alochana

yes Gods are crazy

Maaya

with 6 comments

As Kboy reminded me sometime back

दैवी ह्येषा गुणमयी मम माया दुरत्यया ।

मामेव ये प्रपद्यन्ते मायामेतां तरन्ति ते ॥७- १४

Every time I come across a reference to Advaita, I am carried away for a while along a tangent. Surprisingly it’s never the philosophy itself that is the subject, nor are the tangents themselves of similar terrain.

One of the navigable tangents has been the question about nature and its own nature. While the former itself is obviously(?) as real as our own physical self, what about the nature of nature (its features/characteristics…) Is it what we believe it is? Even our most logically proven beliefs are overturned every once in a while, so how real is the reality that we are concerned about? A familiar example is of our beliefs about Earth (its nature) and its neighbors (planets/stars) It’s not that our beliefs turn out to be erroneous only regarding the issues that do not directly concern us, far from it their occurrence is relatively rare when compared to how often our beliefs about ourselves (& our surroundings) turn out to be mere delusions. Self-interest is often given as an excuse for our blindness to the obvious, but its obvious implications make it almost improbable to be accepted by any one. Either that is the case, or the reason might be a slightly different manifestation of the same root cause. Looking around, while drifting tangentially, I was suddenly faced with the possibility that we fail to see the obvious because we do not bother to see it. Either it’s our apathy, or we might actually be blind. Since self-interest prevents us from accepting the latter, we can conveniently stick to the theory that we are so obsessed with making up theories about what we look at that we miss out on actually seeing what is around us.

Proof: As people have been repeating for quite some time, `The proof of the pudding lies in eating it.’ In a similar fashion, the proof for the above theory lies in the burnt vegetables in my kitchen!

PS: There was a painful tangent too: there was an earlier attempt to make up a seemingly absurd theory whose absurdity was limited to ‘seemingly’. As should be obvious by the absence of its records, it didn’t go well!

Advertisements

Written by kowsik

January 15, 2008 at 10:50

6 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. When they say “the proof of the pudding is in the eating”…Do they mean, what is left after you eat the pudding is what the pudding actually is….What did change in maya is the constituents of the space that the pudding occupied and the emotion you had for it beofre you ate it…but then Isn’t the emotion too Maaya…Well, an argument or a statement will serve no purpose, since just like the pudding, it is the experience of the essence which counts…rather than the shape, size, colour, texture…what not of the pudding…I hope the comment is covered in sufficient amounts of Maya !!!

    Anon-esh

    January 15, 2008 at 13:48

  2. Kowsi, all I have to say about this blog:
    Its ALL in your mind, which incidentally makes me think there was more to the beauty in the famous beauty and the beholder thing. Incidentally also, this reminds me of one particular lecture of the Quantum Mechanics course in IISc; alls I remember is, I was left wondering when the lecture got over, if I was a scientist or a philosopher. It was all in my mind back then too, I guess.

    What is and what I think is, is probably not the same? I think I agree. But do I?

    onechance

    January 15, 2008 at 16:28

  3. Aneeshe, `too busy theorizing while things were getting burnt’ was the pudding… As you illustrated Maaya is everywhere, the fools that we are we just can’t seem to see her

    K, “May be!”

    kowsik

    January 15, 2008 at 23:27

  4. The very notion that we are fools is yielding to her illusion!! Are we our mind or thoughts or emotions…if then, we can qualify as fools!! But then aren’t all this made by her!! or rather aren’t all this her!

    Anon-esh

    January 16, 2008 at 03:59

  5. The ‘I’ that I am obsessed about is certainly what you say it is! Any stand that I would take beyond that would be speculation.

    kowsik

    January 16, 2008 at 04:20

  6. spiritual meets material world when the mind gets above feeling the body’s presence…

    thats when Maya’s terrain begins…I guess!

    Archu

    January 17, 2008 at 05:41


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: