Brahman/Maya & The Two Truths

[godnotgod]

Originally Posted by NobodyYouKnow
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.
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.

Please be careful with this. The distinction must be made between perceptual reality, which is what you both are referring to, and ultimate reality, about which Hinduism says: 'the saltiness of the sea is the same everywhere'. Deepak Chopra gives us a clue here:

[youtube]nIRPba6bO0A[/youtube]
Is There An Ultimate Reality? Ask Deepak! - YouTube

 

[godnotgod]

[youtube]YckgH_T8BUA[/youtube]
MAYA: The Physics of Deception - YouTube

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Maya is the world illusion, while Brahman(consciousness) is the reality.
Unfortunately advaita posits that there is no relation between Brahman and Maya, which becomes a major duality.
Tantrik thought solved this duality by positng
that consciousness is energy,
and Thus Maya is really just Brahman percived through the senses.

Strictly speaking there is one truth, Brahman(conscious energy)
Whethor or not it is percieved as formed or formless.

When Brahman is viewed through a brain, heart, and senses; it appears formed
when these 7 senses are negated Brahman appears formless

In reality Brahman is Neti neti(or Mu);
Neither formed or formless
Neither describable or indescribable
Neither dead or alive
To say anything is inaccurate

As a mind with Buddhist influence you may
be familiar with the prajna paramita sutras.

 

[godnotgod]

Maya is the world illusion, while Brahman(consciousness) is the reality.
Unfortunately advaita posits that there is no relation between Brahman and Maya, which becomes a major duality.
Tantrik thought solved this duality by positng
that consciousness is energy,
and Thus Maya is really just Brahman percived through the senses.

Strictly speaking there is one truth, Brahman(conscious energy)
Whethor or not it is percieved as formed or formless.

When Brahman is viewed through a brain, heart, and senses; it appears formed
when these 7 senses are negated Brahman appears formless

In reality Brahman is Neti neti(or Mu);
Neither formed or formless
Neither describable or indescribable
Neither dead or alive
To say anything is inaccurate

As a mind with Buddhist influence you may
be familiar with the prajna paramita sutras.

Yes, and your post sounds pretty accurate.

Here is the heart of the Prajna Paramita:

"O Shariputra, a son or daughter of noble family who wishes to practice the profound prajnaparamita should see in this way: seeing the five skandhas to be empty of nature.

Form is emptiness; emptiness also is form. Emptiness is no other than form; form is no other than emptiness.

In the same way, feeling, perception, formation, and consciousness are emptiness. Thus, Shariputra, all dharmas are emptiness. There are no characteristics. There is no birth and no cessation. There is no impurity and no purity. There is no decrease and no increase. Therefore, Shariputra, in emptiness, there is no form, no feeling, no perception, no formation, no consciousness; no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind; no appearance, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch, no dharmas, no eye dhatu up to no mind dhatu, no dhatu of dharmas, no mind consciousness dhatu; no ignorance, no end of ignorance up to no old age and death, no end of old age and death; no suffering, no origin of suffering, no cessation of suffering, no path, no wisdom, no attainment, and no non-attainment."

The Heart Sutra - Prajnaparamita
*****

re: maya vis a vis Brahman, from Swami Vivikenanda we have:

"The universe is the Absolute as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
*****
And Zen gives us this:

Anger

When the Tesshu, a master of Zen, calligraphy and swordsmanship, was a young man he called on the Zen master Dokuon. Wishing to impress Dokuon he said, “The mind, the Buddha, and all sentient beings after all do not exist. The true nature of phenomenon is emptiness. There is no realisation, no delusion, no sagacity, no mediocrity, nothing to give and nothing to receive.

Dokuon promptly hit him with a bamboo stick. Tesshu became quite furious.

Dokuon said quietly: “If nothing exists, where did this anger come from?”

http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Bud... Stories/Zen Stories - Seishinkan Bujitsu.htm

 

[Makaranda]

Maya is the world illusion, while Brahman(consciousness) is the reality.
Unfortunately advaita posits that there is no relation between Brahman and Maya, which becomes a major duality.

Where are you getting this from, CC?

If you read the first sentence of your quote above closely, you'll see that this so-called relationship issue is resolved already. If mAyA is the world illusion, and Brahman is the reality (sat), then the 'relation' between Brahman and mAyA is that Brahman is the reality in which mAyA appears. Just as the illusory appearance of silver in nacre depends upon and has no other existence outside of the nacre, so too is the illusory appearance of creation dependent upon Brahman and has no other existence but Brahman. In other words, from the standpoint of the world, the world is mithyA, but from the standpoint of Brahman, the world is sat, real, because there is no other reality but Brahman, hence, the world is Brahman, ultimately. There's no duality there.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

From swami nikhilananda's introduction to the atmabodha

Ultimately philosophy isn't what matters its actual nonduality

 

[godnotgod]

From swami nikhilananda's introduction to the atmabodha

Ultimately philosophy isn't what matters its actual nonduality

Nirvana and Samsara are one.

Brahman and Maya are one.

'The universe is the Absolute [itself] as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation.'
Vivikenanda

So there is neither duality nor non-duality.

If Brahman is the Absolute, there exists nothing relative to it to which it can be compared. It is Everything, and Everything must, by definition, include Maya.

 

[Jainarayan]

Nirvana and Samsara are one.

Brahman and Maya are one.

Nirvana is the cessation of, escape from samsara.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Nirvana is also formlessness. While samsara is the world form

In a sense Nirvana is the state of no mind,
which is "dissolution into Brahman"

Frubals

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

Nirvana and Samsara are one.

Brahman and Maya are one.

Precisely.

To extrapolate the infinite is impossible, the only outcome of mental process begins at the very point where Purusha (energy) 'animates' (for lack of a better word), Prakriti (force/will).

It is at that point, where latent becomes potent, yet still rests within that eternal latency, in the void where energy rests according to its universal potential.

We split the notion of conceptual awareness into opposites, in an effort to transcend the pair of opposites into 'state 3' or to annihilate the duality created through the existence into a 'state 0' of matter vs anti-matter.

To realise Brahman without Maya, is like trying to see the light, without seeing the darkness...to try and see the void without being able to relate it to form...to try and feel the heat, but all you know is the cold, then to try and feel nothing, but you must reconcile and abolish each set of corresponding 'dualities' to do it.

Brahman is reached by understanding and accepting the true nature of Maya for what she really is, not ignored and pushed aside because she's merely 'getting in the way'.

That will come back to bite you on the bum one day...trust me.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Unfortunately advaita posits that there is no relation between Brahman and Maya, which becomes a major duality.

Perhaps the relationship is like an object and its shadow. Maya would not have existed if there was no Brahman. Can the shadow be separated from the object?

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

I like to post random poetry that explains things when I cannot, so here's T.S. Eliot again:

Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom

Between the conception
And the creation
Between the emotion
And the response
Falls the Shadow
Life is very long

Between the desire
And the spasm
Between the potency
And the existence
Between the essence
And the descent
Falls the Shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom

For Thine is
Life is
For Thine is the

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

The Hollow Men, a poem by T S Eliot. poets love Poem at allpoetry

 

[Aupmanyav]

Brahman and Maya are one.

Nirvana is the cessation of, escape from samsara.

Nirvana is understanding 'Maya'.

Brahman is reached by understanding and accepting the true nature of Maya for what she really is, not ignored and pushed aside because she's merely 'getting in the way'.

 

[godnotgod]

Nirvana is the cessation of, escape from samsara.

Nirvana is understanding 'Maya'.

Understanding maya is simply to see into it's illusory nature. There is no 'escape', because there is nothing to escape from.

Roshi Sunryu Suzuki instructs his students to begin their practice right in the very center of their delusion.

"Nothing we see or hear is perfect, and yet there, in the midst of all the imperfection, lies Perfect Reality"
Suzuki

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Yeah, all that.
People who are used to objectivity, prefer to objectify Brahman as energy, rather than subectify it as self.
But this is just up to personal bias.
Brahman is nondual, without any notion of subject or object.
Philosophy is worked out after enlightenment.
Brahman can be known in silence, a nameless conscious energy

 

[godnotgod]

Philosophy is worked out after enlightenment.

Bingo! Something that is almost always presented as being the other way around.

re: Samsara and Nirvana are One:

"For samsara and nirvana to be distinct from one another, they would have to be inherently existent things. But they are empty, and within this emptiness, they are without distinction.

Samsara and nirvana are only different in the relative sense, because they designate entirely different things.

Again, in the ultimate sense, there is no difference, because of their emptiness."

dharmandme: Nagarjuna and Emptiness and Why Nirvana is Samsara

Hence:

"The universe [maya] is the Absolute [Brahman] as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"

Reason and Logic are the problems here because they determine that Time, Space, and Causation are realities rather than concepts. In terms of Samsara, we 'reason' that the illusion we see and act upon is real, but which only causes suffering.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Yes Buddha man. Soon their will be a new thread about the enlightenment tradition of America.
Americans are starting to make a new western Way, you can tell by the many sages here on the forums
How can some one talk about silence without it degenerating into utter nonsense.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

I don't want to get into arguments about terminology and what not, but why do western vedAntI-s often use the word brahman rather than brahma? If "brahman" (ब्रह्मन&#2381 is inflected as a neutral noun it becomes brahma (ब्रह्&#2350 which does refer to the supreme reality, but if inflected as a masculine noun, it becomes brahmA (ब्रह्म&#2366 which refers to the creator god in the trimUrti. Why use brahman rather than brahma when all it does is increase confusion? After all, no one uses sa~NnyAsin rather than sa~NnyAsI, tapasvin rather than tapasvI, rAjan rather than rAjA, harin rather than harI, yogin rather than yogI, mAlin rather than mAlI, bhAgin rather than bhAgI, adhikArin rather than adhikArI, yogin rather than yogI, karman rather than karma, krodhin rather than krodhI, etc. What makes "brahman" any different? Even in other Indian languages like hindI, you use parabrahm to refer to bhagavAn, and not parabrahman; brahman in saMskRtam literally means "O brahma," since the prAtipadika is not changed in sambodhana vibhakti (it would technically be the equivalent of saying हे ब्रह्&#2350.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Because Brahma is a Creator deity.
Brahman is existence-consciousness-bliss absolute.

Brahman is infinite, Brahma has finite qualities(a bodY with boundries.)

 

[Poeticus]

Because Brahma is a Creator deity.
Brahman is existence-consciousness-bliss absolute.

Brahman is infinite, Brahma has finite qualities(a bodY with boundries.)

​

This is practically the reason why most of your
posts are heavily contested by other members,
and for all the right and understandable reasons.
It seems you are not well familiar with Sanskrit --
and have dangerously misread what Jaskaran is
trying to say:​

ब्रह्मन् (brahman) inflected as a neuter noun is ब्रह्म (brahma).
ब्रह्म (brahma) refers to the Supreme Reality in its Vedantic
usage, grammar-wise.​

When ब्रह्मन् (brahman) is inflected as a masculine noun, it becomes
ब्रह्मा (brahmā), which refers to a Deity from the Trimurti.
The correct word is ब्रह्म (brahma), not ब्रह्मन् (brahman) nor ब्रह्मा (brahmā).​