|
Home > Archive > Yoga > September 2006 > Maya
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Sharath (hrwire@) 2006-08-26, 4:27 pm |
| The ancient Vedic scriptures declare that the physical world operates
under one fundamental law of maya, the principle of relativity and
duality. God, the Sole Life, is an Absolute Unity; He cannot appear as
the separate and diverse manifestations of a creation except under a
false or unreal veil. That cosmic illusion is maya.
Maya can be destroyed by attaining the state of Nirbikalpa Samadhi
where the soul unites with the Brahman, the last stage of Yoga.
All creation or separate existence is maya or illusion. This philosophy
of monism received its highest expression in the Upanishad commentaries
of Shankara.
/////////////////////
About ten years ago during my early twenties when I read about Maya it
didn't make any sense to me, now it does
PS: On the lighter side, as a mark of respect to the sad demise of
"Planet" Pluto, I'm observing a two minute silence tomorrow during my
meditation session. I hope the members of this forum are with me on
this.
| |
| Lawson English 2006-08-26, 4:27 pm |
| Sharath (hrwire@) wrote:
> The ancient Vedic scriptures declare that the physical world operates
> under one fundamental law of maya, the principle of relativity and
> duality. God, the Sole Life, is an Absolute Unity; He cannot appear as
> the separate and diverse manifestations of a creation except under a
> false or unreal veil. That cosmic illusion is maya.
>
> Maya can be destroyed by attaining the state of Nirbikalpa Samadhi
> where the soul unites with the Brahman, the last stage of Yoga.
>
> All creation or separate existence is maya or illusion. This philosophy
> of monism received its highest expression in the Upanishad commentaries
> of Shankara.
>
> /////////////////////
>
> About ten years ago during my early twenties when I read about Maya it
> didn't make any sense to me, now it does
>
>
> PS: On the lighter side, as a mark of respect to the sad demise of
> "Planet" Pluto, I'm observing a two minute silence tomorrow during my
> meditation session. I hope the members of this forum are with me on
> this.
>
If only I could be assured of a two-minute silence during my meditation...
OTOH, that would be expecting something.
| |
|
|
"Sharath (hrwire@)" <hrwire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156607370.618457.168200@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The ancient Vedic scriptures declare that the physical world operates
> under one fundamental law of maya, the principle of relativity and
> duality. God, the Sole Life, is an Absolute Unity;
this itself is duality.
>
> Maya can be destroyed by attaining the state of Nirbikalpa Samadhi
> where the soul unites with the Brahman, the last stage of Yoga.
>
> All creation or separate existence is maya or illusion.
creation is not maya.
this is the big mistake and the reason why the indian civilization lost its
zeal. after Shankara India could not produce any major work. The few
remarkable individuals like kabir and nanak had to break away from the
suffocating mainstream of Shankara clones.
"maya" should be properly understood as the psychological condition of
impoverishment or subservience to "others" (things and people) that arises
from the feeling of separation of the ego from the all ("ignorance").
"i am small, i am insignificant, as i need you to survive" - a throwback to
the infant stage. from this thought comes the desire to manipulate, dominate
others and the environment. from that come all the power and money games.
"i am love, i am compassion. all receive love from me." this is the end of
maya.
| |
| Sharath (hrwire@) 2006-08-27, 2:26 am |
| Anon I don't think you know the importance of Shankara to Hinduism,
during his time Buddhism.............the birthplace of which is in
India was spreading rapidly. It was only after Shankara that Hinduism
gained it's ground. Later Buddhism spread to the far east and has a
miniscule percentage in present day India.
I am not sure what kind of works you have read other than Kabir and
Nanak maybe the books that you might have read have about a gap of
thousand years.
@ Puma.........the name of Brahman is taken from the Upanishads which
are considered the essense of the Vedas
//////////////////
As for the mention about Pluto it was meant to be taken on a lighter
note.
| |
|
|
"Sharath (hrwire@)" <hrwire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156652135.094070.141120@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Anon I don't think you know the importance of Shankara to Hinduism,
> during his time Buddhism.............the birthplace of which is in
> India was spreading rapidly. It was only after Shankara that Hinduism
> gained it's ground. Later Buddhism spread to the far east and has a
> miniscule percentage in present day India.
>
> I am not sure what kind of works you have read other than Kabir and
> Nanak maybe the books that you might have read have about a gap of
> thousand years.
>
hi,
i am indian and know what i am talking about with respect to Shankara, Kabir
and Nanak. That Shankara led the resurgence of Hinduism doesn't really mean
much - did it lead to any renaissance in India? it did not. He had a golden
opportunity to clean the house and in that respect he failed. The religion
he left India is a mess of superstitions, black magic, social injustices and
so on. Even the Advaita, his crowning glory, was a copy of the Buddha-dhatu
from the Mahayana.
However my attempt here is not to belittle him - he was a major personality
in the history of India. The work he did has left us a lot of problems.
Those are still have to be fixed.
regards
| |
| Lawson English 2006-08-27, 9:25 pm |
| anon wrote:
> "Sharath (hrwire@)" <hrwire@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1156607370.618457.168200@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> this itself is duality.
>
>
> creation is not maya.
>
> this is the big mistake and the reason why the indian civilization lost its
> zeal. after Shankara India could not produce any major work. The few
> remarkable individuals like kabir and nanak had to break away from the
> suffocating mainstream of Shankara clones.
>
> "maya" should be properly understood as the psychological condition of
> impoverishment or subservience to "others" (things and people) that arises
> from the feeling of separation of the ego from the all ("ignorance").
>
> "i am small, i am insignificant, as i need you to survive" - a throwback to
> the infant stage. from this thought comes the desire to manipulate, dominate
> others and the environment. from that come all the power and money games.
>
> "i am love, i am compassion. all receive love from me." this is the end of
> maya.
>
>
All of the above are still maya. Maya is where you assign relative
importance to one thing or set of things or even no thing, over the
rest. In order to behave within the world, there must be maya, but if
you lose sight of wholeness, you have maya. If you lose sight of
diversity, you have maya.
| |
|
|
"Lawson English" <LawsonE@nowhere.none> wrote in message
news:sxqIg.2438$Zm1.676@dukeread02...
>
>
> All of the above are still maya. Maya is where you assign relative
> importance to one thing or set of things or even no thing, over the rest.
> In order to behave within the world, there must be maya, but if you lose
> sight of wholeness, you have maya. If you lose sight of diversity, you
> have maya.
>
quite true.
but how does one who has transcended behave spontaneously ("sahaj")? that is
what the post was about. when the curtain ("maya") has been lifted, one is
filled with compassion.
| |
| Sharath (hrwire@) 2006-08-28, 2:25 am |
| > i am indian and know what i am talking about with respect to Shankara, Kabir
> and Nanak. That Shankara led the resurgence of Hinduism doesn't really mean
> much - did it lead to any renaissance in India? it did not. He had a golden
> opportunity to clean the house and in that respect he failed. The religion
> he left India is a mess of superstitions, black magic, social injustices and
> so on. Even the Advaita, his crowning glory, was a copy of the Buddha-dhatu
> from the Mahayana.
>
> However my attempt here is not to belittle him - he was a major personality
> in the history of India. The work he did has left us a lot of problems.
> Those are still have to be fixed.
> regards
Anon, if Shankara didn't revive with his Advaita, then Kabir and
company would have been singing buddhist chants.......and not Ram
bhajans
| |
| Lawson English 2006-08-28, 8:27 am |
| anon wrote:
> "Lawson English" <LawsonE@nowhere.none> wrote in message
> news:sxqIg.2438$Zm1.676@dukeread02...
> quite true.
>
> but how does one who has transcended behave spontaneously ("sahaj")? that is
> what the post was about. when the curtain ("maya") has been lifted, one is
> filled with compassion.
>
>
Compassion is maya and there is no way to tell, merely by looking at
someone's behavior, if they are enlightened or not, since behavior is
based on the past history of the individual + current situation and
everyone is different.
| |
|
| On 2006-08-28 01:30:31 -0700, Lawson English <LawsonE@nowhere.none> said:
>
> Compassion is maya and there is no way to tell, merely by looking at
> someone's behavior, if they are enlightened or not, since behavior is
> based on the past history of the individual + current situation and
> everyone is different.
Compassion is maya. But as long as we are living in this world and
have earthly needs, compassion is the logical choice of action for the
enlightened individual or even the individual who may be working their
way towards enlightenment.
--
~Stu
| |
|
|
"Sharath (hrwire@)" <hrwire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156747246.501236.162120@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Anon, if Shankara didn't revive with his Advaita, then Kabir and
> company would have been singing buddhist chants.......and not Ram
> bhajans
>
koi bole raam raam, koi allaye...
what we do matters, not what or whom we worship.
| |
|
|
"Lawson English" <LawsonE@nowhere.none> wrote in message
news:IQxIg.3423$Zm1.737@dukeread02...
>
> Compassion is maya and there is no way to tell, merely by looking at
> someone's behavior, if they are enlightened or not, since behavior is
> based on the past history of the individual + current situation and
> everyone is different.
when someone is awake in the house, the lights are on. if the lights are
on,someone may or may not be awake.
| |
|
|
"Stu" <Nospam@towel.com> wrote in message
news:2006082818464475249-Nospam@towelcom...
>
> Compassion is maya. But as long as we are living in this world and have
> earthly needs, compassion is the logical choice of action for the
> enlightened individual or even the individual who may be working their way
> towards enlightenment.
>
while compassion can certainly be overriden by free will, it is the basic
spontaneous attitude after leaving kindergarten of spirituality.
| |
| Lawson English 2006-08-30, 2:29 am |
| anon wrote:
> "Lawson English" <LawsonE@nowhere.none> wrote in message
> news:IQxIg.3423$Zm1.737@dukeread02...
>
> when someone is awake in the house, the lights are on. if the lights are
> on,someone may or may not be awake.
>
>
What if they are blidn? What if the power is out? What if the windows
are shuttered?
Nice analogy except it doesn't really mean anything.
Besides, ask Lord Krishna what the behavior of an enlightened man is like?
| |
| Sharath (hrwire@) 2006-08-30, 2:29 am |
| > koi bole raam raam, koi allaye...
> what we do matters, not what or whom we worship.
That's exactly the point, If they started praying for the other one as
you mentioned I don't think Yoga would have been in vogue, since it is
part of Hinduism, I don't think you'll agree on that.......you get my
point?
| |
|
|
"Sharath (hrwire@)" <hrwire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156912192.383801.298810@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> That's exactly the point, If they started praying for the other one as
> you mentioned I don't think Yoga would have been in vogue, since it is
> part of Hinduism, I don't think you'll agree on that.......you get my
> point?
>
well, you may be mistaken. once you accept that _possibility_, one can
proceed. yoga is not the monopoly of hinduism. a lot of yoga was developed
by buddhists and jains. yogi gorakhnath himself used to be a buddhist
earlier, tantras were developed parallely by the buddhists and hindus. what
we call bhakti was unknown in the hindus (hinduism was inacessible to the
masses). it started out by the repetition of amitabha buddha's chanting. i
can go on...
| |
|
|
"Lawson English" <LawsonE@nowhere.none> wrote in message
news:JM7Jg.3653$Zm1.1848@dukeread02...
>
> What if they are blidn? What if the power is out? What if the windows are
> shuttered?
>
> Nice analogy except it doesn't really mean anything.
>
> Besides, ask Lord Krishna what the behavior of an enlightened man is like?
listen intently o yogis
when selfless love
is in your heart
that is true peace
that is the end of maya
when you act out of that love
when you give form to that compassion
that is enlightened living
so sayeth anon
| |
| Lawson English 2006-09-05, 8:25 am |
| anon wrote:
> "Lawson English" <LawsonE@nowhere.none> wrote in message
> news:JM7Jg.3653$Zm1.1848@dukeread02...
>
> listen intently o yogis
> when selfless love
> is in your heart
> that is true peace
> that is the end of maya
> when you act out of that love
> when you give form to that compassion
> that is enlightened living
> so sayeth anon
>
>
But how do you tell from the *outside* if someone is acting
compassionately? When I spray my kitten with water to keep her from
chewing on power cords (what cat ever responded to a simple "NO!"
without a physical backup?) she stops. To an outside observer who
doesn't notice the power cord, I'm just being mean. My neighbor's kid
copies my actions all the time: she grabs the bottle and chases the
kitten around with it until we manage to take it away. I'm pretty sure
she has no compassion in mind when she sprays.
My point was about outside appearances. It's impossible to tell if
someone is behaving with compassion or not (well maybe in my neighbor's
kid's case), so claiming that an enlightened person will act with
compassion may be true, but it adds nothing to the discussion.
| |
|
| With all due respect, especially to those persons from India, may I
make a humble suggestion? We can discuss what we think "maya" is for
eternity, but where is the sastra (scripture) or guru? If we want to
know physics we approach a physicist, if we want to learn medicine we
approach a doctor, if we want to know the spiritual science we approach
a spiritual authority. Who are the spiritual authorities? God, who the
Vedas say is Krishna. (isvarah paramah krishna), Krishna is the Supreme
Controller. Krishna also says in the Bhagavada gita, Brahmano hi
pratishtaham ( I am the source of the impersonal Brahman), Bhagavada
gita, 14:27. The other authority is the bona fide spiritual master
coming in the disciplic succession from Krishna Himself. Srila
Prabhupada is such a spiritual master. What did Prabhupada say about
maya? He said that "maya is illusion, the energy of the Supreme Lord
that deludes living entities into forgetfulness of their spiritual
nature and God. Maya , the illusory energy, misleads a living being as
fog misleads a pedestrian by blocking off the light of the sun."
Krishna says in the second chapter of the Bhagavada gita that our true
nature is that we are not these bodies but the eternal spirit soul
inside of the body, and that we are His eternal servitors, part and
parcel of God. We can never become God. When we realize that, we are
on the liberated platform and we are free from the external energy,
maya. This is the verdict of sastra and guru.
For all of you sincere souls out there who really want the truth from
Krishna Himself, at your convenience, please read Bhagavada Gita As It
Is, unchanged, unadulterated, presented with no ulterior motive, other
than to help people like us become free from maya. Authored by the bona
fide spiritual master Srila Prabhpada. If anyone is interested, this is
the link for the Bhagavada Gita:
http://www.webcom.com/~ara/col/books/
Any comments or questions? mark48226@yahoo.com
anon wrote:
> "Lawson English" <LawsonE@nowhere.none> wrote in message
> news:IQxIg.3423$Zm1.737@dukeread02...
>
> when someone is awake in the house, the lights are on. if the lights are
> on,someone may or may not be awake.
| |
|
|
"Lawson English" <LawsonE@nowhere.none> wrote in message
news:jvaLg.8043$Zm1.6887@dukeread02...
>
> But how do you tell from the *outside* if someone is acting
> compassionately? When I spray my kitten with water to keep her from
> chewing on power cords (what cat ever responded to a simple "NO!" without
> a physical backup?) she stops. To an outside observer who doesn't notice
> the power cord, I'm just being mean. My neighbor's kid copies my actions
> all the time: she grabs the bottle and chases the kitten around with it
> until we manage to take it away. I'm pretty sure she has no compassion in
> mind when she sprays.
>
> My point was about outside appearances. It's impossible to tell if someone
> is behaving with compassion or not (well maybe in my neighbor's kid's
> case), so claiming that an enlightened person will act with compassion may
> be true, but it adds nothing to the discussion.
>
yoga is one's own business. appearances can be deceptive. what you feel
matters. from that, compassion spontaneously arises. i detect some western
scientific influence here that you want external proof. that is impossible.
to ask for it is pointless. someone says they are in love. what external
proof can be given?
all this discussion arose because of the remark that compassion is maya.
| |
|
|
"mark" <mark48226@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157498935.209876.161770@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> What did Prabhupada say about
> maya? He said that "maya is illusion,
>
"i am unhappy"
"i am suffering"
"i want to get out of this state"
different people have given different answers "how to end this despair".
your mileage may vary. one size does not fit all.
| |
| omjaroo 2006-09-05, 9:29 pm |
|
mark wrote:
> With all due respect, especially to those persons from India,
?...
Jared
o
^
| |
|
|
omjaroo wrote:
> mark wrote:
>
> ?...
>
> Jared
> o
> ^
Hi Jared ,
It is obvious that if there are people like myself from outside of
India, these out-siders do not know any Sanskrit or anything about
Hindu religion and they know nothing about Hindu traditions,,,If they
don`t know how to read Krishna and Githa, they have no right to talk
about these sort of Indian things...In short,,, shut them up men !
Is it clear now my dear Jared,,,Therefore lets keep quite...--- ---
---
With compassion,
Puma
| |
|
|
With all due respect, especially to those persons from India
I'm sorry for the misunderstanding about this statement. I am not from
India, and did not mean to say that because someone is not familiar
with Gita, Krishna or sanskrit that they don't need to participate.
that was the farthest thing from my mind. The only reason I said that
is because I noticed there were some people from India that had posted
on this thread and I know it is difficult for them to sometimes accept
the conclusions from westerners because understandably we are
discussing what they consider their culture and philosophy. The
statement was not meant to exclude anyone. This information in reality
is not Indian or American or anything else. It is absolute. I'm sorry
if that post offended anyone. Also, I am not a sanskrit scholar, the
only reason I quoted the sanskrit was to give credit to the source,
which is Gita, guru and Krishna. It is a tradition in India, that if
someone speaks of spiritual subject matter, they need to quote the
source, kind of like when in school if we write an essay, if we use
someone else's info, we need to put it into our bibiography, and when
quoting mention the source.
Mark
> omjaroo wrote:
>
> Hi Jared ,
>
> It is obvious that if there are people like myself from outside of
> India, these out-siders do not know any Sanskrit or anything about
> Hindu religion and they know nothing about Hindu traditions,,,If they
> don`t know how to read Krishna and Githa, they have no right to talk
> about these sort of Indian things...In short,,, shut them up men !
>
> Is it clear now my dear Jared,,,Therefore lets keep quite...--- ---
> ---
>
> With compassion,
>
> Puma
| |
| omjaroo 2006-09-06, 4:27 pm |
|
mark wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> With all due respect, especially to those persons from India
>
> I'm sorry for the misunderstanding about this statement.
>
Mark,
I did not misunderstand your statement I simply did not understand your
reference to those from India. Now I do. Thanks.
Jared
o
^
|
| |
|
|