End Of Knowledge

Tag: maya

  • Maya Does Not Exist

    Billy: Who is affected by Maya? Is it the Ego or the Atman?

    V: Maya does not exist. Gaudpada, Advaita Vedanta’s first known teacher, makes the non-existence of maya explicitly clear in his Mandukya Karika at verse 4.59. I will include the commentary on this verse by Shankaracharya, Vedanta’s greatest teacher, for emphasis:  

    “The entities that are born are thus not born in reality (meaning: Though the universe and its inhabitants appear in Atman, they never actually come into existence). Their birth is like the appearance of a thing through maya (magic). Just as things produced by magic have no reality, the universe has no reality.” 

    Shankara’s commentary: 

    “(An objection is raised): Then you are, in effect, admitting that maya is an existent entity (by saying that it creates the universe).”

    “Answer: Not so. As the verse above says, ‘sa cha maya na vidyate,’ meaning, ‘ And that maya does not exist.’ The idea is that maya is a term relating to something non-existent (because the creation never actually comes into being. It only appears to do so.)”

    From this verse and the subsequent commentary, you can see that the term “maya” does not refer to a thing in and of itself. Instead, it is a term indicating that the appearance of the universe is false. Though Atman alone exists, it inexplicably appears as something other than Atman. This is maya.

    For a better understanding of maya, you can look at the traditional Vedanta parable of the rope snake: You are walking by a well on a dark night. You look down and we see a snake coiled by the well bucket. You freeze in terror. But, after several moments, the snake does not move or make a sound. You work up the courage to examine the snake more closely, only to find that it is not a snake at all, but a coil of rope attached to the well-bucket.

    In this story, a real rope is mistaken to be an unreal snake, similar to the way that the real Atman is mistaken to be an unreal universe. Here, you may be tempted to ask, “But how does this mistake occur? And to whom does it occur?”

    But why ask these questions? In the case of mistaking a rope for a snake, you never bother to ask why you saw the snake. And once you recognize the rope, you merely dismiss the appearance of the snake as unreal and move on. For all intents and purposes, the imagination of the snake occurred to you, but this is no problem because you know that the snake never existed in the first place. Hence, it was no real problem. No further inquiry, therefore, is required regarding the nature of the illusory snake or how it came to appear.

    Why? Because to investigate the “existence” of this illusory snake is to essentially ask the non-sensical question, “How did this non-existent snake come to exist?” A snake that is non-existent in the beginning (before it is imagined on the rope), and once again non-existent in the end (after the real rope is is recognized), is, logically, also non-existent in the middle (while it is being imagined).

    To explain further: Before the snake is imagined, it is utterly non-existent. And a non-existent entity, such as the child of a woman who cannot bear children, by definition, cannot exist, because existence and non-existence are of opposite natures, like light and darkness. Sure, this non-existent child can be imagined to exist, but this imagination does not bring the non-existent child into actual existence (because the child is just and idea in the mind). So, the existence of the snake is ruled out from the very beginning. Nonetheless, the snake is imagined and thought to be existent. But, upon inquiry, it is seen that the snake is not a snake, but a rope. Once again, the snake has been recognized as non-existent. If the snake does not exist in the first place, and does not exist in the end, then it did not exist in the middle while it was being imagined.

    So, in the case of the non-existent snake, it does not come into actual existence when it appears in the mind. The snake also does not come into existence in the rope because the rope ever remains a rope. Nor is the snake produced by the rope, because there is no potential for a snake within the rope (rope fibers cannot produce snakes). Neither does the snake does not come into existence through an interaction of the mind with the rope, because as previously mentioned, the snake neither exists in the mind or in the rope. Combining the two, then, will not magically create a real snake.

    When this is the case, the question of, “How did this snake come to exist?” becomes irrelevant, because the snake never actually came into existence. Similarly, the question of, “Why is there maya (the appearance of the universe) and who is affected by this maya?” is irrelevant because maya, illusion, is, by definition, non-existent. For instance, if you have a dream that you are abducted by aliens, do you try investigate the nature of those dream aliens upon waking?

    Billy: No. I simply dismiss them as non-existent. But unlike a dream about aliens, I do not know that maya is non-existent.

    V: Then, it is you who is affected by maya.

    Billy: But you said that I am Atman, who is unaffected by maya.

    V: If you know that you are Atman, who is unaffected by maya, then why are you asking about a maya that neither exists nor affects you?

    Billy: Ah, I am getting the picture now.

    V: Yes, you are. But right now, you are letting the tail of maya wag the dog of Brahman. You’ve got the situation backwards. You are trying to use the “rules” of the illusory maya world to understand the illusory maya world, when you should be trying to understand the real Atman. And when you understand Atman—or more importantly, that you are Atman—then the false, non-existent nature of maya is revealed. Then, you see that you, Atman, were never affected by maya in the first place. The entire idea of being deluded by illusion is seen to be part of the illusion itself. It was a problem that never existed. It only existed because you thought it existed.

    All my best,
    Vishnudeva

  • Steady Wisdom: Day 103

    Steady Wisdom: 108 Verses On Changing My Thinking

    DAY 103

    There is nothing to grasp (understand or perceive) nor anyone to do the grasping.  I am not a cause or an effect.  I am not an object of thought nor am I beyond thought.  My nature is ever-free; there’s no maya for me.
    -Avadhuta Gita 4:10
    Meditation

    I cannot be understood as a concept or perceived as an object.  How could this even be possible considering that the mind, the instrument of understanding and perception, is not real?

    I am not a cause because the supposed effect—the body-mind and world—does not really exist. 

    I cannot be said to be beyond thought, as that assumes that thought is an existent reality that needs to be transcended.  But I alone am the self-existent reality and there is no thought in me.  I am free because there is nothing to bind me—not even maya, not that there is any such thing. OM.   

    Read Series Introduction

  • Steady Wisdom: Day 67

    Steady Wisdom: 108 Verses On Changing My Thinking

    DAY 67

    I’m not affected by good or bad karma, bondage or liberation.  My nature is ever-free; there is no maya for me. 
    -Avadhuta Gita 4:6
    Meditation

    Maya makes the impossible possible:  it makes me, the ever-free self, appear to be the body-mind.  When I take this appearance at face value, I believe I am subject to good and bad karma, bondage and liberation.  But when I recognize maya as the illusion it is, I understand that I never have and never will be affected by good or bad karma.  I see clearly that I cannot attain liberation because I was never bound.  OM. 

    Read Series Introduction

  • Purusha & Prakriti according to Vedanta

    Q:  What is the relationship between purusha and prakriti in Vedanta? 

    Vishnu: In Vedanta (specifically Advaita Vedanta), purusha is used as a synonym for atman, one’s true nature. The atman, in turn, is equated with brahman, the true nature of everyone and everything in the entire universe (both seen and unseen). Since atman and brahman are ultimately identical in Vedanta, purusha is brahman.

    Prakriti is more or less the equivalent of maya in Vedanta. Maya is viewed a few different ways, depending on which school of Advaita Vedanta you’re asking. Most often, maya is conceived as a power inherent to brahman that makes the impossible possible: it makes the non-dual, formless and attributeless brahman appear to be the universe and all of its inhabitants.

    What is their relationship? Well, technically, since Advaita Vedanta says that brahman is one alone, the only reality that exists, then there is nothing for brahman to have a relationship with (since a relationship implies at least two things).

    However, when it’s admitted that our everyday experience patently contradicts Vedanta’s claim that brahman is one alone, an explanation needs to be given. That explanation is maya. In this case, maya is not a second thing over and above brahman. Instead, it is a false, seeming or illusory reality that depends on brahman to exist.

    A common example given by Advaita Vedanta to illustrate this “relationship” between brahman and maya is that of the relationship between clay and a pot. When you really think about it, a pot doesn’t actually exist. How so? Because when you try to determine what a pot actually is, all you find is clay. Yes, you see a pot. This is undeniable. But where is the reality of the pot apart from clay? If a pot is made out of exactly one pound of clay, when the pot is weighed, does it weigh one pound (for the clay) plus a bit of extra weight to account for the addition of the pot? No. It is still precisely one pound of clay, nothing has been added except a form that is arbitrarily labelled a “pot.” Clay then is the only reality. And the pot is but an appearance with no actual substance, no actual reality.

    It can’t be said that the pot is totally non-existent because it can be experienced, as plain as day. But it can’t be said that the pot is totally existent either, since it is nothing other than clay (all you’re really experiencing as a pot is in fact clay). In this way, their relationship is that clay is the reality and the pot is an appearance that has no reality apart from the clay.

    It also can’t be said that the pot is totally different from the clay, since the pot is nothing but clay. But it can’t be said that the pot is totally non-different from the clay either, since the pot can’t exist without the clay while the clay clearly exists without the pot. In this way, their relationship is an inscrutable, logical conundrum. It is, to use a Vedanta technical term, anirvaciniya, indefinable. Because how can something be neither different nor non-different from something else? And yet, it is that way.

    The relationship between the clay and the pot is similar to the relationship between purusha (brahman) and prakriti (maya). Brahman, like the clay, is the reality, whereas maya, like the pot, is only a seeming “reality” that has no existence apart from brahman. Maya, since it is nothing but brahman is not totally different from brahman. And yet, it is not totally non-different from brahman since it can’t exist without brahman, while brahman exists without maya, seeing as brahman is existence itself. Hence, the relationship is indefinable.

    But when it is taken into account that brahman alone exists (despite any appearance to the contrary), the question of relationship is ultimately rendered meaningless, for again, what talk can there be of a relationship between purusha (brahman) and prakriti (maya) if purusha alone exists?

    As a note, purusha and prakriti, although they appear in Vedanta texts such as the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita, are technical terms more commonly associated with Sankhya, the philosophical system that underlies the practice of Yoga. In that system, unlike Vedanta, purusha and prakriti are considered to be two independently existent realities. Also, in Sankhya, there is supposedly an infinite number of purushas, whereas in Vedanta (as stated above) purusha i.e. brahman is considered to be one alone.

  • DROP THE BOAT: When the teaching has served its purpose, you can leave it behind

    F: So I want to go back to our discussion on Existence/Consciousness for a minute in reference to our previous exchange Who Knows? There are a couple of points I’d like to probe.

    When you see Ishwara as a matter of speculation what do you mean?   I find Ishwara to simply be a matter of understanding not speculative belief.  Speaking to a fellow Vedantin, “we” know that there is only Brahman.  And it has a power called Maya (which is nothing but Brahman) to manifest as the world we experience.  When Brahman is apparently functioning in this capacity as creator we use the word Ishwara.   Where is the speculation?  

    V:  Here’s three answers from different perspectives. 

    A) This is my primary answer, one that expresses both my personal opinion and what I contend is the view of Vedanta in general. This answer actually applies to all of your questions: While I find the details of Vedanta as a teaching methodology interesting, its theories and explanations are only conditionally true from the empirical standpoint or perhaps not true at all (take the theory of the evolution of the elements for example). Whether they are true or not is inconsequential because Vedanta only uses them as temporary devices to point to the only truth there is:  brahman (you).  This means that once Vedanta’s theories and explanations have revealed who you are, they completely lose their value, similar to a boat having no purpose once you have reached the other side of the river.  You could carry the boat with you if that was your prerogative, discussing its features and design, but considering your goal was to cross the river, wouldn’t it make more sense to leave the boat behind and simply enjoy the other side of the river rather than quibbling about the vessel that got you there?    

    In the same way, once Vedanta has shown you that you are brahman—and I am assuming that it has—its various teaching devices no longer have a purpose.  You could continue analyzing them if you wanted to but if your reason for seeking self-knowledge was peace of mind, then once knowledge is gained, why not leave the teaching behind and simply enjoy the implications of who you really are?    

    So I think the most important question to ask is, “Will continued analysis of the teaching bring me greater peace of mind?”  If the answer is yes then I say go for it.  But when I asked myself that same question, after three or four years of incessantly re-hashing the ins and outs of the teaching with my guru brother and fellow jnani, Paul, the answer was no.  So I stopped.  Then I shifted my focus to simply re-affirming and appreciating my true nature, which did in fact bring me greater peace of mind.     

    B) If you think Isvara is a matter of understanding while I find it to be a matter of speculation, then no problem. You should think/believe whatever makes the most sense to you.  Because of that I don’t have much interest in defending my position.

    But…. 🙂        

    Seeing as we are both well-versed in Vedanta, doesn’t the very fact that we see this issue differently prove that Isvara is a matter of speculation?  If Isvara were simply a matter of understanding, like understanding the earth is really round even though it looks flat, wouldn’t we both simply agree?  (Considering all of the Flat-Earthers out there, maybe that’s not a good example but hopefully you can see past the shortcomings of the metaphor). 

    C) Here’s my technical, picky answer. The first two answers are heartfelt but I want to give this one too so it doesn’t seem like I’m blowing you off. I did after all tell you to send your questions.     

    “When you see Ishwara is a matter of speculation what do you mean?”

    Isvara is posited as the omniscient, all-powerful creator of the universe.  But how do you know this is true?  Have you ever personally experienced an omniscient, all-powerful being?  I know I haven’t.  Granted, not experiencing something doesn’t mean it isn’t there or that it isn’t true, just like the example I gave above about not experiencing the Earth as round even though it is.  However, in the case of the earth, it is possible to experience it as round by viewing it from space, or by looking at a photo taken from space.  Is there a similar means of empirical proof for Isvara?  At this point someone may be tempted to give the argument of intelligent design.  But observing a reasonable amount of order in the universe is certainly no rock solid proof of an omniscient, all-powerful creator (philosopher have poked holes in this argument for a long time).  So where do we get our information about Isvara?  From scripture.  Swami Dayananda talks about this in his Tattva Bodha commentary on pg. 277-288 (not that I’m trying to say his view of Isvara is the same as mine).  While discussing how we can know anything about the details of Isvara he says, “We have no means of knowledge (about Isvara) except the sruti to tell us.”

    This means that if we want information about how Isvara works or what it is, you have to believe what the scripture says.  And belief is speculation.  This is what I mean by Isvara being speculation.  If Isvara were a matter of understanding it would be provable as an indisputable empirical fact. 

    “Speaking to a fellow Vedantin, “we” know that there is only Brahman.”

    Correct.  No disagreement there. 

    “And it has a power called Maya (which is nothing but Brahman) to manifest as the world we experience.”

    We’ve established that we both know that there is only brahman.  If there is only brahman then there is no maya.  Brahman plus an entity called maya would be duality.  Even if, as you say, maya is nothing but brahman, there is still no maya.  Why?  Because if maya is none other than brahman, then there is still only brahman.  There is still no reality above and beyond brahman called maya.  That’s simply the logic of non-duality. 

    As I pointed out above, Vedanta uses various temporary teaching devices to point to the non-dual reality of brahman only to have those devices negated when that reality becomes known.  The maya/Isvara theory is one such teaching device.  It is only necessary when someone believes that there is such a thing as objects and they need an explanation of where they come from and how they are “created” from brahman.  But when it is seen that what you mistakenly thought were objects are really nothing but brahman, there is no longer a need for a theory of a creative power (maya) because there is no creation.  And if there is no creation, there is no creator (Isvara).  Hence there is no longer a need for the theory of Isvara as creator either. 

    On an everyday level, even though it is a matter of speculation and belief, there is no harm in thinking of the apparent creation as the work of an apparent Isvara.  It can be a positive construct through which to view the world.  But it always needs to be remembered that brahman is the only “thing” that is real while the creation and the creator are dualistic concepts that are always unreal.  Hence there is about as much value in debating the details of Isvara/maya as in debating the details of a mirage or a dream.  And on a related point, no one needs to force themselves to believe in Isvara if the concept either doesn’t make sense to them or more importantly, if it doesn’t help them to be happier in their day to day lives.  The world is an illusion so nothing definite can be determined about it, which means people are free to choose to believe in what they find most reasonable and helpful.    

    F:  Coming back to the claim “to exist is to be known” for a minute.   I understand you are saying it isn’t to be taken literally, however, after giving it more thought I am finding it hard not to.   The thinking being that since all objects appear within consciousness, aren’t they inherently known?   Or said in reverse, if Consciousness manifests as an object how could it not be known to that same Consciousness?  Another point is to leverage the fact/teaching that Brahman is self-evident and objects are evident.   If an object is evident it must by definition be known.  Wouldn’t this imply that all objects are known (i.e., illumined by consciousness)?

    V:  If there is such a thing as objects then it must be consciousness that knows them.  But again, this is debating something based in duality, specifically the duality of knower vs. known, existent vs. non-existent or consciousness vs. unconscious objects.  Being dualistic, all of these ideas are based in ignorance and are unreal so what can actually be said about them?  How can you discuss the existence of objects if they don’t really exist?  How can you talk about something being known where there is nothing other than yourself to be known?  How can you find the relationship between consciousness and unconscious objects when there is only consciousness and therefore nothing for it to have a relationship with? 

    If you were someone I thought was still trying to understand that reality is non-dual then I would cater to the lower, temporary viewpoints of the teaching that allow for theories of knowledge and existence and debate them.  But I don’t think you are so what’s the point?  The non-dual viewpoint is the only one that is true and it negates all others.  Why not leave them behind? 

    I am not trying to be dismissive.  I’m just trying to draw attention to the fact that at some point you have to transcend the teaching methods of Vedanta and simply appreciate what they have taught you, that you are brahman.  Understanding and appreciating your non-dual nature at some point necessitates leaving behind dualistic concepts.  Drop the boat!     

    F:  Finally… new topic!  I’ve been researching the topic of Vedanta as a pramana.   My question is do you think Vedanta as a pramana is falsifiable in any way?  Meaning is there anything one could experience which would negate the core absolute truth of Brahman/Atma?    I don’t think so but I’d love to know your view.  This came up since I was in a conversation recently with a scientifically minded friend who found this position highly objectionable.  I indicated that since what Vedanta expounds is uncontradicted by other knowledge and unique then it can be accepted.   He agreed that it certainly “could” be true but was pushing to know what proof could be given vs. relying on a lack of contradictory evidence.  I then pointed out that one can only test the veracity of Vedanta by exploring it for themselves and going through a process of self inquiry.  Until you do that you won’t know.  For me having done quite a bit of meditation work before coming to Vedanta was key.  It allowed teachings like drg drishya viveka to be assimilated very quickly.  But for those who haven’t gone into the teachings carefully, and have a scientific bent the whole thing seems like crazy conjecture akin to saying “we are all in the matrix”:)!    Any thoughts on this one?

    V:  No, I don’t think there is any way to disprove the truth of brahman.  If there were I certainly wouldn’t be into Vedanta. 

    But as a thought experiment I think it might be possible to disprove that brahman is consciousness, assuming it could be shown that what we think of as consciousness is really just one part of the brain watching the functions of another part of the brain.  Of course, this seems unlikely.  But time and again, science has proven things that seemed impossible.  As much as Vedanta is called a science, we have to remember that yogis from thousands of years ago were not even remotely aware of what we now call the scientific method.  As I mentioned above they believed that earth evolved from water, water from fire, fire from air, air from space.  But despite their shortcomings regarding the natural sciences, they were in fact experts in investigating their own subjective experience.  From that vantage point it seems like a reasonable conclusion that consciousness is the base level of reality.  Meditation very much seems to prove that.  But being limited by our subjective viewpoint and our incomplete knowledge of the brain, can we say that for certain?  If I’m being honest, I’d have to admit the possibility—no matter how slight—that I could be wrong.    

    What?  How could you say that brahman might not be consciousness and still claim that the truth of brahman can’t be disproved?  Aside from the fact that consciousness is just a word based on dualistic concepts–and brahman transcends all words–even if brahman weren’t consciousness, it wouldn’t fundamentally change the fact that I am non-dual, ever-present and unchangeable because I don’t see any conceivable way to disprove my own existence.  The very fact that I can question my existence proves I exist.  If you destroy “me” meaning my body/mind then everything else besides my body/mind still exists.  If you destroy everything else, then existence itself still exists because to say that there could be such a thing as nothingness would be to admit that nothingness exists. Existence and brahman being the same, there would be no way to negate brahman.  So to me, the conclusion of myself being a changless, non-dual reality not subject to negation would still hold completely true.    

    And I agree with your view that the claims of Vedanta must be investigated for yourself.  To simply sit on the sidelines and intellectualize about it won’t do any good.  There’s usually no point in trying to convince people to take up Vedanta.  They have to want it themselves.  That’s why the teaching is only given to people who are receptive to it.  And personally, I don’t think Vedanta is science so I don’t try to legitimize it on a scientific basis.  I think teachers like Swami Vivekananda started calling Vedanta science and comparing it to science in order to make it seem more legitimate to Western or Western-influenced audiences. But since Vedanta investigates subjectivity and is not based in materialism, it’s its own unique thing.   

    All my best – Vishnudeva

    Have a question? CONTACT ME. 

    Want to support End of Knowledge? MAKE A DONATION