Ishvara and mAyA

[Elector]

Pranams,

Maya is said to be-anirvachaniya-indescribable. The locus of our thoughts, concepts, feelings, etc. are all in Maya. So how can we assign attributes to Ishvara when he is beyond Maya? We know him as the omniscient, omnipresent, perfect, etc. Lord. But aren't these just another thoughts/concepts in Maya?

Om

 

[atanu]

Pranams,

Maya is said to be-anirvachaniya-indescribable. The locus of our thoughts, concepts, feelings, etc. are all in Maya. So how can we assign attributes to Ishvara when he is beyond Maya? We know him as the omniscient, omnipresent, perfect, etc. Lord. But aren't these just another thoughts/concepts in Maya?

Om

This is how I also understand. Without removal of the veil of mAyA, the correct vision of Ishwara may not be had.

 

[Madhuri]

We know him as the omniscient, omnipresent, perfect, etc.

He is described in many ways but if you think about the above terms, can they really be conceived? 'Perfect' is an idea that any two people would define differently. Omnipresent is a concept we may be able to conceptualise simply but in reality have no real grasp of. Same with omniscient.

So we may hold some concept of the Lord to help us in our worship, but we cannot really understand his nature while covered by Maya.

 

[Elector]

Pranams,

This is how I also understand. Without removal of the veil of mAyA, the correct vision of Ishwara may not be had.

But won't the removal of Maya make him Nirguna Brahman?

He is described in many ways but if you think about the above terms, can they really be conceived? 'Perfect' is an idea that any two people would define differently. Omnipresent is a concept we may be able to conceptualise simply but in reality have no real grasp of. Same with omniscient.

So we may hold some concept of the Lord to help us in our worship, but we cannot really understand his nature while covered by Maya.

That's good enough answer. We can't comprehend omnipotence, omniscience, etc.

Om

 

[Elector]

Also another thing: "Brahman associated with Maya is Ishvara".
Doesn't that contradict Ishvara beyond beyond Maya?

 

[Madhuri]

Also another thing: "Brahman associated with Maya is Ishvara".
Doesn't that contradict Ishvara beyond beyond Maya?

Only some Hindus believe this and I'm as curious as you for an explanation.
I don't believe that Ishvara 'comes' from anything; Ishvara is eternal and without cause.

 

[atanu]

Pranams,
But won't the removal of Maya make him Nirguna Brahman?
Om

You are contradicting yourself. Think about it.

 

[Elector]

You are contradicting yourself. Think about it.

I don't see how to be honest. Do you mean, by that, that Ishvara never actually existed, it was always Brahman?

Om

 

[ameyAtmA]

Also another thing: "Brahman associated with Maya is Ishvara".
Doesn't that contradict Ishvara beyond beyond Maya?

I shall share here what I blogged just yesterday in this regard:

We also saw that the 'form' of nārāyaṇ such as Shri Kṛṣṇa, is expressed by Bramhan' (nārāya&#7751 by adoption of vishuddha sattva (mode of 100% pure goodness, with no raja and tama) via His Own Yog-māyā shakti (ātmamāyay&#257. This Yogmāyā medium is based on vidyā (knowledge). The Lord does this knowingly, consciously. This is not to be taken lightly and equated with ordinary sattva-guṇa in beings in the world, which is typically associated with passion and ignorance (raja, tama). The Yogmāyā whose nature is vidyā (knowledge) --- what is this? It is that tendency, nature, aspect, ability or power of Bramhan' through which He plays the role of Bhagavān or Parameshvar.

So let us celebrate Him! Let us sing His Glories. Let the mind be dedicated to His names, forms, divinities, divine qualities (kalyāṇa guṇa according to rāmānujāchārya), divine pastimes (leel&#257. This will make a bond of relationship manifest between the devotee-mind and the Lord of the Heart. Why Lord of the heart? From the Bhagvad Gītā we learn that this Lord resides as the innermost deepest consciousness in all beings, making them sentient and a lot more. [See Bhagvad Gītā 10.20 aham ātmā guḍākesha, jīvabhūtāshayasthita |
aham ādischa madhyamcha bhūtānām antameva cha ||
I am that innermost Self, dear conquerer of sleep, dwelling/situated in all live beings. I am their beginning, middle and also their end.

NOTES: What makes Him the beginning, middle and end of all beings? Just as pearls of yarn strung on a string of yarn itself, or just as a spider spins the web out of fluid from its own body, this whole world is spun from this One Bramhan', this One and Only Absolute Truth. Therefore, He is the Truth as consciousness pure, that is the source of all appearances, waves, vibrations or manifestations ; that has actually become all these appearances, varieties and manifested beings ; that is the sink or destination into which these appearances will finally collapse.

Beginning, middle, end
Source, substance, sink
creatioṇ, maintenance, annhilation
Bramhā Visḥnū Mahesh

Bhāgvat explains that this all-pervading omniscient-potent-present nārāyaṇa, the source and sink, expands into the roles of Bramhā, Vishṇū and Mahesh as seen above, respectively adopting the pure modes of rājas (passion) to create, sattva (goodness) to maintain and tāmas (ingorance/darkness) to annhilate bramhānḍa (the material Universes).


Understanding this one then understands what Bhagvān Shri Kṛṣṇa and Kṛsṇa-tattva (Principle behind Kṛṣṇa) is all about. What will happen if the bumblebee of the devotee's mind is engrossed in Bhagvān Shri Kṛṣṇa? It is then automatically detached from the world, worldly things, and their local false appearances/existences i.e. ahaṁkār (ego) which identifies with the body and image associated with it. Thereby leading to liberation from saṃsār (birth-death cycles). This bumblebee typically remains at His fragrant tulasī-ladden Lotus Feet, be it bound in saṃsār or liberated from it . [See Bhagvad Gita 10.8,9,10,11 ...Satatam kīrtanīyāt (My devotees are perpetually singing My Glories), bodhayanti parasparam (keep on telling each other about My Glories and knowledge of Me, removing peopleś ignorance in the process), nitya-yukta (eternally yoked to Me, in eternal union of Me). Kṛṣṇa further says He removes the ignorance of such devotees via the shining lamp of knowledge about Him Who is that Absolute Truth.]

_______________________
ameyAtmA
http : // WalkWithMukunda . blogspot . in

 

[Elector]

I shall share here what I blogged just yesterday in this regard:

Pranams,
Thank you for your post.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Also another thing: "Brahman associated with Maya is Ishvara". Doesn't that contradict Ishvara beyond beyond Maya?

Only some Hindus believe this and I'm as curious as you for an explanation.

Maya exists because of the existence of Brahman/Ishwara, like the shadow exists because of the object. Associated does not mean "under the spell of". Most Hindus believe that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But won't the removal of Maya make him Nirguna Brahman?

You are contradicting yourself. Think about it.

Yes, there is a contradiction. Does not follow necessarily. That depends on the person's view in Hinduism. He could be 'nirguna', 'saguna', or both. Since we do not know him exactly, we cannot say one view is correct and the other wrong.

 

[bhootarajaru]

Maya exists because of the existence of Brahman/Ishwara, like the shadow exists because of the object. Associated does not mean "under the spell of". Most Hindus believe that.

At least we can define shadow and we know that it is real.But can we do the same to define an object which is itself undefinable?????????????????(maya).If brahman is accepted to be a real entity,then his shadow must also be a real one!!!!!!!!


I think this shadow scenario doesn't suit the explanation very well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Aupmanyav]

At least we can define shadow and we know that it is real. But can we do the same to define an object which is itself undefinable (maya)? If brahman is accepted to be a real entity, then his shadow must also be a real one!

I think this shadow scenario doesn't suit the explanation very well!

Shadow real? We cannot describe Brahman completely. But 'maya' is very well known though very hard to escape. 'Maya' is real and not undefinable. What 'maya' creates out of Brahman (i.e., what it makes us to perceive) is not real. That is an illusion.

 

[atanu]

At least we can define shadow and we know that it is real.But can we do the same to define an object which is itself undefinable?????????????????(maya).If brahman is accepted to be a real entity,then his shadow must also be a real one!!!!!!!!


I think this shadow scenario doesn't suit the explanation very well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

mAyA is anirvachaniya-indefinable and not real.

mAyA is like false knowledge due to darkness that is entirely removable with proper lighting.

So, mAyA was not real to start with but its effects can be real -- such as pain etc.. With proper lighting (arising of right view, jnana) the wrong view is entirely removed.

Therefore mAyA is neither real nor unreal. It is anirvachaniya.

 

[bhootarajaru]

mAyA is anirvachaniya-indefinable and not real.

mAyA is like false knowledge due to darkness that is entirely removable with proper lighting.

So, mAyA was not real to start with but its effects can be real -- such as pain etc.. With proper lighting (arising of right view, jnana) the wrong view is entirely removed.

Therefore mAyA is neither real nor unreal. It is anirvachaniya.

You are contradicting yourself. If maya is false knowledge then which is the right one???? Obviously the right one must be the knowledge of brahman.But according to advaita, only brahman is real, getting the knowledge of brahman must also come under maya.

Both false knowledge and the true knowledge are collective false and they come under maya , which is again false.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Also another thing: "Brahman associated with Maya is Ishvara".
Doesn't that contradict Ishvara beyond beyond Maya?

Maya follows Brahman like an inseparable shadow, not Brahman's fault.

 

[Ravi500]

Pranams,

Maya is said to be-anirvachaniya-indescribable. The locus of our thoughts, concepts, feelings, etc. are all in Maya. So how can we assign attributes to Ishvara when he is beyond Maya? We know him as the omniscient, omnipresent, perfect, etc. Lord. But aren't these just another thoughts/concepts in Maya?

Om

I agree with this. The image of the personal God is also Maya in the subtlest sense, which obstructs us from realising the impersonal Brahman.

However this image of the personal God is the purest thought/concept in Maya, which destroys all other desires and karma in a short span of time till it is the last thought/concept standing, if the aspirant is earnest in his devotion and spiritual practices. Through the grace of an enlightened master brought to one by Brahman, eventually this last thought/concept is dissolved, enabling the aspirant to realize Brahman.

 

[John Doe]

I am no hindu theologian, but Brahman is often called the impersonal, and Isvara the personal aspect of the infinite. Since maya is the perceived attributes, Brahman plus maya would constitute the personal form, Isvara.

 

[Ravi500]

The personal God, Ishwara, is Brahman seen in a personalised form.

Since the absolute cannot be conceptualised in the human mind, it takes on attributes as Saguna Brahman, or the personalised Brahman with attributes which is easier to conceptualise.

Devotion to Saguna Brahman, in the form of the deity helps one to attain Nirguna Brahman or impersonal Brahman without attributes.

Saguna Brahman is the purest thought/concept in Maya, while attachment to sensory pleasures is the grossest thought/concept in Maya.