8

According to Advaita Vedanta, we i.e. Jivas are all Brahman in reality but are under Maya and Avidya. I want to know how Maya and Avidya came into Brahman?

P.S. I am aware that Maya has no beginning.

2 Answers2

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.

Nishant Mohan
  • 397
  • 1
  • 9
  • 1
    Good answer, but you should technically cite sources, that is the rule in this forum. Please try to acquire links which provide the text which you've used to conclude this theory. Welcome to HSE. – Just_Do_It Sep 05 '18 at 17:39
  • Ok. I will if I get a source suggesting my entire idea. But usually I type concise answers whose contents may be from 2 or more sources – Nishant Mohan Sep 05 '18 at 17:45
  • 1
    No issues, you can cite multiple sources. – Just_Do_It Sep 05 '18 at 17:53
  • Brahman has no Vidya or avidya. It is beyond them. Brahman has not stooped down to dual perception. It is with the influence of Manas, buddhi, chitta and ahamkara that it confuses one for many. It’s real nature remains the same. And the second point, yes as long as there is body there must be duality, at least in diminished amount as it is bound by time, space and causation. How ever the mental perception is highly evolved. – Nishant Mohan Sep 06 '18 at 18:08
1

I can tell about the Philosophy but don't ask me about any Sanskrit source.

In the Tantra traditions, Goddess Shakti is Mahamaya. She is the feminine essence of the Purusha/Prakriti duality and she is the one creating the illusions. These illusions are what creates something we call incentive structure in Economics. So, in Samsara, (which by the way means "Migration" because Time is also a manifest of Shakti) nothing is fixed. The different seasons forces people to grow different crops to survive,making people react to Nature to achieve "Artha". Circumstances are created such that there is no permanent peace or war and in times of crisis, the line between Dharma and Adharma blurs which calls for the learned men to theorize Dharma in the given context.

Put another way, if every one realized the ultimate truth of Brahman without having to do anything, the worth would not be appreciated and further even if it is realized without the effort, everybody could do it at birth and would be left with nothing to do in life henceforth. Society would become mechanical just like Marxist Communism akin to "sthiti" but the divine mother is "Shakti-sthiti vinashini" exactly because she does not let this happen.

Men who attain enlightenment eventually leave the Earth and a new crop of foolish individuals are born in their place. Maya thus gives a meaning to life as every individual must traverse his way to attain Enlightenment and know the Brahman, while those who achieve it now try to help others in achieving it.

There is another catch, that of communication. People especially those performing "Tapas" by definition cannot disturb the system by warning others of their action without bearing a cost. If he tells them, then he can't verify the trajectory of events that he had envisioned before warning and if he does not, he would have to bear the burden of not saving them when he could have. This is why a hermitage deep inside the forest surrounded by jivas one does not know or have any concern for is considered good for Tapasya and attaining Enlightenment.

Thus, to conclude, the maya is an essential part of the "Brahmanda" and Goddess Mahamaya a tangible manifestation of the Supreme Brahman. Hope this helps...

Debtanu Chakraborty
  • 151
  • 3
  • 1
    Good answer, but you should technically cite sources, that is the rule in this forum. Please try to acquire links which provide the verses which you've used to conclude this philosophy. Welcome to HSE. –  Mar 04 '18 at 07:40
  • Maya is a power within Brahman. Because it is a power inherent in Brahman and, thus, essentially none other than Brahman in the same way that the wave is nothing other than the ocean, Maya is beginningless.

    In conjunction with this issue, it is worth mentioning that unlike Brahman, Maya does have an end. Ignorance is removed, ended, eradicated by self-knowledge. That is to say that while Maya on a macrocosmic level does continue to influence the apparent reality throughout the millennia until the pralaya, the jiva’s avidya ends with the assimilation of the knowledge that I am whole.

     –  Mar 04 '18 at 07:43
  • Though Brahman is actionless due to its all-pervasive and perfectly-full-and-therefore-desireless nature, when pure awareness illumines or – to put it in personified terms – “wields” Maya, we call this “creative entity” – again employing personification – Ishwara. Hence anything under the creative label of Ishwara is influenced by Maya. –  Mar 04 '18 at 07:44
  • You should try resorting to Advaita philosophy to answer technical questions like these, because your particular answer is essentially your own understanding and interpretation. Of course you can include them, but please refrain from making the whole answer as such. –  Mar 04 '18 at 07:48
  • Hi, I am sorry but I did not cite sources because I have never been taught Sanskrit and most of the Sanskrit words are intranslatable to Western categories making English translations of them problematic. Whatever I wrote is from my reading of Philosophy,I did not include the Pralaya part which you wrote because it actually violates Vedanta epistemology in that none among us have had Pratyaksha praman of it and it is neither derivable from Anumana or Upamana and may fit only with Shabda or learned wisdom and people may not necessarily agree on what constitutes a learned elder in this case. – Debtanu Chakraborty Mar 07 '18 at 10:34
  • Think of it as this way, if Pralaya happens and all of Brahman realizes this oneness, it violates the Bhakti yoga, Karma Yoga and other paths to God in that people who have invested in it are rewarded equally with people who have not. Thus one can only transcend into the whole Brahman consciously but it cannot be realized materially. Again, I cannot quote The Tantras but if there is interregnum during pralaya, how does Shakti play out? If this remains unresolved, I am not sure the Kapalikas would have given their assent to Advaita Brahman. – Debtanu Chakraborty Mar 07 '18 at 10:48
  • I am not questioning your philosophy or knowledge, I am just telling you to provide technical answers and cite quotes from the Shastras. That doesn't need knowledge of Sanskrit. You can look up translations, and they are allowed. –  Mar 07 '18 at 12:34
  • With regards to Pralaya, please remember that Vedanta is not the only philosophy and neither is Advaita the only Vedanta. Pralaya is only a temporary stillness and Brahman doesn't realize its oneness after Pralaya. In Pralaya there is no sentience and its the time which is described as Brahma's night, when Brahma takes rest. 
    DEVIKANAM YUGANAM TU SAHASTRAM PARISANKHYAYAA,
BRAHMA MEKAM HAGYEYAM TAVATIM RATRIMEVA CHA.

    MEANING — A Kalpa (day of Brahma) is equal to 1000 divine years or Chaturyugas. The night descends at the end of his day and its duration is same as the day.

     –  Mar 07 '18 at 12:36
  • With regards to Pratyaksha pramana, please read Bhagavat Purana, where Sage Markandeya witnesses the entire process of Pralaya when he asked Nara-Narayana sages for a glimpse of Maya. The concept is quite small when one has realized Brahman, because Pralaya is only in the material realm, when Purusha and Prakriti as resolved into their original states and no excitation of Prakriti is being influenced by injection of Purusha. The three Gunas are in their original state of dormancy. Until Brahma promulgates it again to start another Kalpa (his day). –  Mar 07 '18 at 12:40
  • Does this mean that the gross body dies while the subtle body is eternal? No. Both bodies are subject to death. In Vedanta we assume that as much as single bodies are going to end at some point, life as such will also end at some point. This is called pralaya; the whole creation will dissolve into its most subtle “components” for a few million years, thereby becoming unmanifest. So in pralaya even the subtle body “dies”. Even so, after pralaya creation will manifest afresh and with it subtle and gross bodies will also manifest again. Please do not mistake Pralaya for Abrahamic Day of Judgement –  Mar 07 '18 at 12:42
  • Hmm. If somebody percieves Pralaya without being a part of it, is it Pralaya? Because he is untouched by it.... So that is not Pratyaksha but maybe the world around it is his starting point and he has arrived at the conclusion based on other complex pramanas or proof. Quoting Markandeya is again "Shabd" here, using another's testimony. – Debtanu Chakraborty Mar 09 '18 at 10:10
  • The subtle body is itself Brahman, so are we saying that Brahman ceases to exist in the interregnum period of Pralaya? Because Brahman by definition is the only thing constant in the entire Samsara. That dormant stage is the hub of the problem because if everything is dormant, what happens to Shakti which is an essential manifestation of the Brahman? – Debtanu Chakraborty Mar 09 '18 at 10:17
  • Brahman doesn't cease to exist. It never ceases to exist. Where did I say it does? Only the material creation does. Understand that Brahman is not only the material world. You need to read and understand more. Brahman is much more than the material world, and even the spiritual world, which is not subject to Pralaya, is Brahman itself. Secondly, if you put over the argument of Shabd, the thing applies for everything. Even the Vedas were perceived by "others", not us. –  Mar 09 '18 at 13:40
  • The Shabd argument doesn't fit in 95% cases. The realization of Brahmagyanis is varied. Adi Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhava etc. all preached different but valid philosophies. But their Sampradayas use the respective teaching of that particular guru - one's own testimony - which may or may not coincide with other gurus. So that doesn't mean one is right and others are wrong. Similarly Markandeya never arrived at any conclusion from pramanas. He "Directly Saw It" after asking Nara Narayana to give him a glimpse. Markandeya himself was afraid and was swimming aimlessly and tired. Until Krishna comes –  Mar 09 '18 at 13:44
  • Ok. I pinpoint that dot where the problem lies, Vedanta argues that Shakti is a manifestation of Brahman and yet if there is Pralaya when there is inactivity, that manifestation of Brahman then becomes invalid which is the contradiction I am talking about. If there is inactivity after Pralaya, then effectively everything is Tamas and when the Brahmanda is recreated, there is only Rajas which contradicts the guna being completely distributed. Its not you,I have been searching in multiple texts for this and so far have only empty hands. – Debtanu Chakraborty Mar 10 '18 at 02:04
  • I THINK Pralaya is an event that does not occur simultaneously in Brahmanda. Somethings are destroyed first and as the waves travel and destroy the rest, new things are created in the process..... – Debtanu Chakraborty Mar 10 '18 at 03:43
  • Anyways Pralaya is quite an ancient concept mentioned in the 12th Canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam. I cannot refute it with my mere knowledge which is like a sand-particle compared to a desert. –  Mar 13 '18 at 13:36