-
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!
Brahman v. Maya in a nutshell
- Thread starter Martin
- Start date
I think you're still stuck on Brahman and Maya being dichotomous, as with the Abrahamic notion of God vs Satan. Brahman and Maya are not separate "entities" (for lack of a better term).
Brahman is the highest principle...the ultimate reality. All is Brahman, including Maya.
Maya is that which creates the illusion that the phenomenal world is real, and Maya exists within Brahman. It is what keeps a person in the bondage of samsara through avidya by way of attachment to attributes appearing in time, space, and causation.
Brahman is the highest principle...the ultimate reality. All is Brahman, including Maya.
Maya is that which creates the illusion that the phenomenal world is real, and Maya exists within Brahman. It is what keeps a person in the bondage of samsara through avidya by way of attachment to attributes appearing in time, space, and causation.
Maya is the set of actions, beliefs, habits, perceptual and conceptual filters that come to being due to incorrect understanding of the true nature of the Self/Absolute Reality.
Maya is the barking of the dog at its reflections which it believes is another dog.
shivsomashekhar
Well-Known Member
Who has understood incorrectly? The statement indicates this entity is outside Maya. Is there room for such entities in a non-dual system?
Again, the statement indicates the barking dog is outside Maya. Is there room for such entities in a non-dual system?
There is no such thing like Maya. Maya does not actually exist.
The Crimson Universe
Active Member
This is what some of us are trying to wrap our minds around.
I guess we'll never know. lolI suppose you're speaking from an absolute reality, where there's nothing but Brahman, yes?
Last edited:
This is what some of us are trying to wrap our minds around.
“Exists” was a poor choice of words on my part. “Appears” is more accurate.
The Crimson Universe
Active Member
Do you think its proper to use the below example to explain brahman and maya. It just popped up in my head while i was contemplating :=)
A man in deep sleep or coma, doesn't move a limb (remains absolutely still and actionless just like the actionless Brahman) and yet in his dreams he's flying like superman, fighting villains etc. (which are unreal just like the illusions of maya)
... So, will it be fair to say that all this multiplicity, appearances, happiness and sorrow etc. are just OUR (BRAHMAN's) dreams, while Brahman ITSELF, when seen from an absolute/paramarthika P.O.V, is not moving an inch or doing a single work.
Last edited:
ajay0
Well-Known Member
I like Sayak's analogy of a dog barking at its own shadow.
The analogy of the rope being mistaken for a snake is also used in this regard.
As Ramana stated, the mind is Maya. It is just the imagination and emotional involvement that constitutes maya.
One sees a rope on the ground in semi-darkness. Past psychological fears combined with imagination create images of a snake where there is none, and one believes there is a snake.
Similarly one may suffer from errors of perception due to ignorance and raag-dvesh or emotions generated by the mind of cravings and aversions, resulting in poor judgement and action. As per Bertrand Russell," The degree of one's emotions varies inversely with one's knowledge of the facts."
If one had seen the rope as it is through torchlight, the mind would not have been hijacked by emotions of aversion and fear.
ADHYAASA - Analogy of the Rope and the Snake
The analogy of the rope being mistaken for a snake is also used in this regard.
As Ramana stated, the mind is Maya. It is just the imagination and emotional involvement that constitutes maya.
One sees a rope on the ground in semi-darkness. Past psychological fears combined with imagination create images of a snake where there is none, and one believes there is a snake.
Similarly one may suffer from errors of perception due to ignorance and raag-dvesh or emotions generated by the mind of cravings and aversions, resulting in poor judgement and action. As per Bertrand Russell," The degree of one's emotions varies inversely with one's knowledge of the facts."
If one had seen the rope as it is through torchlight, the mind would not have been hijacked by emotions of aversion and fear.
ADHYAASA - Analogy of the Rope and the Snake
A man in deep sleep or a coma likely isn't dreaming. Dreaming typically occurs in REM sleep.
But yes, the dream analogy is often used as an aid in learning to understand the nature of Maya.
... So, will it be fair to say that all this multiplicity, appearances, happiness and sorrow etc. are just OUR (BRAHMAN's) dreams, while Brahman ITSELF, when seen from an absolute/paramarthika P.O.V, is not moving an inch or doing a single work.
Who sees?
The Crimson Universe
Active Member
You're right. It was around 2 in the morning when i typed that. lol
shivsomashekhar
Well-Known Member
I meant that Maya is not a substance or thing that exists. It's more like a perceptual and behavioural phenomena.
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Real vs. Unreal.
But then answers by Salix, Shivsomashekhar and Sayak are better than mine. There is only one reality, the other is only perception.
I think these people know. You include uncertainty by choice.This is what some of us are trying to wrap our minds around.
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
You woke up early (from your dreams). Have you, really?
Brahman is just the timeless, changeless, "is-ness" of Reality. It's a concept that can't be grasped by normal human consciousness. It's like trying to picture a six dimensional object in your mind -- can't be done. There are, of course, many attempted examples and explanations -- mainly by us Hindu types -- but, in the end, it's always "not this, not that."
Last edited:
ajay0
Well-Known Member
Like a mirage, I would say.
Due to an optical phenomenon, one erroneously perceives things where there is none, such as seeing an oasis in a desert when in actually there is nothing but sands.