What I Find to be 'Maya'

[Nuno Matos]

Namaste kaos


[Therefore, the "you" and the "i" are only apparently real."]


They are real just non different.

[suresh]

Why some form of another is more sought after? Why there is a preferred sense of beauty and attractiveness where actually the flesh is just inert?

Why one needs another to enjoy that bliss at all when that momentary bliss is simply obtained through friction of some nerves?

Maybe, this bliss obtained 'through the friction of nerves' is the only bliss there is. That could be a strong possibility, perhaps concrete reality to most people. Why? Because this 'bliss' has been experienced from time immemorial, from the cavemen to the civilized folk.

OTOH, the 'bliss within', whatever that may be, has been experienced by very, very few people, so not only its authenticity but the authenticity of the experiencer can be questioned. Inert or not, 99% of humans, regardless of their religion, race, gender, find some kind of beauty in the flesh, in its symmetry, curves, and all the rest. So there has to be some truth in it. In fact, the idea that bliss is within could be maya, because it's something that's never experienced, yet we believe it to be true!

In short, what we call 'bliss of the self' could be maya, a thing that appears to be true though essentially false. Whereas, bliss from external objects might be the only reality, considering humanity's collective experiences from the dawn of time.

Suresh

[atanu]

---Inert or not, 99% of humans, regardless of their religion, race, gender, find some kind of beauty in the flesh, in its symmetry, curves, and all the rest. So ---In short, ----bliss from external objects might be the only reality, ----
Suresh

Suresh,

You have got me thinking. Have you ever seen a normal person lusting after a curvaceous dead body?

Om

[suresh]

Suresh,

You have got me thinking. Have you ever seen a normal person lusting after a curvaceous dead body?

Om

And your point?

[Kaos]

Suresh,

You have got me thinking. Have you ever seen a normal person lusting after a curvaceous dead body?

Om

Namaste Atanu and all,


I would think, all these illusions originate in the mind.

[atanu]

Namaste Suresh,

And your point?

The point is obvious. You said "---Inert or not, 99% of humans, regardless of their religion, race, gender, find some kind of beauty in the flesh, in its symmetry, curves, and all the rest---".

Thereafter, I wondered if the beauty, attraction and bliss are in the flesh and its curves etc., then why a curvaceous dead body does not appeal?

Maybe, this bliss obtained 'through the friction of nerves' is the only bliss there is

---- In short, what we call 'bliss of the self' could be maya --- Whereas, bliss from external objects might be the only reality

So, as per you the 'bliss of the self' is maya and bliss from the external objects is the reality?

I wonder why we sleep blissfully when there are no objects? I wonder why some external objects ( appear to give more pleasure than others -- what is the role of our own preference and desire in this? I wonder where from the bliss that is generated upon friction of nerves comes from -- does it come from air around us?

Om

[Kaos]

Namaste Atanu and all,

Allow me to participate some more in this interesting discussion. I invite others to join in and share their thoughts as well.


According to Shri Adi Sankaracharya :
The world is not an illusion. The world is relatively real (Vyavaharika Satta), while Brahman is absolutely real (Paramarthika Satta). The unchanging Brahman appears as the changing world because of a superimposition of non-Self (objects) on Self (subject - Brahman). This is called Avidya.

The Jiva or the individual soul is only relatively real. Its individuality lasts only so long as it is subject to unreal Upadhis or limiting conditions due to Avidya. The Jiva identifies itself with the body, mind and the senses, when it is deluded by Avidya or ignorance. Just as the bubble becomes one with the ocean when it bursts, so also the Jiva or the empirical self becomes one with Brahman when it gets knowledge of Brahman. When knowledge dawns in it through annihilation of Avidya, it is freed from its individuality and finitude and realizes its essential Satchidananda nature. It merges itself in the ocean of bliss. The river of life joins the ocean of existence. This is the Truth.



In the words of Adi Sankaracharya :

The whole universe is a projection of the mind;
therefore it is a mode of the mind,
The true nature of the mind
is bliss, and when the mind
is stilled, bliss absolute is revealed.

Chapter VI, Avadhutta Gita.



My question is, if the whole universe, creation is a projection of the mind.

Whose mind is it?

Any takers?

[suresh]

Thereafter, I wondered if the beauty, attraction and bliss are in the flesh and its curves etc., then why a curvaceous dead body does not appeal?

Suppose the person concerned doesn't know that it's a dead body, don't you think the reaction will be different?

I wonder where from the bliss that is generated upon friction of nerves comes from -- does it come from air around us?

It's a physiological response producing pleasure, that's all.

[suresh]

My question is, if the whole universe, creation is a projection of the mind.

Whose mind is it?

Any takers?

The materialist may argue that this idea itself is as illusory as a flower in the sky, thus proving that there's nothing beyond matter, and that anything else one may consider beyond sensory perception is also maya. Hence, we must conclude that 'Jagat Satya, Brahman Mithya!

[Kaos]

The materialist may argue that this idea itself is as illusory as a flower in the sky, thus proving that there's nothing beyond matter, and that anything else one may consider beyond sensory perception is also maya. Hence, we must conclude that 'Jagat Satya, Brahman Mithya!

Interesting.
Therefore, if indeed we must conclude that there is nothing beyond matter, who does the concluding? Who does the thinking?