Maya (illusion)

Wikipedia definds this as centered on the fact that we do not yet experience the environment directly but rather through some projection of it, that Māyā is the principal deity that manifests, perpetuates and governs the illusion and dream of duality in the phenomenal Universe. My question to anyone who is knowledgeable regarding Maya: is there any example or any theory to back up hundu and buddist claims this is fact.

reply to post by Theophorus



Humans perception of reality is bias..... science is the attempt to eliminate the bias,,, science needs equipment and data beyond what is available with the human instrument alone,,,, science attempts to view a perspective of reality as reality or a creator of reality would see reality and know it.... something that is not given to humans naturally by reality,,, naturally what is given to humans by reality is ignorance..

reply to [url= by Theophorus[/url]


Buddhism itself implies that as a 'fact'. But in Buddhism there can be two truths- one fore this conventional world of Maya and one for the Ultimate Reality of Emptiness. So to say that world of illusion is a FACT is really a matter of perspective.
the 4 Noble Truths:
1- existence is a state of dis-ease
2- this dis-ease is caused by ignorance of the true nature of the self
3- there is a way to heal
4- that way is the Eightfold Path

so you could say that #2 is proof of the fact, but only through interpretation as it doesn't equate the self with Maya directly.
the D

reply to post by IandEye


true....and the begining of time....which dogma addresses the time and origin thing, is it two brothers in a tree pod. I'm curious.

Originally posted by IandEye
reply to [url= by Theophorus[/url]

 

Buddhism itself implies that as a 'fact'. But in Buddhism there can be two truths- one fore this conventional world of Maya and one for the Ultimate Reality of Emptiness. So to say that world of illusion is a FACT is really a matter of perspective.
the 4 Noble Truths:
1- existence is a state of dis-ease
2- this dis-ease is caused by ignorance of the true nature of the self
3- there is a way to heal
4- that way is the Eightfold Path

so you could say that #2 is proof of the fact, but only through interpretation as it doesn't equate the self with Maya directly.
the D

I disagree with part of that.

#2 is proof of the fact, but through paranormal experience and interpretation. The experience may or may not be interpreted as an aspect of the self or as the power of an external God-image. It can go both ways. Maya is a feminine Goddess IIRC and she conceals and reveals. So in that case it may be equated with a Hieros Gamos in terms of symbolic imagery.

Take The Matrix for instance. The process of discovering the self is allegorized. Neo got proof of the fact when he realized there is no spoon and bent it with his mind. Instead of a Goddess producing the illusion that there really was a real spoon, it was a computer simulation.

"All the Buddhas and all sentient beings are nothing but the One Mind, beside which nothing exists."

-Huang Po

The One Mind can surface to the conscious mind in a variety of mythological imagery. The very faculty that generates the imagery is unconscious, non-ego. But there are certain patterns and relationships deep in the collective unconscious and these form the basis for the monomyth formula which of course forms the skeletal structure for The Matrix.

reply to [url= by BlueMule[/url]


#2 (not the excrement) can also be achieved through logic. If one accepts the Law of Co-Dependant Arising ( a basic premise of Buddhism) then it only makes sense that all matter is composed of parts which will- by nature- break down at some point and the 'thing' will be something different. This is as true of the self as it is any 'thing' in existence, including the concept of Buddhahood- "if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him" - some Buddhsit

Originally posted by IandEye

"if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him" - some Buddhsit

Yes kill him, don't sit there and logic about killing him. Take the red pill. Bend the spoon. Be the Buddha. To be the Buddha inside, you must kill the concept that the Buddha is outside of you. You are the Buddha. You are Buddha-consciousness. You must kill duality. You must kill your ego-self. That's the part of you that doesn't real-ize its Buddha-hood. Kill it, not just make sense about it with logic and concepts and words. It's the only way to shift your sense of identity from the ego-self to the Buddha inside. The Buddha you meet is a projection. Withdraw it. Don't logic about withdrawing it.

"All the Buddhas and all sentient beings are nothing but the One Mind, beside which nothing exists. The One Mind alone is the Buddha, and there is no distinction between the Buddha and sentient beings." -Huang Po

Schools of Buddhist thought vary, but the teachings of the Buddha himself are not at all mystical. They constitute a very pragmatic, rule-based technique for attaining mental tranquillity.

The idea of Maya is not specifically Buddhist, but common to many Indian systems of interpreting and understanding the world. It is personified as a goddess because that is what people used to do with all perceived phenomena before the birth of philosophy; for instance, Dawn, Memory, Victory and even the Hours were personified as goddesses in Greek mythology. It doesn't mean that Maya is a conscious, acting entity.

Different schools of thought interpret the concept of Maya in diverse ways. I would like to explain the way in which it is commonly understood by Buddhists.

Robert Burns famously wished for the ability 'to see ourselves as others see us'. Most intelligent people understand that their image of themselves is very different from the person – indeed, the people – others see. Our view of others is coloured and distorted by the effect of our own personalities and prejudices; our view of ourselves, even more so. And this is not confined only to people; everything we think and believe, indeed everything we perceive and understand is affected by personal factors we cannot properly evaluate and allow for. A wise person understands that seeing through one's own prejudices, anxieties, desires and false beliefs to the naked reality beyond is almost impossible. To achieve this near-impossible goal, one must follow the Eightfold Path to the end. In other words, one has to become a Buddha.

Maya, in this interpretation, is simply the veil of illusion created by our own perceptual, psychological and ethical misapprehensions. The veil is pierced or unwoven, one thread at a time, by progressively letting go of worldly attachments. Abandoning the illusions of belief, desire, hope, fear and – finally – self, one penetrates the veil of Maya.

Buddhist philosophers have explored the field of perception and what can be known at least as thoroughly as Western ones have. It is well understood in Buddhism that the reality of the external world cannot be proved definitively, because all our evidence of it is mediated through our perceptions. But for a Buddhist, the argument between idealism and materialism is an irrelevancy; metaphysical entities, such as the mind and the soul, are ultimately just as fictitious as physical ones like bodies and houses. Reality lies beyond such things, hidden from view by the veil of Maya – otherwise known as the limitations of knowledge.

Originally posted by Astyanax
...metaphysical entities, such as the mind and the soul, are ultimately just as fictitious as physical ones like bodies and houses. Reality lies beyond such things, hidden from view by the veil of Maya – otherwise known as the limitations of knowledge.

If entities are fictitious and if Buddhism sees all as one mind, why would the Dalai Lama have need to consult a spirit of the Nechung inhabiting a man?


If the Dalai Lama is a reincarnated holy man, and one would think the foremost practitioner adept of Buddhism, and all is illusion, why does he still get wet when he walks in the rain and have to use money like the rest of us?

reply to post by The GUT

Because you and I are not the Buddha, and neither is the Dalai Lama. Think about it.

reply to post by Astyanax

That hurt my head to think about, but good one.

However, the thought hits me that that would require too much illusion...none of us exist at all? Descartes is hard to get around: Cogito Ergo Sum.

Now I ask you: What is the sound of one hand clapping?

I'm being a little goofy, but I did find your post thought-provoking as I've been contemplating Buddhism lately. Fascinating as a philosophy, but I can't make it work out on paper so to speak.

Originally posted by The GUT

 

Fascinating as a philosophy, but I can't make it work out on paper so to speak.

look past the philosophy look towards 'the' Buddha himself

The word Maya and the word Leela both refer to what is seen. The scene that is seen is the play of existence. It is like a movie and you are the audience.
There is the play and there is the witness of the play.
When one believes one is human one gets totally lost in the play and believes the play is real and it can get pretty scary.
The play of existence contains everything, it will never just be chocolate and flowers and rainbows (lovely things), it has everything.

There is no peace in the play of existence (the sound and fury) as it is constantly changing and moving. Peace can only be found when you find yourself as the witness (the audience).
When you find out what you really are you will not worry about the play anymore.

Here's other definitions of Maya (found in the Glossary of the Record of Yoga):

maya — (in the Veda) “originally a formative power of knowledge, the true magic of the supreme Mage, the divine Magician, but ... also used for the adverse formative power of a lower knowledge, the deceit, illusion and deluding magic of the Rakshasa”; measuring and limiting consciousness, “a selective faculty of knowledge commissioned to shape finite appearance out of the infinite Reality” (brahman); the power of phenomenal creation by which “out of the supreme being in which all is all without barrier of separative consciousness emerges the phenomenal being in which all is in each and each is in all for the play of existence with existence, consciousness with consciousness, force with force, delight with delight”; illusion, “a bewildering partial consciousness which loses hold of the complete reality, lives in the phenomenon of mobile Nature [prakriti] and has no sight of the Spirit [purusha] of which she is the active Power”.

Ive been combing the internet for some type of example and the only thing i can find is the old rope and snake reference. It goes like this: say you are in a dark room in india and in the corner you see something that resembles a venomous snake. You are afraid. All of a sudden someone turns the light on and what you thought was a snake is only a rope. All your fears vanish. ... this is the onle example i can find. They take this and assume everything is not as it seems!! This whole example is the cornerstone of the buddhist and hindu thought. Prove this wrong and everything else crumbles. Prove this wrong and there is no brahman.

reply to post by Theophorus


Fears do indeed vanish. You can prove it to yourself by becoming a mystic. The snake represents your Kundalini. It can look scary. You grab it and climb it up the chakras to enlightenment by becoming a mystic.

reply to post by The GUT

However, the thought hits me that that would require too much illusion...none of us exist at all? Descartes is hard to get around: Cogito Ergo Sum.

Your response shows that you have taken my meaning.

Descarte's reasoning has been given a thorough pummelling by Western philosophers; see, for example, Analyzing Philosophical Arguments by Ian Philip McGreal (San Francisco, 1967, Chandler Publishing). As Nietzsche famously commented, Descarte had failed to notice that it is not 'I' that thinks; thoughts appear in the theatre of consciousness without our willing them.

I've been contemplating Buddhism lately. Fascinating as a philosophy, but I can't make it work out on paper so to speak.

Contemplating Nietzsche's comment may help. By reminding us that thoughts are often, if not always involuntary, he makes a distinction between the entity that thinks and the witness before whom thoughts appear.

Some months ago, there was on this forum a thread about Buddhist ideas concerning rebirth. In that thread, I wrote that I had never been able to reconcile two Buddhist ideas: first, that the self is an illusion, and second, the doctrine of rebirth. If there is no self, what is it then that is born, dies and is reborn?

I did some reading and talking to people – I live in a predominantly Buddhist country – and I think I understand it now. Imagine a camera lens. Not the whole camera, just the lens. Light passes through the lens and is projected onto some kind of screen. The lens collects and focuses the light, but is not in any way changed by it.

Depending on what kind of camera you fit behind the lens, you can do all kinds of things with the light that passes through it. This affects the camera (makes chemical changes in the film, alters the output of charge-coupled devices and so on) but leaves the lens unaltered.

I believe that in Buddhist thought, what gets reborn is not the camera but the lens. The camera is Descarte's 'I', the being that thinks and is changed by thought; the lens is Nietzsche's 'I', the witness before whom thoughts appear. It is nothing but a viewpoint. It has no intelligence, no feelings, no desires, no will. All it has is pure consciousness – a portal through which information is received and perceived.

As lifetime succeeds lifetime, successive cameras are fitted to the lens. One of those cameras may be the person you believe you are – the 'self' you identify as your own. But one day that self will cease to exist. The lens, however, floats free. Soon it will be attached to another camera.

Yet something else persists, too. The photographs taken by the old camera survive, and their existence changes the world in subtle ways. These changes are what we call karma. One day, perhaps, they will have some effect on the new camera – the new being – that now wears the old lens of perception.

*

The idea that everything we perceive is an illusion is not at all far-fetched. On the contrary, science shows us that it is true. But do not make the mistake of thinking that because all we perceive is illusion, nothing we perceive exists. It most certainly does exist; only its true nature is not directly apprehensible by us.

I have my own problems with Buddhism, but they are not intellectual problems. If Buddhist thought was not intellectually watertight, Western philosophers and scientists would have deconstructed it long ago. On the contrary, Buddhism is the only religion that has absolutely no quarrel with modern science. No, my problem with Buddhism is that it is so damn' pessimistic and miserable. Life is all suffering, happiness is a fleeting illusion, the only escape is to renounce all worldly things and detach oneself from all human experience and achievement – from everything, in other words, that makes life worth living. To my mind that is a sapless, defeatist, cynical prescription, even if it does turn out to be true in the long run.

Then again, Buddhism is for the long run. The tradition states that the Buddha experienced 550 previous births before being born as Prince Siddhartha and gaining enlightenment as the Buddha – and he was thought of as a fast developer. So who knows? Perhaps, after a few thousand more cycles of the Wheel, you and I will both be sufficiently disillusioned to take up the Way of Sakyamuni.