What I Find to be 'Maya'

[suresh]

Namaste All,

Who has ascertained that the Self is a prisoner of the body and can't leave the body at will?

Om

Isn't it self-evident? Hope you see the irony here!

[atanu]

Isn't it self-evident? Hope you see the irony here!

Namaste Suresh,

I see the irony very well and so I asked. I wonder whether you can see the irony at all or not? Since you are not pausing with open mind to contemplate what others have written.

Self is advaita. Are you putting up the question as Advaita Self? Is advaita self proclaiming "I am a prisoner?"

Or is it Suresh (not advaita Self) proclaiming that Self is a prisoner.

First know the Advaita Self and then enquire again.

-----------------------

I request you to take some time and contemplate on what has already been written. I grant that your questions are of great importance.


Self was never a prisoner and never will be a prisoner. The contrary feeling is from ego, which is Maya and ignorance.

Om

[suresh]

Namaste Atanu,

First know the Advaita Self and then enquire again.

That's exactly the problem, it's circular reasoning, isn't it? The inquiry is done to ascertain whether or not there's an advaita self, so if one knows the advaita self, inquiry would become redundant. We cannot assume there's an advaita self first, and then start the inquiry. That would be meaningless, as meaningless as assuming a 'round square', then breaking one's head to 'prove' its existence.

Self was never a prisoner and never will be a prisoner. The contrary feeling is from ego, which is Maya and ignorance.

I've considered this also, but it poses another problem. Like a dream, this maya will also vanish once we wake up; or so they say. But this does contain the fallacy of interdependence, in that we have to wake to know all this is maya, and at the same, in order to wake up, we must consider this as maya! Premise A must depend on B, and vice versa, so how can this be considered pramaana?

Since you are not pausing with open mind to contemplate what others have written.

There's no pramaana for this either. And I thought we agreed to do away with such personal remarks?

Suresh

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~~

Namaste Atanu,



That's exactly the problem, it's circular reasoning, isn't it?
There's no pramaana for this either. Suresh

Namste Suresh,
one must consider the SELF and its realization as svatasiddha, or self proven. That is the pramana (means of valid knowldge). This then becomes your experience, its abhaita, or non-contradicted.

Also I am in hope you have time to repsond to my previous post:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...8&postcount=99

I am interested in your opinions.




pranams,

[atanu]

Namaste Atanu,

That's exactly the problem, it's circular reasoning, isn't it? The inquiry is done to ascertain whether or not there's an advaita self, so if one knows the advaita self, inquiry would become redundant. We cannot assume there's an advaita self first, and then start the inquiry. That would be meaningless, as meaningless as assuming a 'round square', then breaking one's head to 'prove' its existence.

Namaste Suresh,

In fact that is the tragedy. Without knowing the self, how you can assert that the self is imprisoned? Is that is not a fallacy? eh? Whereas the fourth is the self evident knower that only sees other three states.

I've considered this also, but it poses another problem. Like a dream, this maya will also vanish once we wake up; or so they say. But this does contain the fallacy of interdependence, in that we have to wake to know all this is maya, and at the same, in order to wake up, we must consider this as maya! Premise A must depend on B, and vice versa, so how can this be considered pramaana?

You are using hackneyed borrowed logic.

No one has asked you to assume anything. Not that the Self is imprisoned nor that it is advaita.

To discuss all these things it is judicious to know who is discussing. Where is your thinking apparatus and where is your source of energy? And who are you -- the owner of a thinking apparatus that you do not know?

There's no pramaana for this either. And I thought we agreed to do away with such personal remarks?
uresh

Is there is any pramana that an observation is a personal remark? Moreover, who is feeling that it is a personal remark? Is he a solid flesh, or subtle dream like, or dark nothing?


Om

[suresh]

Yet, it is the SPACE that holds the jar in it! That is, this space, is ubiquitiois, inside and outside the jar and is without containment. Even if you take the jar, close it tightly and walk 100 meters, you have not taken that space with you, because it cannot be contained. You can walk the jar and yourself through space, but have not transported as such.

Like that so is the SELF and yet we hold the thought the SELF resides in us. Sure it does, yet it resides every place else too. It is Brahman, it is not other then Brahman, it is like akasha, every-where.

Namaste Yajvan,

Thanks, that's a novel way of looking at it. Rather than consider space in the jar, we might as well consider the space itself as the vast field of existence, where the jar exists. But if we extend this logic to the self, why is it we don't feel that we're inside and outside the body, that we're all-pervasive? Before pointing to maya, let's understand this a bit more.

Obviously, this feeling, or what people call cosmic consciousness, has to be there permanently, it should never be lost even for a moment. Why? Because you mentioned elsewhere that when it comes to the existence of the self, svapramaana is the only pramaana, it couldn't possibly depend on any other instrument of knowledge, an external source, for it'd lead to circular reasoning. Keeping this in mind, let's see if the concept of maya has any relevance here.

Now if one points to maya as the cause of the self losing this awareness, there's another problem. Let's consider the common example of the sun's luminosity being 'obstructed' by the clouds. In actuality, it is not, it only appears so, and when the clouds vanish, we can see the real nature of the sun. This is how some people link the self to the sun, and maya to the clouds.

The fallacy in this type of argument is that the self is not apart from us, and therefore no amount of maya should obstruct us. The sun never loses its identity as a luminous object, even though it may appear that way to a third person, a person who is different from the sun, due to the influence of clouds. The sun itself is never affected, clouds or no clouds.

Likewise, the self itself should never be affected, maya or no maya, ego or no ego, or whatever else one may posit. If it is, the concept of svapramana will go out the window. If it isn't affected, then cosmic consciousness should never be lost even for a moment, which evidently isn't the case with us, plus even the concept of maya would become redundant.

I hope I am making myself clear. Perhaps, some ideas and insights on this would be helpful.

Suresh

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Yajvan,

Thanks, that's a novel way of looking at it. Rather than consider space in the jar, we might as well consider the space itself as the vast field of existence, where the jar exists. But if we extend this logic to the self, why is it we don't feel that we're inside and outside the body, that we're all-pervasive? Before pointing to maya, let's understand this a bit more.

Obviously, this feeling, or what people call cosmic consciousness, has to be there permanently, it should never be lost even for a moment. Why? Because you mentioned elsewhere that when it comes to the existence of the self, svapramaana is the only pramaana, it couldn't possibly depend on any other instrument of knowledge, an external source, for it'd lead to circular reasoning. Keeping this in mind, let's see if the concept of maya has any relevance here.

Now if one points to maya as the cause of the self losing this awareness, there's another problem. Let's consider the common example of the sun's luminosity being 'obstructed' by the clouds. In actuality, it is not, it only appears so, and when the clouds vanish, we can see the real nature of the sun. This is how some people link the self to the sun, and maya to the clouds.

The fallacy in this type of argument is that the self is not apart from us, and therefore no amount of maya should obstruct us. The sun never loses its identity as a luminous object, even though it may appear that way to a third person, a person who is different from the sun, due to the influence of clouds. The sun itself is never affected, clouds or no clouds.

Likewise, the self itself should never be affected, maya or no maya, ego or no ego, or whatever else one may posit. If it is, the concept of svapramana will go out the window. If it isn't affected, then cosmic consciousness should never be lost even for a moment, which evidently isn't the case with us, plus even the concept of maya would become redundant.

I hope I am making myself clear. Perhaps, some ideas and insights on this would be helpful. Suresh

Namaste Suresh,
In a word , your post is brilliant! you are perfectly clear in what you say...this reasoning is the beautiful beginning/continuation of viveka
(discrimination) - the core for Moksha.

This is why they call moksha enlightenment - that one sees the conundrum you point out, and it is not really there, one brings the light and Ah-ha! I see there is no boundaries to this SELF, it is ubiquitous and I am that, ever present SELF.

All this talk we have of maya is fine, it just frames the problem that we are not seeing clearly. Yes, the sun is every present, ever shining. The clouds are temporary and pass by. So , one can say, how can this Self luminous Sun be covered by the clouds , how can this be?

So it requires the application of the ointment of knowledge - knowledge is the greatest purifier say the wise. How many years, how many lives have we been through of not even having this thought of what SELF is, and now we talk of this.... this is His Grace, the beginning of peeling away ignorance.

So first we understand it, that Being, SELF is what we are. Now we need to taste it and say, oh yes, now I remember who I am ( Even Arjuna a.k.a. Nara) says this in the 18th chapt of the Gita... Arjuna says nastah mojah smrtih labdha... my illusion (moha) has been dispelled, I remember ,(smrtih) I regained my memory. That of who I really am.

So now the taste is needed, the experience of pure consciousness, of Samadhi to compliment ones knowledge, it is this that takes one across the shore of ignorance, this maya.

... keep with this thinking, it is core to unfolding the truth.

pranams,

[atanu]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Suresh,
In a word , your post is brilliant! ---
So now the taste is needed, the experience of pure consciousness, of Samadhi to compliment ones knowledge, it is this that takes one across the shore of ignorance, this maya.

... keep with this thinking, it is core to unfolding the truth.

pranams,

Namaste Yajvan,

At the same time, if the cart is put before the horse, samadhan will not happen. That the Self is distinct from the the three states of experiences, can be ascertained logically by using discrimination.

Like we know water in its three states as liquid, solid and gas but what actually water is?

Om

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Yajvan,

At the same time, if the cart is put before the horse, samadhan will not happen. That the Self is distinct from the the three states of experiences, can be ascertained logically by using discrimination.

Like we know water in its three states as liquid, solid and gas but what actually water is? Om

Namaste Atanu,

Help me here with your notion. In this case, what would be putting the cart before the horse, so I can grasp your POV.

IMHO and experience and teaching, one must get wet. Knowledge + experience say the wise. Understand and experience together.

We talk of the apple , we know the color, we know it has so much potassium and vitamins, and it grows in the sun. Now, it is time to taste the apple to compliment the knowledge.

Like that, we talk of the transcendent, we understand it a bit, now it is time to have the experience. Otherwise it is words of the Upanishads without the experience of the rishi ( in this case, the rishi is the native).

The SELF is known and can be deduced by the intellect, yet that experience, one needs to experince that pure awareness. There is no constraint for anyone to start this experience, that has the desire to do so.

pranams,

[atanu]

Hari Om
~~~~~
Namaste Atanu,

Help me here with your notion. In this case, what would be putting the cart before the horse, so I can grasp your POV.

IMHO and experience and teaching, one must get wet. Knowledge + experience say the wise. Understand and experience together.
---
pranams,

Namaste Yajvan Ji,

For correct experimental results, the hypothesis needs to be correct, else one changes the hypothesis and repeats the experiment.

Earlier we have discussed that consciousness is kalpa vriksh -- even for us. What transpires in consciousness takes concrete shape -- eventually for us and instantaneously for adepts. If the thought is that "I am this", the illusion is strengthened. On the other hand, if through discrimination, one shuts out the possibilty of "I" being the body, then the result would be different. So, Shankara teaches discrimination of the real and transient as the beginning of Jnana sadhana.

When I say "putting the cart before the horse", I mean the following:

The fallacy in this type of argument is that the self is not apart from us, and therefore no amount of maya should obstruct us.

The cart before the horse is that one does not know what is meant by 'us' in the above quote, but assumes identity of this 'us' with Self and then posits ignorance on Self. And then one is not ready to enquire/meditate also.

This is just an example, as a general case. I hope Mercury retrograde effect does not veil this.

Pranam

Om