Share: > Otherwise, I don't have much to say about it. > According to Barry, Advaita is all you people talk about up there at the TM center. But, I don't think Jerry Jarvis would approve of talking about Advaita in any TM introductory lecture. From what I've read, MMY didn't even mention Advaita very much in his lectures, especially concerning the illusory aspect of maya. Go figure.
In Indian philosophy Mahamaya is the direct cause of the experience of the world. To reiterate: In Advaita Vedanta maya is the cause of the appearance of the material world - it is true in the relative sense, but "untrue" in the absolute sense. Thus maya is real, not unreal, an appearance only, not the transcendental Brahman itself. The goal of TM spiritual practice is the *isolation* of the Purusha from the prakriti and the knowledge and ability to distinguish between them by the experience of Pure Consciousness. According to the Adi Shankara, maya is just like the metaphor of the wet dream, where one dreams of copulating with a tantric sexual partner. Although one may perceive the ejaculate on bedclothes as real, upon waking everyone knows that the lovemaking was not true and that the conjugation was illusory. "For those well versed in the Vedaanta the world is like a city of Gaandharvas - an illusion." - Gaudapadacharya Work cited: 'Gaudapada' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudapada On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Share Long <sharelon...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Richard, I am interested. And admit that the Vedic aphorism: Brahman says, > "My indestructible maya" completely resonates with me and acts as a koan > for me, letting my whatever settle to deeper fathoms. But sometimes I enjoy > your back and forth with emptybill about it. Otherwise, I don't have much > to say about it. > > > > > On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:30 AM, Richard Williams < > pundits...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I have already provided a scholarly synopsis of the real differences > between > > Shankara's Advaita and Vijñanavada Buddhism... > > > You cited zero Vedantic scholars in the synopsis in this thread. And, you > failed to cite any common ideas between Shankara's Advaita and Vijñanavada > Buddhism. And, you even failed to define the Sanskrit term "maya". Everyone > knows that the term maya means different things when used in the Vedas, the > Upanishads, in the Bhagavad Gita, in the Mahayana and in Shankara;s > Advaita. > > Judging by the number of comments posted to this thread it looks like > nobody is very interested in the classical Advaita Vedanta's meaning of the > term "maya" or it's relationship to Mahayana Buddhism. Go figure. > > That's probably because TM practice is based on the tantras and on yoga > and not on the meaning of the term maya used in Shankara's Advaita Vedanta. > SBS was a Sri Vidya proponent - that's the interesting point I'm trying to > make. TMers want to know tantra, about what works for daily living, not > read about some dry metaphysical explanations of why Brahman created maya - > the latter is the business of monks, not common householders. Even the > illusory nature of maya is an is itself an illusion. Go figure. > > The question is, why did the sannyasins of the Shankara Tradition go over > to the worship of Shakti as the Supreme Transcendental absolute? > > Apparently you are not very familiar with Bhaskara, the famous Sri Vidya > scholar who wrote the commentary on Shankara's Soundaryalahari. According > to Dasgupta, "He [Bhaskara] speaks in very strong terms against the > commentator [Shankara] who holds the maya doctrine and is a Buddhist in his > views. But, though he was opposed to Shankara, it was only so far as > Shankara had introduced the maya doctrine, and only so far as he thought > the world had sprung forth not as a real modification of Brahman, but only > through maya." > > And, you don't seem to be very familiar with Swami Laksmanjoo's comments > on Kashmere Tantrism. The term "maya" and it's meaning in Advaita Vedanta > is not the same as the meaning in Sri Vidya and in Kashmere Trika. Kashmere > Tantrism is idealistic non-dualism. The question is, how did the Shankara > tradition come to include the Kashmere tantras? > > The idea of maya or illusion is in fact of Buddhist Mahayana origin. "In > the Tibetan Dzogchen tradition the perceived reality is considered > literally unreal, in that objects which make-up perceived reality are known > as objects within ones mind, and that, as we conceive them, there is no > pre-determined object, or assembly of objects in isolation from experience > that may be considered the "true" object, or objects." > > Works cited: > > 'A History of Indian Philosophy' > by Surendranath Dasgupta > Cambridge University Press, 1955 > p. 1 > > Maya (illusion): > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_%28illusion%29#Mahayana > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 8:25 AM, <emptyb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > I have already provided a scholarly synopsis of the real differences > between Shankara's Advaita and Vijñanavada Buddhism. Many times I have also > explained how and why Shankara refuted the same. > > You answer has always been the same - "Yeah, but ... and then you > continue onward without considering it at all. You only want to appear as > "Mr. Professor" so you continue to repeat stuff you read that was written > 10-20 years ago. > > You simply waste my time. Therefore I don't want to waste more with your > b.s. and your "it is all about Prof..Willy P-Dog". > > This is apparently how you understand both Advaita and Trika: > "I am the Universe. It's all about Me. It's my Maya". > > > ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <punditster@...> wrote: > > There is nothing absurd about any of my citations and they have not been > refuted by any scholars that I know of. If you have any sources you'd like > to cite, please list them so we can read them for ourselves. > > mAyA - illusion , unreality , deception , fraud , trick , sorcery , > witchcraft magic RV; an unreal or illusory image, phantom , apparition ib. > (esp. ibc= false, unreal, illusory; duplicity (with Buddhists one of the 24 > minor evil passions) Dharmas. Illusion (identified in the Samkhya with > Prakriti or Pradha1na and in that system, as well as in the Vedanta, > regarded as the source of the visible universe. > > Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon: > http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/cgi-bin/tamil/recherche > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 8:46 PM, <emptybill@...> wrote: > > > All of these absurd assertions have long ago been refuted by excellent > scholars. You simply don't know what you are talking about - to put it > quite plainly. > > > > > > >
