Share: > I've heard that when tamas guna dominates, maya is a covering over reality > Vedanta is all about how to "pierce the veil" of maya in order to know the transcendent truth. Maya is a perception as fact - the appearance of phenomena through the constituents of nature, the three gunas. In the field of nature Brahman appears as God, the divine magical power of the Supreme Goddess Saraswati. In Sri Vidya there is no difference between the bija mantra and Saraswati herself.
According to Brooks, "The srividya, because it consists of "indestructible seed" syllables (bijaksara) rather than words, transcends such "mundane" considerations as semantic meaning. Accordingly, a bija-only mantra is not merely esoteric but inherently superior. Because it is purely seed-syllables [bijasaras] is the purest form of mantra. It does not make a request or praise god, it is God's purest expression. Gayatri is great but it cannot match srividya because it is still in language; it is Veda and mantra but when transformed into the srividya its greatness increases." "Only he who sees that all activities are performed by the body (field), which is created of material nature, and sees that the Self (Knower of the field) does nothing, sees aright" (B.G. 13, v 30). Works cited: "Auspicious Wisdon" The texts and traditions of Srividya Sakta Tantrism in South India. by Douglas Renfrew Brooks SUNY 1992 p. 95 'Bhagavad-Gita As It Is' by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada Bhagavad Gita, Ch. 13, Verse 30 On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Share Long <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Richard, I've heard that when tamas guna dominates, maya is a covering > over reality; when rajo guna dominates, maya is a veil; but when sat guna > dominates, maya is actually a means to ultimate reality. > What do you think? > > > On Monday, January 20, 2014 9:40 AM, Richard Williams < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > A popular view of Advaita Vedanta (sometimes an accusation) > > is that it is Maya-vada... > > > Maybe you lost them, but you have to begin with a definition of the term > "maya" - which I already posted: maya is neither real nor unreal, nor both, > nor neither. Maya is not an illusion or something that is not real, because > even an illusion is presented to us. Maya is actualy a superimposition on > the real. So, maya is not real but not unreal. It's like a zen koan: > > Daibai asked Baso: `What is Buddha?' > > Baso said: `This mind is Buddha.' > > Mumon's Comment: If anyone wholly understands this, he is wearing Buddha's > clothing, he is eating Buddha's food, he is speaking Buddha's words, he is > behaving as Buddha, he is Buddha. > > This anecdote, however, has given many pupil the sickness of formality. If > one truly understands, he will wash out his mouth for three days after > saying the word Buddha, and he will close his ears and flee after hearing > `This mind is Buddha.' > > Under blue sky, in bright sunlight, > One need not search around. > Asking what Buddha is > Is like hiding loot in one's pocket and declaring oneself innocent. > > This Mind is Buddha: > http://www.ibiblio.org/zen/gateless-gate/30.html > > > On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 4:35 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > A popular view of Advaita Vedanta (sometimes an accusation) is that it > is Maya-vada ... the doctrine that everything is mere Maya. > > This is a classical misrepresentation that began with Ramanuja (11th > Century head of the Sri Vaishnava-s) and continues down to today. Probably > one reason for the misunderstanding is that different teachers presented > alternate explanations of the Brahma Sutras. In essence, they held contrary > preconceptions. Another reason is that discussions about the nature of Maya > became continuous in debates between Advaita scholars. This led to the > belief that “Maya talk” was the core of Advaita. The reality is that > Advaita is more accurately call Brahma-vada, the teaching about Brahman. It > uses the principal Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita as a > threefold authoritative Vedic source. > > However, leading up to the 14th Century, the Yoga Sutras became an > alternate source for understanding the *path* to realize Brahman. By the > middle of the 14th-15th Century, this view so infiltrated Advaita Vedanta > that the works of Shankaracharya Swami Vidyâranya (who wrote Pañchadâši and > Jivanmuktiviveka) presumed that students of Advaita followed a yogic path > to realize Brahman. > > The modern proponent of this view was Swami Vivekananda. MMY just > continued that mode – which included the division of the Bhagavad Gita into > three topical sections, a theme also found in Sri Aurobindo Ghose. Scholars > now call this interpretation “Yogic Advaita” - an interpretation that is > more about yoga and less about Advaita Vedanta. > > Perhaps more perplexing for those studying Advaita, the concept of > “enlightenment” (so over-popularized) was borrowed from the Buddhists – and > is neither Yogic nor Vedantic. The Yoga Sutras, in fact, do not even > propose yoga as a goal but rather discuss the necessity for “vi-yoga” … > separating, dis-uniting, dis-joining. Thus the question … “separating > *what* from *what*”? In this case, separating the apparent con-fusion > (fusing together) between awareness (purusha) and the field of experience > (i.e. body, senses, mind). > > Contrary to this Yogic assumption of two orders of reality (purusha and > prakriti), Shankara’s Vedanta teaches the inherent unity of Reality > (Brahman). Rather than chitta-vritti-nirodha, nirvikalpa-samâdhi or > Buddhist dhyana-samâpatti, Advaita points to the direct ascertainment of > one’s own true nature. The purpose of such recognition is seeing directly > that moksha (freedom) is *already* the inherent nature of human beings. > It also recognizes that moksha is freedom from *any* experience, while > realizing that like waves moving across the ocean, experience is itself > nothing but Brahman. > > > > > >
