsangi]

I subscribe to the viewpoint that the Ishwara (Brahman), Maya (Prakriti), Jeeva are all eternal and different tattvas. Just as the stars and the moon are not seen in the presence of the Sun, the Brahman is seen as the One only; the others are shadowed by the Brahman.

I believe that creation has a purpose- for Jeevas to recognize the Brahman i.e attain liberation and to live through the fruits of the karmas.

Regards,

 

[Charzhino]

Brahman is perfect, blissful Being. Therefore it has no will, no ability to choose.

Doesnt that make Brahman less perfect than even humans, who atleast have the ability to choose/free will?

 

[Madhuri]

Doesnt that make Brahman less perfect than even humans, who atleast have the ability to choose/free will?

I think what was meant is that Brahman as a whole is not an individual personality (not a person, personal). But humans, and in fact all things, are part of Brahman. So Brahman could not be less than humans.

But my understanding is that Brahman represents the impersonal aspect of God. It is all pervading consciousness. It is the energy that flows through everything, never created and never destroyed. So I do not see Brahman as the Whole, but as a very significant aspect of the Whole.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Charzino,

Personal understanding is that:

MAYA/ILLUSION is a perception of the human MIND.
Maya/Illusion is not created.

Love & rgds

Love & rgds

 

[Akshara Dasa]

Doesnt that make Brahman less perfect than even humans, who atleast have the ability to choose/free will?

It actually make it more perfect. It is complete within itself, there is nothing for it to do.

 

[Charzhino]

Thanks for the responses guys. I have another question. Can Brahman and Maya be differentiated from each other?

The universe can be defined as a single chain of causes. By same deterministic reality, Brahman is part of this causal chain as its first member and cannot exist without the entire chain of causes (in this case material illusion). Does it make any sense to differentiate Maya from Brahman as they are part of the same chain (Brahman=Maya because Brahman cannot exist without Maya)? Maya will necessarily follow from Brahman so Brahman and Maya are within a causal chain. We have a single type of existence.

The alternative is that Brahman freely chose to create the material illusion. Here, Brahman is still the first member of the causal chain. However, Brahman can exist without the causal chain as well. With this view, one can truly seperate Brahman(the Reality) from Maya(the illusion) as there is something independent of the causal law(Brahman) and something dependent on the causal law(the material illusion/universe)-so we have two different types of existence and we can differentiate between the two.

Is it correct that the first option follows adviata?

 

[Akshara Dasa]

Brahman and Maya are not different, but Brahman can be without Maya. Maya is just a vibration, a wave in existence. All that you see is really Brahman, but because of vibration, there is an appearance of matter. But, sometime in the future, that wave or vibration will go away and all there will be is Brahman. Then, im sure, another wave will arise thus giving rise to another illusion. But even though they are one, Brahman can be without the other.

Understand what Maya is, and the whole thing clicks into place. Maya is just a vibration of Brahman, that is it. So the Vibration creates the illusion of energy, and the energy creates the illusion of subatomic particles, and those create the illusion of atoms, and then atoms create the illusion of matter as we see it with our senses. That is all Maya is, a set of appearences emanating from Brahman in the form of Vibrations.

You can also look at it like this: Lets say there is a lake, serene, calm, no waves. Because of the lack of movement in the lake, there is no form. The lake is just the lake. But, when a vibration arises, when a wave occures, then there is a form. That wave is not different from the form, it is the form.

EDIT: In short, saying Brahman relies on Maya for its existence is like saying the lake relies on the waves for its existence. No waves does not equal no lake, likewise no Maya does not equal no Brahman. And yet they are One.

 

[Charzhino]

Im currently in a disucssion with a muslim trying to explain what Brahman is according to Hinduism, mainly adviata vedenta, which is why im posting these questions. However he has replied to me with this:

But God is not like anything He has Created, you cannot deny attributes that God affirms for Himself on the basis that it sounds like anthropomorphism if God Himself says that His attributes are not like any of His Creation.

The reality is, no matter how much it is dressed up, a deity that is unable to do as it pleases is inferior to humans and is certainly not worthy of being worshipped, what is the point of worshipping something that cannot benefit you when it wants? It can't even do anything, do you really believe that God is unable to do anything? That is the pinnacle of blasphemy and disbelief. I extrapolate from what you said that Brahman also cannot speak, in that case, what is the point of glorifying something that is mute? A human that cannot speak is not the same as a human that can speak, saying that Brahman cannot speak makes it more useless and weak than most of mankind. It is considered a disability if somebody cannot go to the shop by themselves or that they cannot speak, it is not considered as perfect by any means of the word.

You claimed that there is no 'Creator' rather there is 'creating', this is the belief of the Atheist, is it not?

Im not sure what is the best way to respond to this, any help to how i can approach it?

 

[Akshara Dasa]

Im currently in a disucssion with a muslim trying to explain what Brahman is according to Hinduism, mainly adviata vedenta, which is why im posting these questions. However he has replied to me with this:



Im not sure what is the best way to respond to this, any help to how i can approach it?

Brahman from the Advaita Standpoint is pure formless being. Not a personal Being. He is wrong for stating that this is like atheism, it is simply impersonal theism. Now, it is not that Brahman cant to anything, it does everything, but without being the doer. It takes sometime to understand this. But threw the power of Brahman this world is manifested. What is that power? Vibration! Threw the power of Vibration, Brahman or God, does everything. But in another view, nothing is really happening, just a vibration. BTW, the view that your Muslim friend has is close to the concept of the Isvara, or the controller. Any personal God can be thought of as Isvara. But even above Isvara is Brahman, which Isvara, Atma, humans, animals, etc are just extensions of. This isnt atheism, and this God does everything without doing. As Krishna said in verse 18 chapter 9 of the Bhagavad Gita, ­“ One who sees inaction in action, and action in inaction, is intelligent among men, and he is in the transcendental position, although engaged in all sorts of activities.” That is what I feel Krishna is talking about. If one can see God doing everything, without really doing anything that person really sees.