What I Find to be 'Maya'

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

It is said, that the veiling of maya, creates the illusion "me" and "mine", of "this" and "that", and creates the ignorance in the individual consciousness. This ignorance comes through the mind. That is why, the ancients practiced yoga, to keep the mind in check, to go beyond the mind, to realize one's true nature. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on these.
Thank you.

Namaste Kaos,
Yes, What you are suggesting is a reasonable view. Many also consider the 5 koshas, some write kosa, that surround the Self, the veils. I am sure you are aware of these but let me list them out for others not familiar with them as they will fit into the post discussion:

• anamaya - or the physical level (ana from food that nourishes the body-mind)
• pranamaya - vital level fueled by prana
• manomya - that of the mind
• vijnanamaya - the intellect from jna = to know + vi or apart - this is to discern; this points to the intellect; I mention this as some say this kosa is 'consciousness' and is too broad a term for this conversation
• anandamaya - that of bliss

As you say the ancients went beyond the mind (manomaya), and then to continue also. the notion of transcending to finer levels, until there is that yoga, union with the Divine, with Brahman. Yet in the Chandogya Upanishad they talk of the knot in the heart that must be overcome, the ego, and I see that as this individual feeling of 'me'. That attachment to the 'me'.

There is someone there to assist to break that knot when the time is ripe, so says the Upanishad in Chapt 7 that brings one to parama purusartha, or final liberation.
This is the teaching - Narada approaches Sanatkumara and asks him to take him from a mantra-vit (one who knows the shastra) to the atma-vit, one that knows his SELF, Brahman. It is my favorite part of this Upanishad because it is so insightful. The last sloka ( 7.26.2) talks of the release of all the knots, and that being Sanatkumara shows one this shore beyond darkness ( ignorance), and they call him [Sanatkumara] Skanda.


Now as you have mentioned the ancients practiced yoga, which was various sadhana. It was also ahara shuddhi or purity of food. Whats this? The religion of the kitchen and what one eats? The word of ahara in essence means what is brought near to us. What is near is food, yes , but what else?

It is also the sense contacts that we have - what we see, feel, think, entertain, smell, friends and social conditions, movies, like that. It's the purity of the environment we live and take in. This ahara shruddi + yoga brings us to purity of Being (the sattva shuddhi); Sattva is the finer levels of being. And this influences that voice (vak), prana (our vital energy) and manas (mind). It is this notion of purifying finer levels of our self, to get to SELF. To prepeare oneself to finally break the knot.

Other knots people talk of are passion, greed, anger, some call these shadripu or 6 enemies. Why are they the enemies? Because they pull the mind away from same-ness, sama, from even-ness of mind, of balance. They pull us back into 'me', the individual, not the Universal, that of being consumed with ones small self. These can be counteracted with yama&niyama.


Yet this final 'radical knot' as some call it is core to what it means to be an individual , this 'me'. This is the ego, this me. And for this final knot to be broken, and as pure as we can be, we still need help (so says the Upanishad and I believe also). And this help is Divine, it's Sanatkuma , born of Brahma, born of his thought.


We know Sanatkumara as the son of Brahma ( along with the 3 other kumaras); We know him as Skanda, son of Siva. In the Gita, Krsna says, of the Generals I am Skanda. So we know Him to be Krsna also.

And who is He to fight or overcome? The final knot, the 'me' the ego. This IMHO is His Grace, many talk of. Of reaizing the SELF by His Grace.

We only need to prepare the soil and we are in good hands


pranams,

[Kaos]

Pranam yajvan,

Thank you again for your highly informative reply.
I find this thread quite interesting and would like to pursue some more relevant questions, if you don't mind. Perhaps, other members can share their thoughts as well.

It has been established that maya, (she who veils), illusion is none other than THAT. Therefore, it can also be said, that the combination of the real and unreal, can produce something apparently real.

It shows that the apparent world (creation) could arise from undefinable maya, since maya can be both unreal and produce something apparently real.

The ancients say: When the illusive power, Maya, disappears, what remains is Pure Existence-Consciousness-Bliss. Sat Cit Ananda.

Your thoughts?

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Pranam yajvan,

Thank you again for your highly informative reply.
I find this thread quite interesting and would like to pursue some more relevant questions, if you don't mind.

The ancients say: When the illusive power, Maya, disappears, what remains is Pure Existence-Consciousness-Bliss. Sat Cit Ananda.

Your thoughts?

Namaste K,

I am happy to answer. This maya is like the knot in a rope. Take out the knot and where did it go? it was never there. It is just how one looks at the world (the rope). The Upainshads allude to ignorance as confounding a rope for a snake also. One see the rope on the ground and there is fear of it being a snake. Upon further inspection (jnana) and applying more light (jyotishmati) to the matter, one sees the snake as the rope.

Like that, when one views this world from Brahmanistha ( established in the unwavering Being, the SELF), then the world of multiplicity/duplicity/disharmony is replaced by Satcinanda. In fact a poor use of words, there is no replacement, ones 20-20-20 vision returns.
Why three 20's?.
The right eye is that of the Sun, Surya. This is the eye of dharma - that which upholds or holds together. One is established in Universal Dharma. He that upholds the natural law of Creation, an expression of Satcinanda.

The left eye - is that of the moon, Chandra. This is the development of compassion and empathy. The heart becomes fully developed as all beings/objects and the like are seen as expressions of Satcinanda.

The ajna - Is that of divine sight. It is that of Agni. What is developed is Ritambhara prajna - or that which only knows the truth ( originally said as unalloyed , unblemished truth). This satyam expresses as Satcinanda.


Perhaps others have a POV on this matter and we can then discuss their ideas and thoughts.

pranams,

[Madhavan]

Pranam yajvan,

Thank you again for your highly informative reply.
I find this thread quite interesting and would like to pursue some more relevant questions, if you don't mind. Perhaps, other members can share their thoughts as well.

It has been established that maya, (she who veils), illusion is none other than THAT. Therefore, it can also be said, that the combination of the real and unreal, can produce something apparently real.

It shows that the apparent world (creation) could arise from undefinable maya, since maya can be both unreal and produce something apparently real.

The ancients say: When the illusive power, Maya, disappears, what remains is Pure Existence-Consciousness-Bliss. Sat Cit Ananda.

Your thoughts?

The concept of mAyA is related an important topic known as adhyAsa or superimposition.

The obstacle to enlightenment is a misconception on our part, which superimposes up the real and non-real, which drives an empirical view of the world as an apparent duality of subjects, objects, and means of knowing these objects. The misconception is innate to us, and is called by the name adhyAsa( superimposition). This adyAsa is the basis of avidyA. Once this avidyA is removed, what is left is vidyA or knowledge that is the experience of brahman, the Ultimate Reality.

To get into adhyAsa we must ask:

Atman is real, and is the eternal subject I . Everything else is not real, and is perceived as a separate object. How is it possible to superimpose the concepts of subject and object, as they are by nature as different as light and dark. Such confusion should be theoretically impossible. ( this is the main objection raised by dualists as to how such confusion can ever happen)


It is, however, a matter of common experience , that, through lack of discrimination, we superimpose concepts on each other and their qualities, even though they and their attributes are utterly distinct in nature due by false knowledge , it is a human error to confuse the real and the non, real or the "I" and "mine". We see duality where in reality there is none, we mistake one thing for another every day.( especially so during twilights)

How is adhyAsa defined?

1) It is simply the superimposing the qualities of one thing on another.
2) It is a confusion of our faculty to discriminate.
3) It is the superimposing two entities things and their attributes that are of opposite nature.

A few examples are given in the classical texts:

a) Seeing silver in the shell.
b) Mirage in a desert.
c) Seeing two moons when one eye is slightly pressed.

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~


Namate K,

Many ideas have been offered to you for your consideration. Yet at the end of the day, this ignorance exists and is beyond just an intellectual POV.

That is to say, we talk of these constraints of ones inability to view the Fullness of Being, Bhuma, Brahman. There are also physical and meta-physical constraints that one has to remove, dissolve or work though.
Simple stress in the system is one. It inhibits the 'village of the senses' the nervous system to perceive and experience the finer levels of consciousness. This is part of transcending. ANother is vasanas or past impressions, incloded into our mind-frame if you let me use that word.

So ,we offer the intellect 'food' for understanding, to give a vision of possibilitieds of what Reality may look like. Yet the experience of pure consciousness, finer levels of consciousness, are also needed. That is, knowledge and experience. One compliments the other.

We talk of the banana, its shape, color and taste, yet the knowledge blossoms when one peels back the skin and takes a bite. Then the knowledge has merit in the actual taste. Like that.

So to fully offer the total comprehension of this subject we have maya down pat, because all we need to do is look around and we see duality. Now what to do about seeing Unity? About experiencing turiya? This is the 'taste of the banana' if you will.

pranams,

[atanu]

Hari Om
~~~~~
-----So to fully offer the total comprehension of this subject we have maya down pat, because all we need to do is look around and we see duality. Now what to do about seeing Unity? About experiencing turiya? This is the 'taste of the banana' if you will.
pranams,

Pranam,

I still need the following answers.
What is there in curves and flesh? Why orgasmic bliss is mistakenly related to symmetry or oomph etc of another? What is there in sensuality?

Or is this topic a taboo?

Om

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~~

Pranam,
I still need the following answers. What is there in curves and flesh? Why orgasmic bliss is mistakenly related to symmetry or oomph etc of another? What is there in sensuality? Or is this topic a taboo?

Om

Namaste atanu,
I am happy to take a stab at your question, yet do not get the jest of what you ask... can you try a different angle, metaphor or the like to position the question. that is:

• what is the attraction to curves and flesh that move us to passion?
• bliss of organism? = same as what is there in sensuality that attracts us, I will presume.
• symmetry or oomph ? I do not comprehend

I get point 1, but not point 2 and 3.


dhanyavad

[atanu]

Hari Om
~~~~~~
Namaste atanu,
I am happy to take a stab at your question, yet do not get the jest of what you ask... can you try a different angle, metaphor or the like to position the question. that is:

• what is the attraction to curves and flesh that move us to passion?
• bliss of organism? = same as what is there in sensuality that attracts us, I will presume.
• symmetry or oomph ? I do not comprehend

I get point 1, but not point 2 and 3.
dhanyavad

Namaste Yajvan Ji,

What and whence is that ignorance which makes one try to find the bliss (let's say bliss of orgasm) through another?

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?

Isn't this running after another to taste the bliss, which belongs to oneself, is the greatest Maya to which which we are tied like puppets?

If yes, then why so? What's at the root of this false sensual attraction?

Om

[Kaos]

“Just as the perceiver of a pot is ever distinctly different from the pot and can never be the pot – so too, you, the perceiver of your body, are distinct from your body and can never be the body – this you firmly ascertain in yourself.”

Vakya Vritti
Adi Sankaracharya

Namaste Atanu, and all,

I think, the root of the problem is the mis-identification of one's "self" as the body.

[Nuno Matos]

Namaste Kaos


"I think, the root of the problem is the mis-identification of one's "self" as the body."

But the body is a part of Brahman!


Om namah shivaya!