Different views of śakti or mAyA?

[Onkara]

Clarity on Maya and Shakti.


I am looking into māyā and śakti in the different philosophical paths of Sananta Dharma and would benefit from your knowledge please.


We should perhaps clarify that both śakti and māyā can be used interchangeably when we refer to the force of the world around us (as Jivas)? Is śakti something postive and interactive, where as māyā is something negative to be overcome?


How can we understand śakti and God as One from the scripture?

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


In kaśmir śaivism there are 36 elements ( tattva¹ In the sāṃkhya philosophy there are 25 in number. I wish to address your question and have a conversation from the kaśmir śaivism POV.

Within kaśmir śaivism māyā and śakti are seperate tattva's and hense not the same initially.

Yet what is this māyā ( there are many posts on this subject) ? It is rooted ( √ ) in mā or measuring and this 'yā' is restraining .
Yet many say māyā is the notion of illusion. How are these two i.e. illusion and measuring/restraining , connected?

Māyā is the illusion that the Infinite can be measured out or restrained. It is the idea that this Infinite Being that we experience
as the universe ( and what it contains) is made of parts, finite items, zillions of them, but still finite , within boundaries. It is the boundless measured into the boundaries , this is the illusion of avidya ( ignorance).

In ignorance māyā drives individuality; yet one that is fully realized, this māyā becomes the joy of diversity on how many ways this Being expresses itself in Fullness. Then one 'sees' sarvaṁ sarvātamkam or everything is everything else. The unity of creation. In kaśmir śaivism this transformation of māyā (of limits) becomes the play and display of śakti.

So, the question then is māyā equal to śakti ? It depends on your vantage point.

praṇām

words
tattva - that-ness ; a true principle; an essential element

[Onkara]

Thank you for you answer Yajvan, I appreciate your time!

It is the fact I am seeing that there appears to be difference (based on the vantage point adopted) which makes me act to raise this topic for consideration. I would be pleased to focus on kaśmir śaivism specifically.

There is more clarity from your etymology of māyā. If there are limitations to māyā then it would imply the limits can be known and overcome or managed. As the play and display of śakti appears in awareness, then liberation comes from having no attachment to act, yet seeing action appear in this display. One might ask how one can not feel obliged to act in their own interest. There is a certain amount of passivity if the awareness of śakti is taken as Self. Would you agree that the passivity (or awareness of the restraint) gives way to what the guru’s call “liberation”; in that the śakti is no other than our own undivided consciousness in play?

If so then can we safely confirm that “we” act for ourselves through śakti and so action is already in process as it should be.

However by taking this vantage point we are at once determined (by the boundaries) as consciousness, to witness our physical play wheather we engage or not. Freewill is simply an illusion.

Is there another, less fatalistic vantage point with śakti (of kaśmir śaivism)?

[NayaSurya]

Beloved Sakti to me...

She is the creative aspect of Beloved Sivaya...she is the wellspring of power...the energy which manifests this reality.

Siva sends out this Beautiful Divine Being...he upholds the universe in the Aham...his heart....and everything within the Aham is She.

She is Spanda, the movement and manifested, we are this movement.

I like to think of this gross physical reality as being a place where each of us is wrapped in Her like a Mother.

[Onkara]

Beautiful vision, NayaSurya!
Last weekend I saw my wife embrace her mother when we were leaving home and I was deeply touched how her face was uncontaminated by any thought except love.

How simply content a child can be when embraced in the arms of their mother

There are more messages within your description and I hope we can explore this further.

[NayaSurya]

This is the morning I entered this world for this adventure. My only gifts were these things you mentioned above. What wondrous gifts. Each of my youngest six came and hugged me as they departed for a day at school.

Well, I have to take that back...my I recieved something else...your wisdom and friendship.

It's a blessing every day<3

[satay]

namaskar,

This is the morning I entered this world for this adventure.

And a very Happy Birthday to you!

[kallol]

A quick thought.

Yes the words shakti and maya have been used interchangably in many places which sometimes brings in confusion regarding the context.

On broader sense I feel that shakti represents the prakrti in ummanifested form.

Whereas the maya part is an attribute out of the mind in regards to the manifested prakriti. It does not exist in reality

Love and best wishes

[Onkara]

A quick thought.

Yes the words shakti and maya have been used interchangably in many places which sometimes brings in confusion regarding the context.

On broader sense I feel that shakti represents the prakrti in ummanifested form.

Whereas the maya part is an attribute out of the mind in regards to the manifested prakriti. It does not exist in reality

Love and best wishes

Namaste Kallol
That is interesting, so to put your idea into my own words... māyā is that phenomena that we witness when śakti operates on our minds, causing us to believe that things are permanent, yet within a changing world. In the Sri Adi Shankaracharya sense this māyā, or power of śakti, is illusion because of the very fact that it changes.

We are informed in the Mandukya Upanishad that which is known through māyā cannot be real, and so the need for clarification in the OP on the difference of śakti and māyā stands. Because if śakti is unreal, then what of the glory of śakti purunas and philosophy? (I look forward to being corrected )


Mandukya Up. 19. It is through Maya, and in no other way, that the Birthless is differentiated. If it were really differentiated then the immortal would become mortal.

58. The dharmas that are born are not really born. Their birth is through Maya - and Maya itself is unreal"

[kallol]

Namaste Kallol
That is interesting, so to put your idea into my own words... māyā is that phenomena that we witness when śakti operates on our minds, causing us to believe that things are permanent, yet within a changing world. In the Sri Adi Shankaracharya sense this māyā, or power of śakti, is illusion because of the very fact that it changes.

We are informed in the Mandukya Upanishad that which is known through māyā cannot be real, and so the need for clarification in the OP on the difference of śakti and māyā stands. Because if śakti is unreal, then what of the glory of śakti purunas and philosophy? (I look forward to being corrected )


Mandukya Up. 19. It is through Maya, and in no other way, that the Birthless is differentiated. If it were really differentiated then the immortal would become mortal.

58. The dharmas that are born are not really born. Their birth is through Maya - and Maya itself is unreal"

My other sentence
"On broader sense I feel that shakti represents the prakrti in ummanifested form."

The above part remains permanently true.

Shakti being the unmanifested form is beyond the impression in the mind. What most minds can perceive is the manifested part of the prakriti which is not termed as shakti.

This part is always known to be mithya. So this agrees with the maya part.

Love and best wishes