True Nature of the Universe: What is Maya?

[Wannabe Yogi]

Do we realize with our mind?

My sect of of Hinduism believes that consciousness is endemic to the Cosmos and is all-pervading, but it is not manifest equally everywhere. When we purify our minds with a spiritual practice like telling the truth. we are able to directly experience this consciousness with out the conceptualization of the mind. We call this consciousness God. God is not realized by the mind. It is realized by the the mind stopping its placement of its graph of reality over the cosmos. This way we directly experience Brahman or God without the mind distorting reality. This is a simple way to look and not 100% correct.

 

[Mr Cheese]

My sect of of Hinduism believes that consciousness is endemic to the Cosmos and is all-pervading, but it is not manifest equally everywhere. When we purify our minds with a spiritual practice like telling the truth. we are able to directly experience this consciousness with out the conceptualization of the mind. We call this consciousness God. God is not realized by the mind. It is realized by the the mind stopping its placement of its graph of reality over the cosmos. This way we directly experience Brahman or God without the mind distorting reality. This is a simple way to look and not 100% correct.

In Kabbalah....

"Wisdom" (chockmah/hockmah) can be seen as "thought without concept"

In this case, God (Ein Sof, the endless) would be the water company
who manifests as a faucet or tap (kether, keter)
Wisdom (Hockmah)would be the water pouring forth
which in turn is given shape and concept by a water pipe or a glass to contain the water, through understanding (Binah)

Which is in turn drunk, or experienced through Daat, or knowledge (Gnosis as opposed to episteme)

not really Hindu I know, sorry....:flirt:

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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

of course we see things 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

Thank you Mr Cheese for your clarification, agree with your comments and now understand what you meant,...nuance is so important.

Regards Ben D

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Thank you Mr Cheese

Yes Mr Cheese your the cheesiest.

 

[godnotgod]

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..

Thank you for pointing out the distinction.

I did not intend to portray form and formlessness as dual opposites, in the same way as night/day, good/evil, etc.. In the case of relative opposites such as night/day and good/evil, for example, one is always dependent upon the other. But in the case of formlessness (ie; the undifferentiated; the unborn), it is in no way dependent upon form, but form is dependent upon the formless. The undifferentiated ocean can exist without waveform, but waves are completely dependent upon the ocean to exist.

In context of the discussion, the universe is manifested form that is maya, and is a sport of Brahman, the unseen force behind the illusion. Whether the universe is in a state of manifestation or not, Brahman is still always present and eternal.

Returning to the statement from John Dobson's site:

"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."

...the question then becomes: "Why do we continue to see the The Absolute as maya (ie, the universe)?"

John Dobson explains:

"What I have referred to as apparitional causation is a very different thing. When you mistake a rope for a snake, the rope is not transformed into a snake. It's just a mistake, and it's something you're doing now. So the question is not: "How did the Absolute become the Universe?" That can't be answered. The Absolute has not become the Universe. The question is, " Why do we see it that way? Why do we feel that we are bound? Why do we continue to make this mistake? Why are we unable to see through the apparition?" And that can be answered:

On December 14th, 1882, Vijaykrishna Goswami asked Sri Ramakrishna this question:

"Sir, why are we bound like this? Why don't we see God?" And Sri Ramakrishna answered:

"Maya is nothing but the egotism of the embodied soul. This egotism has covered everything like a veil. 'All troubles come to an end when the ego dies'. If, by the grace of God, a man but once realizes that he is not the doer, then he at once becomes a jivanmukta. Though living in the body, he is liberated; he has nothing else to fear."[SIZE=-2]
********************



[/SIZE]​

 

[godnotgod]

Do we realize with our mind?

Zen would ask: "Who is it that realizes, and where is the mind to realize with?

There is no one who realizes. There is no mind to realize anything with.

There is only realization itself.

The (delusive) idea that there is a realizer, and who possesses a mind to reallize with, is a concept of the mind, which itself is a self-created principle.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Hi godnotgod, thank you for your thoughtful posts, this is the without a doubt a most subtle and difficult subject so my following comments are meant in the spirit of sharing.

Thank you for pointing out the distinction.
I did not intend to portray form and formlessness as dual opposites, in the same way as night/day, good/evil, etc.. In the case of relative opposites such as night/day and good/evil, for example, one is always dependent upon the other. But in the case of formlessness (ie; the undifferentiated; the unborn), it is in no way dependent upon form, but form is dependent upon the formless. The undifferentiated ocean can exist without waveform, but waves are completely dependent upon the ocean to exist.

Perhaps so from the maya of mortal mind conception, but in truth there is only oneness, where do you suppose the waves have there origin? Undifferentiated/Integrated and differentiated are still dualistic complementary opposites,...any attempt to describe Brahman as composed of two attributes will involve maya, as it also will in time as cause and effect,..,these concepts are maya in the context of Brahman.

In context of the discussion, the universe is manifested form that is maya, and is a sport of Brahman, the unseen force behind the illusion. Whether the universe is in a state of manifestation or not, Brahman is still always present and eternal.

To describe Brahman as having form or not having form still involves maya of mortal mind perspective, form and not form are still dualistic complementary opposites,...Brahman is inconceivable to the mortal mind.

Returning to the statement from John Dobson's site:

"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."

...the question then becomes: "Why do we continue to see the The Absolute as maya (ie, the universe)?"

It continues because the mortal mind is processing perceived reality through the dualistic complementary opposite concepts associated with time, space, and causation. No one can 'see' the Absolute for that implies duality. Note carefully, even the concept of duality and non-duality is an example of dualistic complementary opposite, so ultimately only when the mind is still and has ceased conceptualizing all together may self that is seeking Self, and Self that is being sought by self merge and are no longer two but one. In fact there is no two actually, just the apparent maya of the dualistic nature of mortal mind.

John Dobson explains:

"What I have referred to as apparitional causation is a very different thing. When you mistake a rope for a snake, the rope is not transformed into a snake. It's just a mistake, and it's something you're doing now. So the question is not: "How did the Absolute become the Universe?" That can't be answered. The Absolute has not become the Universe. The question is, " Why do we see it that way? Why do we feel that we are bound? Why do we continue to make this mistake? Why are we unable to see through the apparition?" And that can be answered:

On December 14th, 1882, Vijaykrishna Goswami asked Sri Ramakrishna this question:

"Sir, why are we bound like this? Why don't we see God?" And Sri Ramakrishna answered:

"Maya is nothing but the egotism of the embodied soul. This egotism has covered everything like a veil. 'All troubles come to an end when the ego dies'. If, by the grace of God, a man but once realizes that he is not the doer, then he at once becomes a jivanmukta. Though living in the body, he is liberated; he has nothing else to fear."[SIZE=-2]
********************

[/SIZE]​

The comments of John Dobson and Vijaykrishna Goswami imply some expectation of ultimately 'seeing' God beyond the maya and this is the real problem. It will never happen due to the fact that dualism is maya. Sri Ramakrishna correctly pointed out that it is the maya of the mortal ego mind that veils the truth, and that if the ego were to 'die' then liberation results.

So to summarize the paradox, so long as there is a you (ego) that want the ego (you) out of the way in order that you (ego) 'see' the whole of Brahman, then you (ego) are merely adding some sophistication to the existing dualistic conceptual maya of mind (ego).

Brahman is one, complete, whole, birthless, changeless, deathless,... nothing apart from Brahman can enter into Brahman because the concept that something can be apart from Brahman is merely maya. To realize this truly and not just conceptually (maya) is the way of liberation.

Rgds.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Thank you for pointing out the distinction.

I did not intend to portray form and formlessness as dual opposites, in the same way as night/day, good/evil, etc.. In the case of relative opposites such as night/day and good/evil, for example, one is always dependent upon the other. But in the case of formlessness (ie; the undifferentiated; the unborn), it is in no way dependent upon form, but form is dependent upon the formless. The undifferentiated ocean can exist without waveform, but waves are completely dependent upon the ocean to exist.

Brahman is he whom speech cannot express, and form whom the mind, unable to reach him,comes away baffled.
-Taittiriya,II.4.

Even this paradoxical view of Brahman has defined Brahman, so it to is limited by Maya.

 

[godnotgod]

Brahman is one, complete, whole, birthless, changeless, deathless,... nothing apart from Brahman can enter into Brahman because the concept that something can be apart from Brahman is merely maya.

Thank you!

A couple of questions, though:

Still, when it is said that Brahman is "complete, whole, birthless, changeless, deathless, etc.....", are we not still in the realm of duality? Are we not still suggesting the opposites of incompleteness, fragmented, subject to birth, changing, subject to death, etc....?

There seems to be two ideas about what maya is:

One is that maya has to do with the delusive way we see reality. If we see the One as dual, then that is maya, as you have suggested. Reality is never dual; maya exists only within the mind of the observer.

The other is the idea that maya is a spontaneous creative act by Brahman, coupled with lila, which together, manifests the universe. In this sense, the phenomenal world we see, touch, smell, and hear is not real. We think it to be real because the illusion is such a good one. Only when the mind is still are we able to see into the true nature of the universe; ie, that it is maya.

However, since Brahman is everything, this would mean that the universe, the maya that Brahman creates, also is Brahman.

Heh heh. It just dawned on me that the two ideas of maya may be maya itself (?)

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Thank you!

A couple of questions, though:

Still, when it is said that Brahman is "complete, whole, birthless, changeless, deathless, etc.....", are we not still in the realm of duality? Are we not still suggesting the opposites of incompleteness, fragmented, subject to birth, changing, subject to death, etc....?

Yes, that's it,...the Tao that can be described is not the eternal Tao! But wait!,...even this is maya for the describable Tao and the indescribable Tao are yet another example of dualistic complementary opposite concepts.

From the Tao (absolute reality) comes the one (maya/conception of Tao), from the one comes the two (conceptual pair of complementary opposites of ying and yang), from the two comes the three (conceptual Tao, ying, and yang), and from the three comes the ten thousand things (the maya of apparent multiplicity associated with time and space conceptualization).

There seems to be two ideas about what maya is:

One is that maya has to do with the delusive way we see reality. If we see the One as dual, then that is maya, as you have suggested. Reality is never dual; maya exists only within the mind of the observer.

Yes, that is my understanding.

The other is the idea that maya is a spontaneous creative act by Brahman, coupled with lila, which together, manifests the universe. In this sense, the phenomenal world we see, touch, smell, and hear is not real. We think it to be real because the illusion is such a good one.

This is not my understanding for Brahman is one and changeless. Brahman doesn't manifest anything, doesn't 'play' with anything, Brahman doesn't do anything at all ever for it is beyond the maya of conceptual time and space.

Only when the mind is still are we able to see into the true nature of the universe; ie, that it is maya.

Who is this we? Brahman is one, it is maya to imagine that the there is anything separate from the 'true nature of the universe' able to 'see' 'the true nature of the universe'. If the mind is still, there is no conceptual separation of the oneness associated with the dualistic realationship of a seer and a seen, the ego for the duration of the cessation of conceptual thought is quiescent and ceases to disturb the 'true nature of the universe'.

IOW, the true nature of the universe can only be revealed by the true nature of the universe to the true nature of the universe through the medium of true nature of the universe,...Brahman is one without a second.

However, since Brahman is everything, this would mean that the universe, the maya that Brahman creates, also is Brahman.

In a way, yes, but it is maya to attribute maya as something being created by Brahman. Brahman doesn't create or destroy anything, all that is is Brahman,... nothing can be ever be added to Brahman, nor can anything be ever removed.

Heh heh. It just dawned on me that the two ideas of maya may be maya itself (?)

Yes, all conceptual thinking is maya. Which is why it is said that the true teaching relies on conceptual teaching as an expedient to teach that conceptual teaching is not the true teaching.

 

[godnotgod]

This is not my understanding for Brahman is one and changeless. Brahman doesn't manifest anything, doesn't 'play' with anything, Brahman doesn't do anything at all ever for it is beyond the maya of conceptual time and space.

So the expansion of the universe is actually not occurring? In fact, there is no universe that is either being manifested or in the process of creation? What we perceive of as the universe is not?

Should we not call that maya?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So the expansion of the universe is actually not occurring? In fact, there is no universe that is either being manifested or in the process of creation? What we perceive of as the universe is not?

Should we not call that maya?

Not sure where you are going here, you stated in your last post,..

There seems to be two ideas about what maya is:
One is that maya has to do with the delusive way we see reality. If we see the One as dual, then that is maya, as you have suggested. Reality is never dual; maya exists only within the mind of the observer.

And my response was yes, that is my understanding.

So, it seems you are now asking about the current mortal mind conceptual theoretical space/time conjecture concerning the physical universe.

Yes, of course this conceptual conjecture is maya in the context of unknowable absolute reality. Brahman is infinite and can't be confined by any mortal concept of finite space. Brahman is eternal and was never created, and so can't be limited by any mortal concept of finite time. There never was a creation in time for the creation and destruction within the conceptual Brahman is also naturally one with Brahman, without beginning and without end.

If you want to question my present understanding on the conceptual 'big bang' model of the physical universe or any other cosmogonical or cosmological model, then that's ok, but from the beginning it is understood that we are dealing with the conceptual mind stuff,..maya.

 

[godnotgod]

So, it seems you are now asking about the current mortal mind conceptual theoretical space/time conjecture concerning the physical universe.

What I am asking, quite simply and in the context of your response that Brahman never manifests or creates anything, let alone play, is if the physical world (ie: the universe) you live in is real or not.

As I understand the traditional Hindu view, Brahman is spontaneously manifesting the maya that is the universe out of sport, or play, otherwise known as lila.

Your view seems to be that maya is nothing more than a delusion of the mind amongst mortal men, and has nothing to do with Brahman.

If you wish, I can supply you with info re: the Hindu view that maya is a recreation or sport of Brahman. Perhaps I misunderstand.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What I am asking, quite simply and in the context of your response that Brahman never manifests or creates anything, let alone play, is if the physical world (ie: the universe) you live in is real or not.

Only Brahman is real, it isn't a creation, likewise it will never be destroyed. For something to be absolutely real, it has to have always been real and not just some artifact that came into being at some moment. Now the creation of form from Brahmanic essence and the subsequent eventual destruction and dissolution of that form back into the Brahmanic essence is the inherent nature of the infinite eternal Brahman, this nature is one with Brahman and never had a beginning, nor will it ever have an ending. Now every single planet, star, galaxy known to current mortal science had a beginning and will have an ending, they are temporary manifestations of form, but the essence behind the form is eternal and indestructible. So to answer your question, universal forms have a conceptually relative reality, ie. a temporary existence, but they are not absolutely real as is the uncreated Brahmanic essence of which they are created from and to which they will ultimately return, for this alone is eternal and omnipresent.

As I understand the traditional Hindu view, Brahman is spontaneously manifesting the maya that is the universe out of sport, or play, otherwise known as lila.

According to my understanding of the traditional Hindu view, the world around us is not real, because it is impermanent and ever changing, relative to the permanent and changeless. Brahman is beyond the dualistic complementary opposite concepts of permanence and impermanence, and likewise maya and not maya. The idea of Brahman's playing sport to explain the impermanence and ever changing nature of the manifested universe is clearly a metaphorical one and is not meant as a cosmological explanation. As explained in my last post, the concept of Brahman is meant to transcend the concept of duality, and to have Brahman creating and destroying, playing and not playing, is to indulge in anthropomorphic dualistic conceptualizations.

Your view seems to be that maya is nothing more than a delusion of the mind amongst mortal men, and has nothing to do with Brahman.

Not at all, all is Brahman. Nothing exists that is not of Brahman. Maya to my understanding arises when the mind creates thought forms, concepts, ideas, numbers, equations, etc., to represent reality but eventually come be believed to be reality. Concepts in themselves are not illusionary, but if the conceptual representation of the real is taken or mistaken as the real, then that can be considered illusion or even delusion in some cases. Then there is the maya of considering the real, ie. the absolute oneness of all represented by the concept of Brahman, as unreal, and its complementary opposite of considering the ever changing physical universe, ie. the universal forms made from real cosmic essence, and that come and go, as the ultimate reality.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

According to my understanding of the traditional Hindu view, the world around us is not real, because it is impermanent and ever changing, relative to the permanent and changeless. Brahman is beyond the dualistic complementary opposite concepts of permanence and impermanence, and likewise maya and not maya. The idea of Brahman's playing sport to explain the impermanence and ever changing nature of the manifested universe is clearly a metaphorical one and is not meant as a cosmological explanation. As explained in my last post, the concept of Brahman is meant to transcend the concept of duality, and to have Brahman creating and destroying, playing and not playing, is to indulge in anthropomorphic dualistic conceptualizations.

I can not say If maya exists or not in Advaita Vedanta. For practical reasons like Mr Cheese's freeway, I must admit the existence of Maya. At the same time I am told that when I realize my Brahman-ness maya will just go away. This is why Maya is impossible to describe.

My mind is a product of maya. How can it be separated from maya to know if maya exists or not.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

As I understand the traditional Hindu view, Brahman is spontaneously manifesting the maya that is the universe out of sport, or play, otherwise known as lila.

Some of the teachings of both Ramakrishna and Ramana Maharshi were not Advaita Vedanta but Shakta Philosophy, there are a few differences but they are mostly the same. I think John Dobson lived as a monk of the Ramakrishna order at one time. The teaching of lila is from the Shakta school of thought. Many people seem to mix and match ideas from both schools.

-The Pundits of Advaita say Maya is subservient to Brahman it is limited to the Gross Manifestation and with help of analysis (neti, neti or not this, not this ) resolves it self by going back into the void.

-In the Shakta view Maya is an aspect of Reality and should resole itself going to its roots in consciousness.

I dont believe there is much difference between these two schools of thought.

 

[godnotgod]

Thank you both for your clarifications on this matter. I would like to ask a question at this point, especially in reference to ben d's position, that maya is essentially a condition of the observer, and that no entity, anthropomorphic or otherwise, is "at play" in the manifestation of the universe.

How can we explain the existence and experience of Absolute Joy* that comes with union and realization with Brahman, if there is no sense of play within the divine consciousness? There need be no anthropomorphic aspect to Brahman for this to be so. But for Absolute Joy to be a reality, it must arise from a condition of spontaneity and freedom. This suggests creativity, games, and even mystery. It is said that in the ultimate game that the divine essence is playing, It is hiding from itself within all the aspects of its creation; that each of us, for example, is a mask of God, and a supreme game of cosmic Hide and Seek is going on. Absolute Joy comes at that moment of Enlightenment when we discover (awaken) to the fact that we are none other than the divine essence itself (Brahman). "Tas atvam asi" (Thou art that) the Hindus tell us, and it seems they mean exactly that. But such a condion of hiding and discovery can only come about from a consciousness that is at play.

Herein lies the crucial difference between the Abrahamic Religions, whose God and his Creation are a completely Serious Matter, and Eastern Traditions, especially Zen, where everything is of the immediate Present Moment, riding the wave of spontaneity and complete freedom, so to speak. The Abrahamic God is a humorless affair, untouchable and with the air of total sanctity about Him. One dare not take him lightly! On the other hand, Buddhism, for example, tells us that:

"Before Enlightenment, it is Something Special;
after Enlightenment, it is Nothing Special"

The ego is gone, so one no longer takes himself so seriously. Neither does God. And if God (and man) is not such a stuff shirt, then the sense of play opens up, naturally and spontaneously.

Hmmmmm? Now let's see....what sorts of games might come to mind that we can play? A nice game of Hide and Seek, perhaps?

*Absolute Joy, as opposed to Relative Joy and Relative Sorrow, which are temporal.

(In communicating with another Hindu on an atheist forum, he actually claims to be a Hindu atheist, and that Brahman has no divine component, let alone a playful one. Brahman for him is pure energy.}

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I can not say If maya exists or not in Advaita Vedanta. For practical reasons like Mr Cheese's freeway, I must admit the existence of Maya. At the same time I am told that when I realize my Brahman-ness maya will just go away. This is why Maya is impossible to describe.

My mind is a product of maya. How can it be separated from maya to know if maya exists or not.

It is my understanding that it is the other way round, that maya is the product of my mind, but if the mind is still, it is free of maya. The term 'concept' implies duality (prefix 'con-'; meaning together or connected) and so the mortal mind's thought processes (conceptualizations) prevent the realization of Brahman(unity).

Considering that Brahman is one without a second, nothing can exist outside of this absolute reality so absolute duality doesn't exist, nor can it ever. However for finite mortal creatures such as man, the incarnate souls with their limited developed mind manage to abstract the concept of duality from the sum of perceptions impacting on their limited arrangement of sensory organs and subsequently create a psychological model of reality based on maya and live in it as though it was true reality.

So yes, the understanding that maya exists is not possible so long as the mind thinks, for the very thoughts are maya, a case of using maya to discern if maya exists. It is equally absurd when the mind tries through thought to understand the oneness of Brahman, in this case mind is employing maya (duality) to understand not-maya (oneness).

Now there is great purpose as to why this is so by cosmic design, but samsara is another subject. For those souls incarnate in the mortal creature 'ripe' for true understanding of what and who they really are, then they are taught that when their mind is still, dualistic conceptual thoughts stops, maya ceases, and realization of Brahmanic nature is possible.

Dhyana meditation or other religious practices that brings about the cessation of the mind's thinking processes is a key to a mind that is free of maya.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Thank you both for your clarifications on this matter. I would like to ask a question at this point, especially in reference to ben d's position, that maya is essentially a condition of the observer, and that no entity, anthropomorphic or otherwise, is "at play" in the manifestation of the universe.

Thank you godnotgod,

Yes to reiterate, maya comes into existence when there is an observer, but this applies to any and all 'observers', at any level of the cosmic tree. Its a universal principle that unity is all there is in absolute reality, duality results from finite manifestated form made from Brahmanic essence, and further vivified by Brahmanic essence which then shifts its identification from the universal Brahmanic oneness to a specific form from which it develops a local limited and separate self-conscious psychological reality.

FWIW, while it is my understanding that only the eternal absolute is truly real, within the manifested Brahman, there exists a cosmic hierarchy organized in a holarchical arrangement from the least sentient to the most high cosmic 'lords'. That there is ceaseless karmic interaction going on among and between all that exists on each and all levels is a given. The consciousness of even a planetary system is a veritable deity relative to one of its constituent units such as a mortal soul, but all present particular forms, be they a man, a planet, a star, a galaxy, etc., will eventually dissolve to make way for new vehicles created from the residue for the appropriate hierarchical Brahmanic essence (spirit) to incarnate in. Samsara applies to all except the transcendent Brahmanic whole.

There is a cosmic involutional cycle to the nature that sees a migration of Brahmanic essence from the pure spirit to the densest matter and a evolutionary cycle through creation of holarchical forms, to provide the vehicles through which spirit may incarnate to develop individual self-awareness (maya), and ascend due to the samsaric process to eventually realize their inherent Brahmanic eternal nature of perfection, Self-awareness (enlightenement). These cycles are continuous throughout all eternity and throughout infinite cosmic space and the ending of one is the beginning of the next,...but then,.. apart from maya, there is no time really,...just the eternal now.

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end!

 

[godnotgod]

Could it be, that maya, as you have defined it, exists both within the mind, and also as an aspect of Brahman, but with different meanings, as we have discussed? Firstly, as you have stated.......

It is my understanding... that maya is the product of my mind, but if the mind is still, it is free of maya.... the mortal mind's thought processes (conceptualizations) prevent the realization of Brahman(unity).

So, in this sense, maya is a defective condition of the mind, in which one thinks he sees two, when there is but One. The mind is seeing incorrectly.

Then....

Considering that Brahman is one without a second, nothing can exist outside of this absolute reality

However, if for the moment, we adopt the idea that maya is also a spontaneous creation of Brahman via of lila (divine play), then Brahman and its maya are still Brahman, ie; still The One, without a second. This would fit with the following statement, since maya is not something that is added to what already exists:

"...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."
Ram Shanker Misra

Maya is illusion, so there is nothing being created; nothing outside of Brahman that is being added.

So yes, the understanding that maya exists is not possible so long as the mind thinks, for the very thoughts are maya, a case of using maya to discern if maya exists. It is equally absurd when the mind tries through thought to understand the oneness of Brahman, in this case mind is employing maya (duality) to understand not-maya (oneness).

OK. And as you have stated, "if the mind is still, it is free of maya.". Now, being free of maya, it is now able to see correctly; to see Reality (Brahman) as it actually is. It is this True Mind which the Buddhists refer to as Original Mind, or Buddha Mind, and the Taoists as the Uncarved Block. Zen would say 'No-Mind', or Empty Mind. I like to think of it, in a sense, of the way those color computers work at Home Depot, when you take a paint chip in to them for color matching. The computer has a colorless neutral chip it uses as a reference against which it determines the color content of the chip you present. I know its a poor analogy, but it is just an aid, if you will. So, the transformation of the rational, thinking, dualistic mind into one which sees Reality as it is, now allows seeing the distinction between Brahman and its maya. It sees that both exist, but that they are now One. The Temporal and the Eternal are one and the same.

Now, if that is the case; that Brahman is indeed everything, with no other, then the Ordinary is also Brahman. There is play within the Ordinary world. Animals play. Humans, especially childtren, have a natural propensity toward games and play. Play seems to be a universal activity amongst mankind, perhaps an archetype. Some even say that the entire universe is at play: all atoms vibrate on/off. Everything in the universe is dancing, they say. A horse is a fox trot; a tree a waltz; etc., etc. , and it all is a reflection of the Absolute Joy of Brahman.

Perhaps instead of asking what the nature of the universe is, I should have asked what the nature of play is.

"When an ordinary man becomes a sage, he gains wisdom; when a sage becomes an ordinary man, he gains understanding"
Unknown Source