Brahman/Maya & The Two Truths

[crossfire]

I thought I'd start a thread where we can explore whether there is any basis of comparison between the two concepts? Whether we find any basis for comparison between them or not, this thread can serve as a place where we can learn about each concept's different ideas without violating any DIR rules.

(Other comparable concepts can also be brought in, such as the Ancient Egyptian's Hall of Two Truths, if someone wants to present them.)

I'm really interested in this idea, but I usually reserve my contemplation of Nagarjuna for when I have PMS.

I'll be mostly in my "beginner's mind" state here, as I know almost nothing about Brahman/Maya, and would like to learn.

Here's an article about The Two Truths Doctrine from About.com to get us started.

The Two Truths Doctrine of Buddhism

Thank you.

 

[KriyaUK]

Roflmao!

 

[KriyaUK]

for when I have PMS.

Judging by your forum persona here, it must be permanent

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

I thought I'd start a thread where we can explore whether there is any basis of comparison between the two concepts? Whether we find any basis for comparison between them or not, this thread can serve as a place where we can learn about each concept's different ideas without violating any DIR rules.

(Other comparable concepts can also be brought in, such as the Ancient Egyptian's Hall of Two Truths, if someone wants to present them.)

I'm really interested in this idea, but I usually reserve my contemplation of Nagarjuna for when I have PMS.

I'll be mostly in my "beginner's mind" state here, as I know almost nothing about Brahman/Maya, and would like to learn.

Here's an article about The Two Truths Doctrine from About.com to get us started.

The Two Truths Doctrine of Buddhism

Thank you.

In Vedanta, there are two paths - Dvaita (Duality) or the 'two truths' and Advaita, the one and only Truth - Brahman.

The path of Duality still sees us as being distinct from the ultimate reality/causation in terms of us being the 'observer' or the 'witness'.

I have only skimmed that article and understand why you'd need to have PMS to understand it. lol

A lot of the Buddhist and Hindu teachings regarding Sunyata/Brahman overlap, with 'interchangeable terms' for exactly the same phenomenon - leading to the attainment of Nibbana/Moksha (even those terms represent the non-dual awareness).

Simplistically, to learn this from the Hindu perspective, there is only one reality, Brahman and everything that is not Brahman is called Maya - Illusion.

However, it's only illusion in contrast to Brahman - i.e Maya is the 'problem' and Brahman is the 'solution' - this is not very accurate though, because people still see this only in black and white terms.

In certain schools of Advaita Vedanta, we are instructed to be solipsistic and apply the philosophy of 'neti neti' meaning 'not this' X2. Yet, in the haste to negate anything and everything that Brahman is not, we will miss what Brahman really is.

Therefore, instead of Maya, another term is used called 'Mithya' (I have discussed this before).

Mithya basically means that the world is real according to our perception of it and as our perception changes, our own version of reality does. The analogy can be made to the Blind Men vs Elephant:

The story of the blind men and an elephant originated in the Indian subcontinent from where it has widely diffused. It has been used to illustrate a range of truths and fallacies; broadly, the parable implies that one's subjective experience can be true, but that such experience is inherently limited by its failure to account for other truths or a totality of truth. At various times the parable has provided insight into the relativism, opaqueness or inexpressible nature of truth, the behavior of experts in fields where there is a deficit or inaccessibility of information, the need for communication, and respect for different perspectives.

Blind men and an elephant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This explains the concept of Mithya very nicely. It's only when we take off our blindfolds and see the elephant, do we know it is an elephant.

There are a few examples of this....here is another:
http://www.beyondthenet.net/dhamma/ropeSnake.htm

The principles of Mithya and Adhyasa (imposition) go hand-in-hand.

Each of us have our own way of looking at the world and even science tells us that no two people see the same colour exactly alike.

I shall add more later, but I hope this is enough to get you started thinking.

 

[InfiniteBeloved]

/\ /\ /\ very good post.

It is co-incidental that you mentioned the "two truths", crossfire, because in my first post here (in the Introductions thread), I said "Hello fellow truth seekers", to which someone asked "What is truth?", to which I replied that there are (in my view) two truths; they are very different things (they should have different names);

Relative truth and Absolute truth.

However I declined to attempt defining them; because (strictly in my opinion only), relative truth is subjective and absolute truth cannot be described in words. There are no words that can even come close to describing absolute truth IMHO.

.... For me Brahman is absolute truth. But making that statement is of no help to you whatsoever in wanting to know (intellectually) what absolute truth and/or Brahman is/are.

I do believe you can experience absolute truth via a Sahaja, Jnana or Kriya type of Yoga though, if you are inquisitive.

Each of us have our own way of looking at the world and even science tells us that no two people see the same colour exactly alike.

- I absolutely LOVE this comment. It is so very true and we should constantly remind ourselves of this.

Love and blessings to you.

 

[Tumah]

I thought I'd start a thread where we can explore whether there is any basis of comparison between the two concepts? Whether we find any basis for comparison between them or not, this thread can serve as a place where we can learn about each concept's different ideas without violating any DIR rules.

(Other comparable concepts can also be brought in, such as the Ancient Egyptian's Hall of Two Truths, if someone wants to present them.)
...
Thank you.

Reading about Brahman as the absolute infinite and Maya as the illusion, this sounds very similar to the Jewish concept of G-d and the World.
G-d is the Absolute Infinite. The world is the perception of the Infinite in various manifestations. Even though the Infinite is one and unchanging, the creation of the world gives us the ability to perceive the Infinite as multitudinous and changing. That is why the Hebrew word for "World" means "hidden", because it hides the nature of the Infinite. There is a significant portion of Kabballah dedicated to revealing the Infinite behind the manifestation.

Is that kind of the same of what you are describing here?

 

[crossfire]

Thank you for your post.

In Vedanta, there are two paths - Dvaita (Duality) or the 'two truths' and Advaita, the one and only Truth - Brahman.

The path of Duality still sees us as being distinct from the ultimate reality/causation in terms of us being the 'observer' or the 'witness'.

I have only skimmed that article and understand why you'd need to have PMS to understand it. lol

Basically, there are two expressions of the same truth--each with their different modes of interpretations--the clear, everyday meaning, and the more subtle meaning that is difficult to grasp.

A lot of the Buddhist and Hindu teachings regarding Sunyata/Brahman overlap, with 'interchangeable terms' for exactly the same phenomenon - leading to the attainment of Nibbana/Moksha (even those terms represent the non-dual awareness).

Simplistically, to learn this from the Hindu perspective, there is only one reality, Brahman and everything that is not Brahman is called Maya - Illusion.

However, it's only illusion in contrast to Brahman - i.e Maya is the 'problem' and Brahman is the 'solution' - this is not very accurate though, because people still see this only in black and white terms.

In certain schools of Advaita Vedanta, we are instructed to be solipsistic and apply the philosophy of 'neti neti' meaning 'not this' X2. Yet, in the haste to negate anything and everything that Brahman is not, we will miss what Brahman really is.

Therefore, instead of Maya, another term is used called 'Mithya' (I have discussed this before).

Mithya basically means that the world is real according to our perception of it and as our perception changes, our own version of reality does. The analogy can be made to the Blind Men vs Elephant:


Blind men and an elephant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This explains the concept of Mithya very nicely. It's only when we take off our blindfolds and see the elephant, do we know it is an elephant.

There are a few examples of this....here is another:
http://www.beyondthenet.net/dhamma/ropeSnake.htm

The principles of Mithya and Adhyasa (imposition) go hand-in-hand.

Each of us have our own way of looking at the world and even science tells us that no two people see the same colour exactly alike.

I shall add more later, but I hope this is enough to get you started thinking.

This process of neti-neti sounds similar to Madhyamaka in Buddhism.

What it all seems to come back to is the interdependence (emptiness) of all things (or what you might call the unity of all things.) Sunyata is both empty (of independence) but is yet full of possibilities.

 

[crossfire]

Reading about Brahman as the absolute infinite and Maya as the illusion, this sounds very similar to the Jewish concept of G-d and the World.
G-d is the Absolute Infinite. The world is the perception of the Infinite in various manifestations. Even though the Infinite is one and unchanging, the creation of the world gives us the ability to perceive the Infinite as multitudinous and changing. That is why the Hebrew word for "World" means "hidden", because it hides the nature of the Infinite. There is a significant portion of Kabballah dedicated to revealing the Infinite behind the manifestation.

Is that kind of the same of what you are describing here?

Yes, thank you!

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

What it all seems to come back to is the interdependence (emptiness) of all things (or what you might call the unity of all things.) Sunyata is both empty (of independence) but is yet full of possibilities.

There is one thing in Hinduism that explains all that rather nicely; the preface to the Isopanishad:

ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदं पूर्णात्पुर्णमुदच्यते
पूर्णश्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ॥
ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥

Om Puurnnam-Adah Puurnnam-Idam Puurnnaat-Purnnam-Udacyate
Puurnnashya Puurnnam-Aadaaya Puurnnam-Eva-Avashissyate ||
Om Shaantih Shaantih Shaantih ||

Meaning:
1: Om, That is Full, This also is Full, From Fullness comes that Fullness,
2: Taking Fullness from Fullness, Fullness Indeed Remains.
3: Om Peace, Peace, Peace.

 

[crossfire]

/\ /\ /\ very good post.

It is co-incidental that you mentioned the "two truths", crossfire, because in my first post here (in the Introductions thread), I said "Hello fellow truth seekers", to which someone asked "What is truth?", to which I replied that there are (in my view) two truths; they are very different things (they should have different names);

Relative truth and Absolute truth.

However I declined to attempt defining them; because (strictly in my opinion only), relative truth is subjective and absolute truth cannot be described in words. There are no words that can even come close to describing absolute truth IMHO.

YES! :yes:

.... For me Brahman is absolute truth. But making that statement is of no help to you whatsoever in wanting to know (intellectually) what absolute truth and/or Brahman is/are.

It seems that the biggest hang up I've run into when discussing this is the insistence that Brahman is a substance. Emotionally clinging to this idea of a "substance" seems to be a source of a lot of emotional anguish. Is there a doctrine requiring that Brahman is a "substance?"

I do believe you can experience absolute truth via a Sahaja, Jnana or Kriya type of Yoga though, if you are inquisitive.

Thank you. I might consider checking these out later. I do have my own practices in this regard.

Each of us have our own way of looking at the world and even science tells us that no two people see the same colour exactly alike.

- I absolutely LOVE this comment. It is so very true and we should constantly remind ourselves of this.[/quote]
Yes, given the infinite amount of possibilities for people to come into being and for the different experiences we experience, everyone has a unique perspective/experience.

Love and blessings to you.

Thank you.

 

[crossfire]

There is one thing in Hinduism that explains all that rather nicely; the preface to the Isopanishad:

ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदं पूर्णात्पुर्णमुदच्यते
पूर्णश्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ॥
ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥

Om Puurnnam-Adah Puurnnam-Idam Puurnnaat-Purnnam-Udacyate
Puurnnashya Puurnnam-Aadaaya Puurnnam-Eva-Avashissyate ||
Om Shaantih Shaantih Shaantih ||

Meaning:
1: Om, That is Full, This also is Full, From Fullness comes that Fullness,
2: Taking Fullness from Fullness, Fullness Indeed Remains.
3: Om Peace, Peace, Peace.

It's interesting how you can divide infinity up into infinite sets, without losing the infinite quality. (Such as dividing all whole numbers into the equally infinite sets of odd numbers and even numbers.)

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I've often wondered something. Please correct me if I'm wrong on the Hindu side of my idea, because more than likely I'm wrong.

It seems to me that, at least in Advaita, the atman isn't really something personal, that has to be "united" to brahman, but something that's always been a part of brahman, just covered with the veil of maya. This, to me, sounds like the concept of dharmakaya/tathagatagarbha in Mahayana Buddhism, paired with the three poisons/fires. I'm aware that there's probably more subtle differences, but my knowledge is on the Buddhism end, but my knowledge of Hinduism, and Advaita in particular, is quite general.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

It seems that the biggest hang up I've run into when discussing this is the insistence that Brahman is a substance. Emotionally clinging to this idea of a "substance" seems to be a source of a lot of emotional anguish. Is there a doctrine requiring that Brahman is a "substance?"

Now, here's where it gets complicated.

Brahman is described as having two modes - Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman.

Saguna Brahman is the Brahman that has 'substance'.

For argument's sake, it is the picture of Siva that you see in my avatar. It is the 'form' of God as seen/experienced by us when we are in prayer or worship. It is the exhalted state when one is immersed in Bhakti (Divine Love). It is that state when our Third-Eye is awakened and the Energy is raised into that Chakra.

Nirguna Brahman is the Formless, perfect Brahman, devoid of substance or attribute.

It is when one goes beyond the form of Siva into the formless aspect of Sadasiva/Maha Rudra. It is the 'next step' after worship, when one's whole consciousness becomes immersed and absorbed into Siva...into that Divine reality that has no expression or explanation. It is when that Energy leaves the Third-Eye Chakra and finds its way up to the Sahasrara Chakra and out through the crown of the head.

In essence, Siva and Sadasiva are one and the same, but it's only Dvaita/Duality that perceives any difference between the two.

 

[crossfire]

Now, here's where it gets complicated.

Brahman is described as having two modes - Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman.

Saguna Brahman is the Brahman that has 'substance'.

For argument's sake, it is the picture of Siva that you see in my avatar. It is the 'form' of God as seen/experienced by us when we are in prayer or worship. It is the exhalted state when one is immersed in Bhakti (Divine Love). It is that state when our Third-Eye is awakened and the Energy is raised into that Chakra.

Nirguna Brahman is the Formless, perfect Brahman, devoid of substance or attribute.

It is when one goes beyond the form of Siva into the formless aspect of Sadasiva/Maha Rudra. It is the 'next step' after worship, when one's whole consciousness becomes immersed and absorbed into Siva...into that Divine reality that has no expression or explanation. It is when that Energy leaves the Third-Eye Chakra and finds its way up to the Sahasrara Chakra and out through the crown of the head.

In essence, Siva and Sadasiva are one and the same, but it's only Dvaita/Duality that perceives any difference between the two.

OK, so is Saguna Brahman like "form is emptiness, and emptiness is form," while Nirguna Brahman is more like "the emptiness of emptiness?" Is that a good comparison?

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

OK, so is Saguna Brahman like "form is emptiness, and emptiness is form," while Nirguna Brahman is more like "the emptiness of emptiness?" Is that a good comparison?

Yes, that is as good of a comparison that any can be made on the matter.

 

[Jainarayan]

I could never get my head wrapped around, or develop a taste for the idea of maya being created by or emanating from Brahman. Alan Watts described it as God/us playing hide-and-seek with ourselves. Shankaracharya called creation the recreation or play of God. I find that untenable. However, I like the way the About.com article The Two Truths Doctrine of Buddhism states "The Buddha also taught that all phenomena manifest because of conditions created by other phenomena (dependent origination)." At some point the whole thing (dependent origin) got started, or never got started and always existed, and will go on ad infinitum. This explains to me very nicely why the world exists as we see it. But it doesn't matter, because speculating on it is a stumbling block to spiritual advancement and enlightenment.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

It is Shakti (Maya) that both conceals and reveals Siva. I guess the analogy of 'playing hide and seek with ourselves' fits, but while ever we are 'hiding' and while ever we are 'seeking' we are still separate from the object we wish to discover, so I also agree that speculating on it is a stumbling block to enlightenment.

As a Saiva, I came to the realisation that Siva couldn't be directly perceived without first understanding and appreciating His 'better half' Shakti.

That is, Brahman cannot be attained without knowing the intrinsics of Maya and thus, I can say that Maya came from Brahman, as only a Tantrika can say that.

 

[InfiniteBeloved]

It seems that the biggest hang up I've run into when discussing this is the insistence that Brahman is a substance. Emotionally clinging to this idea of a "substance" seems to be a source of a lot of emotional anguish. Is there a doctrine requiring that Brahman is a "substance?"

It's a good point. I am not even sure if I would regard Brahman as substance (but if I did not, I would be unable to offer an alternative description! ).

Your viewpoint here is very rational and valid. I am unsure of your exact path (if you would describe yourself as having one) at present, so please forgive my ignorance, but from your outlook as I've seen it in this thread, and your very valid and worthy considerations about Brahman, Buddhism may be a better path for you that anything that considers Brahman; as I believe any type of path than involves Brahman will probably require an acceptance that transcends logic and reason.. Perhaps by logical standards, a leap of faith (although I personally don't see it as that, as my Yoga practice offers me glimpses of Brahman).

 

[Sumit]

It's interesting how you can divide infinity up into infinite sets, without losing the infinite quality. (Such as dividing all whole numbers into the equally infinite sets of odd numbers and even numbers.)

Om Puurnnam-Adah Puurnnam-Idam Puurnnaat-Purnnam-Udacyate
Puurnnashya Puurnnam-Aadaaya Puurnnam-Eva-Avashissyate ||
Om Shaantih Shaantih Shaantih ||

This verse from Isopanishad shows fullness of brahman.

Here It does not say "That is full" because "that" leaves the subject "I". In very similar way "This" cannot be called as full.
Here Idam refers to everything known and Adah refers to that which is still undiscovered. So this verse basically means "There is nothing but fullness (Brahman) and from fullness appears Adah (that which is unknown) and Idam(this which is known).
In next line it's says if Adah and Idam taken out from whole it still remains full. This does not mean something taken out of fullness because it's impossible to take or add anything to fullness. It's simply means existence of Adah and Idam under Poornum (Brahman) similar to coin of silver is indifferent from silver.

 

[crossfire]

It's a good point. I am not even sure if I would regard Brahman as substance (but if I did not, I would be unable to offer an alternative description! ).

Your viewpoint here is very rational and valid. I am unsure of your exact path (if you would describe yourself as having one) at present, so please forgive my ignorance, but from your outlook as I've seen it in this thread, and your very valid and worthy considerations about Brahman, Buddhism may be a better path for you that anything that considers Brahman; as I believe any type of path than involves Brahman will probably require an acceptance that transcends logic and reason.. Perhaps by logical standards, a leap of faith (although I personally don't see it as that, as my Yoga practice offers me glimpses of Brahman).

OK, so by "leap of faith," do you mean subconscious reprogramming/transformation that you are not fully consciously aware of?