« The ineffable ache | Main | My history lesson »

November 12, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Good post as usual.

You wrote:

"To realize the fullness of introspective authority, like the Buddha, means to have disengaged from illusion. It also mean to be disengaged from the sensory world in the sense of being able to apperceive the spiritual substance from which the Five Aggregates are made. Indeed, this who we really are which has nothing to do with aggregation (skandha)."

I agree. "Form is emptiness and emptiness is form". In the end, they're just bunch of empty words. But we can only realize that through practice.

With palms together,

In doctrine, maya as differentiated from avijja, is the extrinsic side of what is subjectively "seen" in avijja which perpetuates infatuation with Maya (natura naturans); as such maya is an eikon of avijja but in the phenomenal world, a delusive and mimetic mirage the subjective and avijja-filled being thrists (tanha) after.

Maya is the demiourgic principle is the kosmos aisthetos (phenomenal cosmos).

You are in grande err to say maya is = “magician’s creation”, implying the Absolute, the One is, as you have wrongly implied, a sentient being out to deceive the feeble minds lost in Samsara. As you well know, Buddhism affirms assimilation with the Absolute (“I teach union with the Absolute [Brahmayana]” Sn 5.4), but as well denies the Absolute is a creator-deity , or ishvara (Dn1).

In saying “maya is also a power” you correctly point out that maya is the shakti (power) in the diminishing returns of the Absolute in its temporal logos and beauty (remember that beauty , or Phi is mathematically so: “1 is to Phi, as Phi is to 1”, or Phi [maya, desired-after samsaric logos] and 1 are both one and the same thing, to avoid a pun).

In short, maya is only as meant the aoristos dyas (indefinite dyad, or attribute of the Absolute), i.e. the EXTRINSIC side of the Absolute, of which, importantly, to CONSERVE THE PRINCIPLE OF MONISM, must be one and the same. Or, that the Absolute as = will/nous/citta cannot be distinguished from what the Absolute ‘does’, that being willing, noesis.

There is aught in the cosmos without at least one attribute, including the Absolute. One cannot distinguish light from what it ‘does’, illumination, or will from willing, nor the Absolute from what it ‘does’ extrinsically. Or as Plato said, “the Good (the One) is as no different than what it does; the Good is good (“does good”)”.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo