True Nature of the Universe: What is Maya?

[godnotgod]

Famed astronomer John Dobson, of Sidewalk Astronomers, has married a 'new' theory of the nature of the universe to the Hindu ideas of Brahman and Maya. Western science has always simply assumed the universe to be real to begin with, but what if the universe that we measure, see, feel, and live in is but an illusion? That is to say, what if what we have taken for granted all this time as terra firma is but a Grand Illusion, one that is so perfectly fashioned and exectued, that we are totally convinced of its 'reality', when, in truth, it is nothing more than a play of the divine essence? In Hindu terms, this play would be called lila, and the illusion itself is known as maya. The idea may sound ridiculous to some ears, or maybe quite provocative, but, in any case, it is certainly compelling! Professor Dobson dovetails the Hindu vision with how the physics of such a condition can be explained. In short, the crux of the matter can be summed up in the following statement:

"The Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space, and causation (kala, desha, nimitta).....time, space, and causation are like the glass through which the Absolute is seen, and when It is seen on the lower side, It appears as the Universe. So not only is the Universe apparitional, it's the Absolute seen through time and space, and that allows us to understand why the physics of the Universe takes the form that we see."

If you bother to spend a bit of time at Dobson's site*, you will get the general drift of the ideas being advanced. What is crucial is to understand the basis upon which he is advancing his theory about the nature of the universe, and for that, a little explanation as to exactly what maya is:
*****

What is the Nature of Maya?
[ie: "What is the nature of the universe?"]

by Professor V. Krishnamurthy

[edited]

Is maya [illusion] real or imaginary?

Unless maya is already present, neither concealment nor projection can take place.

Ultimate Reality is beyond space and time.

Time, space and causation are like the glass through which the Absolute is seen.

In the Absolute itself, there is neither space, nor time nor causation.

The only relevant question that you can ask about maya is about its nature and final destiny. Examination will show that maya is neither real nor unreal.

`I am ignorant' is a common expression, within anybody's experience. Hence maya is not completely unreal. But it disappears with the onset of knowledge. So it is not real either. Thus it is different from both the real and the unreal. It cannot be defined one way or the other. It is in this sense that the world of perception, the common world of experience, cannot be rejected out of hand as totally false, nor can it be taken to be totally real because it suffers contradiction at a higher level of experience:

It is real in the empirical sense and unreal in the Absolute sense.

This is also the case with a dream. For the dreamer, the dream is real. The dream and similarly the perceptible universe is not falsehood but comparative unreality. It is not total non-existence like a unicorn but it is midway between the absolute truth of Ultimate Reality and the absolute falsehood of a unicorn.

One analogy to explain the peculiar relationship between Ultimate Reality and the universe is the relationless relationship of the rope that is mistaken for the snake, because of poor lighting. The rope appears as a snake no doubt, but actually there is no snake there, ever.

The second analogy that is used in the literature is the appearance of water in a mirage. And the third one is that of the dreamer and his dream. Each of these three analogies has its own limitation in explaining the relationship between Brahman, which is invisible, and the universe, which is visible.

Brahman [the Absolute] is the rope; the visible universe is the snake [maya].

What appears as the universe is not really the universe. (!)

When spiritual illumination [Enlightnement] takes place we will know that what was there all the time was only Brahman.

The three analogies are not, however, just three analogies in place of one. There is a gradation, says Ramana Maharshi. First it may be questioned, with reference to the analogy of the rope and the snake that when the lighting situation improves the appearance of the snake is no more, whereas, in the case of Brahman versus universe, even after learning that Brahman is the substratum of truth, and the universe is only a superimposition like the snake on the rope, we still continue to see the universe; it has not disappeared!

For this the Maharishi wants you to go to the analogy of the mirage. Once you understand it is the mirage and no watershed, the appearance of water is no more there. But now there is another objection: 'Even after knowing that there is only Brahman and the universe is only an appearance, one gets certain wants fulfilled from this appearance of a universe: one gets one's hunger satisfied, thirst quenched and so on. But the water in the mirage does not quench one's thirst; so to that extent the analogy is inappropriate'.

The analogy of the dream meets this objection, says the Maharishi. The dreamer has his thirst quenched in the dream. The thirst itself is a dream thirst and it is quenched by drinking (dream) water in the dream; so also the wants that one feels in this universe like hunger and thirst are also quenched by corresponding objects in this universe. Thus in this sense the analogy of the dream is reasonably perfect. Maybe that is why Shankara uses the analogy of the dream so emphatically to describe the reality or unreality of the universe.

In Advaita the concept of reality is always comparative. Relative to materials, things made out of the materials are unreal. In other words if a bucket is made out of plastic, the bucket is unreal relative to the plastic. It is the cause that is `more real' than the effect. The cause of the world versus the world itself gives us a comparison about their relative reality. When we say that the universe is unreal, we mean that it is unreal as the universe, but it is surely as real as Brahman, its cause.

In order to explain this relative unreality the theory of superimposition is meticulously worked out by Shankara. While the snake is superimposed on the rope, the rope undergoes no aberration or modification in the process. It is the same rope all the time. What appears to you is only in your mind. The visible universe is just a perishable (akshara) superimposition on Brahman. Brahman does not undergo any change in the process. All the time Brahman remains as Brahman, the imperishable (akshara) substratum. This is where the nirguna (attributeless) character of Brahman is effectively applied by Shankara to his explanation of this mysterious relationship.

This phenomenon of Brahman not being visible but something else, the universe, being visible, is exactly what the term `maya' means. It does two things: It hides Brahman from you. Simultaneously it projects the universe to you.

The declaration that this is what is happening comes forth from the Lord Himself in Gita IX - 5, 6:

'Everything that is perceptible is pervaded and permeated by Me, who is unmanifested. All the beings are established in Me but not I in them; they are not in Me either, this is my divine yoga.'. He remains unmanifested while what is visible is basically a permeation by him. While he remains unchanged, and imperceptible, the universe is what is perceptible. Everything visible is supported by Him as the only substratum, whereas He Himself is not supported by anything. He is His own support.

The snake appears on the rope; the rope does not undergo any change, but the snake is supported by the rope, (meaning that, without the rope there is no snake). But in reality the snake was never there and so it is also true to say that the snake is not in the rope. To the question: "Where is the snake?", the answer is: "it is in the rope."

To the question; "Is the snake there?", the answer is: "there is no snake; the snake was never in the rope."

It is in this strain that the Lord gives out, almost in the same breath, what appears to be two contradictory statements:

"Everything is in Me; and nothing is in Me."

This is the cosmic mystery of the existence of the Universe. It is and is not - sad-asad-vilakshaNa, mAyA!
*****

More to follow............comments welcome:yes:

Please Google: 'John Dobson, Sidewalk Astronomers, Maya', and...

'What is the nature of maya?'

(As a new member, I am not yet allowed to include hyperlinks in my text...sorry)

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Is this the link you were talking about ?

The Equations of Maya

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, and thank you for posting it!

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Hence maya is not completely unreal. But it disappears with the onset of knowledge.

I am so glad that you brought up this subject. Many people seem to misunderstand the concept of maya in Advaita. Like you said it is not unreal like a unicorn which never existed. It is unreal in the sense that It makes us misinterpret the nature cosmos and see our selves as separate beings. Like the Upanishads say “Ekam eva advitiyam” -One and only with out a second.

 

[godnotgod]

Re: lila, or divine playfullness:

"Brahman is full of all perfections. And to say that Brahman has some purpose in creating the world will mean that it wants to attain through the process of creation something which it has not. And that is impossible. Hence, there can be no purpose of Brahman in creating the world. The world is a mere spontaneous creation of Brahman. It is a Lila, or sport, of Brahman. It is created out of Bliss, by Bliss and for Bliss. Lila indicates a spontaneous sportive activity of Brahman as distinguished from a self-conscious volitional effort. The concept of Lila signifies freedom as distinguished from necessity."

Ram Shanker Misra in "The Integral Advaitism of Sri Aurobindo"

Compare this idea to that of the poker-faced Christian God, whose 'creation' is a very serious matter indeed!

 

[godnotgod]

I am so glad that you brought up this subject. Many people seem to misunderstand the concept of maya in Advaita. Like you said it is not unreal like a unicorn which never existed. It is unreal in the sense that It makes us misinterpret the nature cosmos and see our selves as separate beings. Like the Upanishads say “Ekam eva advitiyam” -One and only with out a second.

Can we say that the delusion dwells within our own minds, and that the way to discern the delusion from Reality is via of the development of accurate seeing?

Accurate seeing can be attained via of yoga, meditation, etc., all of which involve the stilling of the mind.

"Do not seek the truth; only cease to cherish opinions"
Sixth Zen Patriarch

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Can we say that the delusion dwells within our own minds, and that the way to discern the delusion from Reality is via of the development of accurate seeing?

Accurate seeing can be attained via of yoga, meditation, etc., all of which involve the stilling of the mind.

"Do not seek the truth; only cease to cherish opinions"
Sixth Zen Patriarch

Hi godnotgod, welcome to RF. Agree generally with your comments.

The 'maya' is a result of the mortal mind's perception of the One that is all, from a dualistic subject/object frame of reference. So long as there exists the concepts of a seer, and that which is seen, then the absolute one is divided (conceptually), but when the mind is stilled, the subject/object dualistic relationship of the mind gives way to reveal non-conceptual reality. THIS which seeks is THAT which is sought, and THAT which is sought is THIS which seeks,..all else is 'maya'.

Brahman can't be confined by any space, limited by any time, known by any knowledge, nor described by any concepts.

 

[godnotgod]

So long as there exists the concepts of a seer, and that which is seen, then the absolute one is divided (conceptually), but when the mind is stilled, the subject/object dualistic relationship of the mind gives way to reveal non-conceptual reality.

And so it seems that this is the basic problem with the approach of modern science in its attempt to 'understand' the phenomenal world. The universe is seen as 'the observed' by the observer. It is always an object of study and knowledge, and so, the investigators can never come to a true understanding as to its real nature. From the get go, the approach is to dissect and analyze, and in so doing, produces a result in which the observed universe is nothing more than an artifact. Science makes the same mistake that the theists do, as the latter assert that the universe was created by an external agent they call God, the universe being a created 'thing', and therefore, an artifact, in the same vein as the pot being an artifact of its creator, the potter.

Science and Religion both fastidiously maintain this kind of division between the seer and the seen, in a manner which keeps the mind enslaved to see the seen only as dictated by a pre-defined method of seeing. In short, the mind is conditioned, and therefore, not seeing reality as it is.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And so it seems that this is the basic problem with the approach of modern science in its attempt to 'understand' the phenomenal world. The universe is seen as 'the observed' by the observer. It is always an object of study and knowledge, and so, the investigators can never come to a true understanding as to its real nature. From the get go, the approach is to dissect and analyze, and in so doing, produces a result in which the observed universe is nothing more than an artifact. Science makes the same mistake that the theists do, as the latter assert that the universe was created by an external agent they call God, the universe being a created 'thing', and therefore, an artifact, in the same vein as the pot being an artifact of its creator, the potter.

Science and Religion both fastidiously maintain this kind of division between the seer and the seen, in a manner which keeps the mind enslaved to see the seen only as dictated by a pre-defined method of seeing. In short, the mind is conditioned, and therefore, not seeing reality as it is.

Hi godnotgod, thank you, your observations are astute, but don't be impatient with the world, everything is unfolding as it should.

This planetary system is an evolving aspect of the whole and the present understanding of contemporary humanity with respect to what and who they really are is very much a 'house divided' as you have so clearly shown.

Perhaps it is appropriate, in order to maintain an affinity with people who are subject to, and influenced by the conceptual 'maya' propagated by the pervasive main stream orthodox media, to factor in the ongoing karma/reincarnation principle to appreciate that among contemporary mankind, there are yet few leaders.

 

[Mr Cheese]

I dont see the discussion here...

reality is an illusion...

and?

science actually really only deals in models.....but then so does religion.
If maya, the world is illusion... please go lay in a highway during rush hour, for 3 hours
then come back and tell me about being run over by a car.

Maya itself is a concept, concepts are false, but a useful means for understanding and a means to an end.

...........

In one of the very earliest western books on Tibbetan Buddhism entitled The message of the Tibetans, Arnaud Desjardin reported a conversation that he had had with Kalu Rinpoche.

He had asked Rinpoche the age-old question, “What is Truth?”

Rinpoche replied, “You live in illusion and the appearance of things. There is a reality, and you are that reality, but you don’t know it. If you should ever wake up to that reality you would realize that you are nothing, and being nothing, you are everything. That is all.”


In these very few words, Rinpoche evoked in the minds of Desjardin’s readers a variety of concepts about Eastern thought—like the “veil of Maya,” the oversoul, cosmic consciousness, etc.—of which they had only the fuzziest understanding.

–Lama Tashi Namgyal

http://magdelene.wordpress.com/2008/02/07/reflection-for-february-7-2008-what-is-truth/

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I dont see the discussion here...

reality is an illusion...

and?

science actually really only deals in models.....but then so does religion.
If maya, the world is illusion... please go lay in a highway during rush hour, for 3 hours
then come back and tell me about being run over by a car.

Please read my Quote

I am so glad that you brought up this subject. Many people seem to misunderstand the concept of maya in Advaita. Like you said it is not unreal like a unicorn which never existed. It is unreal in the sense that It makes us misinterpret the nature cosmos and see our selves as separate beings. Like the Upanishads say “Ekam eva advitiyam” -One and only with out a second.

I think that is what we were saying.

Maya itself is a concept, concepts are false, but a useful means for understanding and a means to an end.

I would not say that all mental constructs are false it is just impossible for any concept to be the truth. Our thoughts and reality are two different things, but to say they are false is way to harsh of a statement.

 

[godnotgod]

reality is an illusion...

and?

...and those who believe it to be real, act upon it in ways which produces suffering in the world.

If maya, the world is illusion... please go lay in a highway during rush hour, for 3 hours
then come back and tell me about being run over by a car.

Ah, how perfect is the illusion!

Maya itself is a concept, concepts are false, but a useful means for understanding and a means to an end.

But when the mind holds that what maya produces is real, then, once again, there is suffering.

In that brief moment when the rope is seen as a snake, it is thoroughly believed that it is so. There is no difference in that person's mind between the illusion and a real snake.

If most of mankind understood that the world is but divine play, we would approach it and ourselves completely differently.

Then you would see the folly of laying down on the freeway for 3 hours before you made the move to do so, if freeways even existed in a Way-driven world.

'Everything we see or hear is imperfect, and yet, there, in the midst of the imperfection itself, lies Perfect Reality'
Shunryu Suzuki
...........

(It is iinteresting to note that Roshi Suzuki used to instruct his Zen students to begin their practice right in the middle of their delusion.)

 

[godnotgod]

I would not say that all mental constructs are false it is just impossible for any concept to be the truth. Our thoughts and reality are two different things, but to say they are false is way to harsh of a statement.

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi always used to say:

"The description is not the described"

It is when we mistake the description for reality that we travel down the road of delusion.

"First there is a mountain;
then there is no mountain;
then there is."
Zen source

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I dont see the discussion here...

Hi Mr Cheese, glad to see that doesn't prevent you from joining in that which you don't see.

reality is an illusion...

Not so, reality is reality, it is just that the concept of reality is 'maya' relative to the true reality for which the concept represents.

and?

....so it appears you don't understand what is being said?

science actually really only deals in models.....but then so does religion.

Perhaps, but there is more to it than that!

If maya, the world is illusion... please go lay in a highway during rush hour, for 3 hours
then come back and tell me about being run over by a car.

Please understand that reality is reality, not 'maya'. That a mortal body can be killed by being run over by a car is a true observation of reality, but this has nought to do with 'maya'. 'Maya' is being used to distinguish between the conceptualization of the real and the real itself, not that the real itself isn't real.

Maya itself is a concept, concepts are false, but a useful means for understanding and a means to an end.

Not so, concepts are not false, they are real in so far as a concept is a mental representation, but they are not actually that which they stand for. Please try and understand the distinction between the concept of something, and that something. Conceptualization is the mortal mind's way of dealing with an eternal infinite non-dual reality which is forever beyond its comprehension. IOW, the reality for which conceptualized reality represents, and the mind conceptualized reality itself are not one and the same.

Mr Cheese, if you are truly sincere and would like to understand what the concept of maya represents in the context of the true nature of the universe, then please reread all the posts on this thread for you grossly misunderstood what was explained,..assuming of course that you've actually read it at all.

 

[godnotgod]

What the opening topic suggests is, no, that the phenomenal world we ordinarily call 'reality' is, in actuality, not real, but the play, or sport, of the divine essence called maya. To say that the reality of the phenomenal world is real is the view of the ordinary mind, and, on this level of existence, yes, it is real, but from the viewpoint of Higher Consciousness (Brahman), it is not. So it is important to make the distinction between what we usually think of as 'reality' via of the rational mind, and Absolute Reality, which is apprehended via of the spiritually transformed mind.

Absolute Reality is not of the world of form, but of formlessness, so it lies behind the phenomenal world, and yet, is at one with it. It does not come and go, as forms within the phenomenal world do. In fact, there is no 'coming and going' in the world of the Absolute.

The Human Route

Coming empty-handed, going empty-handed -- that is human.
When you are born, where do you come from?
When you die, where do you go?
Life is like a floating cloud which appears.
Death is like a floating cloud which disappears.
The floating cloud itself originally does not exist.
Life and death, coming and going, are also like this.
But there is one thing which always remains clear.
It is pure and clear, not depending on life and death.
What is that one pure and clear thing?

Zen Master Seung Sahn
*****

"Fundamentally, not one thing exists."
Sixth Zen Patriarch

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Thank you godnotgod, just a few comments.

OK, here is a definition of 'maya': (Sanskrit) "Consisting of; made of," as in manomaya, "made of mind."

Absolute Reality is not a mere model created by the mortal mind and made of manasic mind stuff, it is the ONE that is all,..which forever is beyond the maya (conceptualization) of the phenomenal finite reality and the transcendent infinite absolute reality.

Be careful, to suggest that the absolute is not of the world of form, but of formlessness is to fall from the Great Way by 'eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil', (dualism). Absolute Reality is forever beyond the dualistic concept of complementary opposites such as form and formless. IOW, Brahman is one without a second, and is unknowable by the mortal conceptualizing mind. However when it comes to duality, the mortal mnd thrives for its very design is for dealing with the apparent perceived duality of complementary opposites of non-duality,..good and evil, ying and yang, form and formless, etc..


The Great Way is not difficult for those who have no preferences.
When love and hate are both absent everything becomes clear and undisguised.
Make the smallest distinction, however, and heaven and earth are set infinitely apart.
If you wish to see the truth then hold no opinions for or against anything.
To set up what you like against what you dislike is the disease of the mind.

Chien-chih Seng-ts'an, Third Zen Patriarch [606AD]

 

[Mr Cheese]

Be careful, to suggest that the absolute is not of the world of form, but of formlessness is to fall from the Great Way by 'eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil', (dualism). Absolute Reality is forever beyond the dualistic concept of complementary opposites such as form and formless. [606AD]

This is exactly what I mean by all concepts are false....

of course we see thigns as we are not as they are.

With one set of eyes the glass is half full
With another eyes the glass is half empty
With the heart there is no glass or water at all, there just is

............

A slave seeks only to be free and does not seek the master’s estate.
For a child it is not enough to be a child, but a child claims the
father’s inheritance.

Heirs to the dead are dead, and what they inherit is dead. Heirs to
the living are alive, and they inherit both the living and the dead.
The dead inherit nothing, for how could a dead person inherit?
If a dead person inherits the living, the living will not die and the dead
will come to life.

–Gospel of Philip

 

[Willamena]

I would not say that all mental constructs are false it is just impossible for any concept to be the truth.

What about the concept of truth?

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

What about the concept of truth?

The word for absolute truth in Sanskrit is satya. It is placed as one of the highest virtues by all Hindu’s Buddhist’s and Jains. It is defined as that which is un affected by time,place and causation. So truth is beyond the reaches of the mind.

Absolute truth is realized by a practical method we were all supposed to learn in Kindergarden, and almost all of us did not. ( In this area I am a kindergarten drop out ).We call this method telling the truth. By always speaking the relative truth. (eg never telling lies,partial truths or even telling the truth for selfish reasons ) this practice makes your mind pure so it gets out of the way, so TRUTH can be perceived directly with out the conceptualization of the mind. In fact on of the highest titles given to a sage is Satyavak one who always speaks the truth.

Once an Atheist went to Gandhi and told him that he did not believe in God. Gandhi asked him if he believed in truth. Of course was the response. Gandhi then said then let TRUTH be your God.

 

[Willamena]

So truth is beyond the reaches of the mind.

Do we realize with our mind?