Hot answers tagged

14

Maya can never be supreme as it operates only in Vyavaharik level. According to Advaita there are three levels of reality: 1) Paramarthika Satyam 2) Vyavaharik Satyam 3) Pratibhasik Satyam Paramarthika Satyam: This is the absolute reality. In this level neither Ishwara nor Maya exists. Only Brahman exists in Sat-Chit-Aananda Swarupa. Here Sat means ...


12

Maya can't be categorised as Satva, Raja or Tama. Actually Maya is the source of these three Gunas or Gunas are work of Maya. Following verses from Vivekachudamani describes the nature of Maya: Avidya (Nescience) or Maya, called also the Undifferentiated, is the power of the Lord. She is without beginning, is made up of the three Gunas and is superior to ...


9

Pure Advaita considers forms of God as unreal. Thus it does not matter what name the unreal Ishvara is called. Shankara considers Isvara or Brahman with attributes as ultimately unreal. He writes in his commentary on Brahma Sutra Bhasya: Since this Self is by nature Consciousness Itself, distinctionless, beyond speech and mind, and can be taught by way ...


9

What is Ishwara? According to Sarva Vedanta Siddhanta Saara Sangraha (You can get Sanskti-Hindi version from Internet Archive). verses 310-317 Ishvara ॥ १४ ॥ ईश्वरः॥ मायोपहितचैतन्यं साभासं सत्त्वबृंहितम् । सर्वज्ञत्वादिगुणकं सृष्टिस्थित्यन्तकारणम् ॥ ३१०॥ अव्याकृतं तदव्यक्तमीश इत्यपि गीयते । सर्वशक्तिगुणोपेतः सर्वज्ञानावभासकः ॥ ३११॥ ...


8

Maya is the mother of the three Gunas as rightly said by Rohith under your question. So, she/it can not be categorized under one particular Guna. I have selected few passages from the Devi Bhagavata Purana (abbreviated as DB here) to "describe" the Maya, who/which actually is regarded as incomprehensible: 21-23. O Dvaipâyana! Thus saying, Visnu stopped. ...


7

Prof. Dr. Chandradhar Sharma gives an excellent writing on this often confusing aspect of Advaita in his book The Advaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy: A Study in Buddhism, Vedanta and Kashmira Shaivism. He goes through the sometimes technical details over many pages. In one section (pp 181-183) he writes: Some critics have often failed to understand ...


7

Enjoyment is not forbidden as long as it's not against the principles of Dharma. So, one should make sure of that. 18 He should be a man who applies himself to acquiring wealth in righteous (dharma) ways, 1distributes it to worthy people, 20 gives not to unworthy people if they pose no threat to him, 21 conciliates people, 22and enjoys pleasures ...


6

You said " Whatever I have learned so far in Advaita is that all the forms of God are illusory and that only Nirguna Brahman is the Original Brahman (I may be wrong). " Yes. All forms of Gods are illusory but only for the realized (or at absolute level), as per Advaita. When living in this world for normal jivas, world doesn't become illusion all of a ...


6

Love is eternal. Love is God himself. Will god agree for love marriage of his devotee, if the devotee is at strong will and fix in his mind about the marriage? Yes. Your Lord is your Guru, he will bless you with powers and purity to fulfill your duties. Will the god do some maya (like spoiling the relationship between he and his lover) and make sure that his ...


6

I am willing to pray god regularly but due to Maya I cannot full fill my prayers I can not understand why is it so. We all (everyone that is) live within the clutches of MAyA but still we can offer prayers and get them fulfilled (at least some or many among us can). Then why can't you? I think you need to define exactly what you mean by MAyA in this ...


6

Refer below from Bhagavad Gita: Persons who are learned in the Vedas, who utter oṁ-kāra, and who are great sages in the renounced order enter into Brahman. Desiring such perfection, one practices celibacy. I shall now briefly explain to you this process by which one may attain salvation. Bg 8.11 The yogic situation is that of detachment from all ...


5

No, that's not the sole view in Hinduism. As you have stated, that is the view of the Advaita Vedantins, the school of thought preached by Shankaracharya. As per them, the whole of our existence including the body, atma (individual soul), etc. are illusion and unreal; Brahman alone is only real. They do not even acknowledge that jiva is different from ...


5

No your thought is not right, Atma(soul) is part of parmatma(the supreme soul), hence it is pure. Atma is unborn, it can't be killed and Eternal. Atma is free and unbound, it gets a new body in every life. Body is made of five Tattvas i.e. Earth, Water, Fire, Air and Ether and is bound to all these. Your body dies after death which is not true for atma. ...


5

As I say in my comment to your question I have never heard as these being ‘the’ two schools of Advaita. None of my teachers have ever mentioned these as schools. I did however find one reference to the two schools and their differences so I will reproduce it contents below. I don’t pretend to be a great scholar of the Advaita or to have read every book or ...


5

You don't have a clear understanding of the text and the argument is not just an advaita argument, but is also supported by Ramanuja in his Sri-Bhasya. The original argument that Harsha is explaining appears in Brahma Sutras. The argument is given by Vyasa in Brahma Sutras 2.1.26-33. Both Sankara and Ramanuja support Vyasa's view in this text. Here is the ...


5

You have to read the subsequent verse to understand verse 7.24 Bhagavad Gita, Commentary by Adi Shankara, Translated by Swami Gambhirananda: The unintelligent, unaware of My supreme state which is immutable and unsurpassable, think of Me as the unmanifest that has become manifest. || 7.24 Being enveloped by yoga-maya, I do not become manifest to all. This ...


5

However, this seems that the forms of God are real. No, it doesn't mean that. ...was impersonal before and have now assumed this personality... says that Brahman wasn't impersonal only before, he is still impersonal i.e the assumption of personality is wrong. Actually the higher nature of Brahman is imperishable (From Kena Upanishad 2.3 to 2.8 Brahman ...


4

Maya is not the problem, Ignorance or wrong identification is the problem. There are neither any ways to control Maya nor any need. You want to control MAyA or attain at-least consciousness. I repeat, at-least , Can you tell how it is at least when it is everything. I want to attain consciousness is like saying of waves in water that they want to become ...


4

The earliest reference I can find is from the 8th century in Bhaskara's Bhasya on the Brahma Sutra. First see the remark made by Surendranath Dasgupta in the third volume of his History of Indian Philosophy: Bhāskara argues against Śaṅkara as follows: the arguments that the upholder of māyā (māyāvādin) could adduce against those who believed in the ...


4

What you have written in the body of the question isn't making much sense to me :). Probably you may want to add some more stuffs to the body so as to make it more clear. For the question in the title though the following is an answer: From Maya everything is created. Even Bhumi or Earth is the product of Maya. So, Bhumi being a product of Maya can not be ...


4

It looks like a yes. The action would still survive if the Supreme Lord wants it. We don't know exact context where this verse occurs in the Moksha Dharma Parva. So, we can't say what is the meaning correctly. I don't doubt the origin and existence of the verse in the Mahabharata. Mahabharata is an itihasa. Itihasa means a history. It's etymological ...


4

It seems you are equating the definition of Maya as Illusion with scientific anomalies. A mirage in a desert is an illusion but it is perfectly scientific and logical phenomena. We all know that vedic scriptures are meant to lead one to realize our original self, atman which is our constitutional position. So the vedic scriptures are manifested from this ...


3

The boldface passage is easy to understand, the rest of the argument, not so much. Sri Harsha seems to deal with a one-level ontology similar to scholastics', where attributes (essential properties) are things in their own right. His "nature" seems to correspond to scholastic "essence", the sum total of attributes. To untangle the argument let us abbreviate "...


3

Maya Associating Maya with just ignorance is incomplete. Maya = Sattva(Goodness) + Rajas(Passion) + Tamas(Ignorance). Disclaimer: Don't hardcode English meanings of good, passion, ignorance. In real world: A Satvik person can do (so called) bad Karma; A Rajasic person can be ignorant of money/fame; A Tamasic person can be quite knowledgeable. BG 7.14 — ...


3

Swami Vivekananda was against the idea of what you call love marriage for Hindus. He felt that the cultural tradition of arranged marriages strengthened Hindu society. He also saw and understood that love marriage was the tradition on the West, but said it also had many failings. A Hindu man should either marry or take to sannyas. There is no tradition of ...


3

Almost similar conversation as your query, took place during the discourse of Bhagavad Gita. BG 6.37, 6.38 - Arjuna asked, those who possess faith, but wavers mind away from Yoga (state of attaining liberation); After failing to be perfect in Yoga, what state do they attain? O mighty armed, fallen from both, corrupted, don't they vanish like a torn cloud ...


3

No only when it is one (or connected) with the Supreme soul or the Consciousness, it can create everything and anything, including all the Tattvas, and which include the mind etc .. This Âtman again, united with Mâyâ, composed of desires and Karmas, wants to create, due to the want of discrimination, the twenty-four tattvas, according to the previous ...


3

According to the Aurobindo-KApaly ShAstry school, the following is the translation: Ye te sahsramayutam pAshA mrityo martyAya hantave | O Death who kills mortals by hundreds of knots. TAn yajnasya mAyayA sarvAnava yajAmahe | I worship him with this subtle (MAyaya) yajnas for protection (ava). So, it's not MAyA but MAya... and it is meaning ...


3

Simply because you have created Maya and avidya for yourself and dropped down to the plane of dual perception. It is due to this duality that such a question has arisen. Remove it and experience non duality—the supreme reality, the highest sense of perception.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible