Talk:Maya (religion)

No summary?

The summary section contains no information about the subject, and the next words found in the article mention how many times the subject is discussed in certain texts. A summary section for the less-devoted reader should be made a top priority.

Mayasura

I'm wondering if the Architect Mayasura is in anyway related he is the architect the trimurti and Patala(Underworld)

?

I feel Maya as illusion, has three pargamtics within its semantics. Maya (illusion) as used in Philosphy, The Vedantic Maya and the Buddhist Maya. These three concepts are similar yet has subtle diffrences.

Maya in Hindu philosophy

The term Maya occurs in many Bhagavad Gita verses, moreover the term Avidyā (which has the same connotation as Maya) is frequently mentioned in the principal Upanishads, so it is childish to say that the concept of Maya was introduced by Adi Shankara.

Makyo should not redirect here

Makyo is a distinct concept from Zen and should not redirect to Maya:

The Zen term makyo, meaning bedevilling illusions, refers to the hallucinations and mental disturbances that arise during the course of intensive meditation and are often mistaken by the practitioner as enlightenment or kensho.

changes

Edits on June 14th seem to have eliminated some previous contributions, without comment or justification. -Tim

Matrix

Would a Matrix referrence be appropriate? It certainly evolved from Maya.--Scix 12:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget Star Wars[1] --Ne0Freedom 04:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ne0Freedom (talk • contribs)

I feel that might be a little difficult to verify, and remain consistant. The Matrix and a great many other films that deal with alternative/simulated reality usually have (as plot devices) "antagonistic forces" that attempt to impose the simulated relality onto the "heroes"/sentient life. To me this seems more in keeping with the ideas expressed within Gnosticism . While there are inevitably crosovers, I haven't found any references to a "Gnosticism#Demiurge" within Maya. It could be that Maya can be understand in Gnostic terms. If that where decided to be so I would suggest posting suggestions on the talk page of Gnosticism to see about improving both pages perhaps via mutual links to the other.

steve10345 (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Schopenhauer

Schopenhauer's philosophy of WORLD AS WILL AND IDEA also evolved from the same concept of Maya. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.7.175.2 (talk) 20:24, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Mulholland Drive

I removed the following text:

The nightclub Club Silencio in the film Mulholland Drive alludes to the concept of Maya through the repeated phrase: "No hay banda." (There is no band). Though seemingly real, all the music in the club is illusionary, provided by a tape recording.

Does anyone have a source for that claim? It sounds like someone is throwing out their theory of a movie that was hard to understand to begin with. If you can source it, put it back, but this isn't a place for new theories or unsourced material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.184.99 (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources

This article, while interesting, needs sources. Perhaps users should also begin posting possible places to find reliable sources for this article.Bless sins (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

In the "Maya in Sikhism" section, the relationship between the snake and money should be deleted until further citation is found (I don't edit, but hope someone else will). The "double snake" connection to the dollar symbol must be deleted; the Wikipedia article on the sign cites four sources for an different origin theory (including the U.S. Mint). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.201.218.208 (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Pretty bad

The article is not complete.202.138.120.65 (talk) 07:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Maya in Buddhism

User User:Mitsube second time deleted the section.

What is the goal of this action?

To keep as a secret that an important and popular Buddhist tradition (Dzogchen) considers the phenomenal world to be an illusion? --Klimov (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

This is a 3rd opinion, an outside opinion meant to help. It should in no way be taken as authoritative and is simply meant to informally help to resolve a dispute that one or more users have requested help with.

As I understand the dispute User:Mitsube has removed information that other users believe should remain in the article. I know nothing about this topic so I have no idea whether this piece of information belongs in the article or not. What I would encourage is conversation. Wikipedia encourages consensus and discourages edit wars. The best way to do this is to have a conversation with other editors. If Mitsube truly believes this section does not belong in this article, he/she should visit the talk page and explain. I have left a message for Mitsube to join the talk page.

If the section is continually deleted without explanation, other users can always request temporary page protection to stop an edit war. Hopefully, though, you can talk amongst yourselves and figure it out. Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 05:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

New edit by User:Mitsube

It seems that there is some progress. This time there was no wholesale deletion.

However, one would expect some work with the sources and participation in the discussion here.--Klimov (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Maya (अनिर्वचनीय)(indescribable) (illusion) (section)

सन्नप्यसन्नाप्युभयात्मिका नो भिन्नप्यभिन्नाप्युभयात्मिका नो।

सांगाप्यनंगाप्युभयात्मिका नो महाद्भुताऽनिर्वच्नीयरूपा रूपा॥(विवेकचूडामणि:)

It is not sat [real], not asat [unreal], not both. It is not bhinna [different], not abhinna, [not non-different], not both. It is not sanga [with parts], not ananga [without parts], not both. It is very wonderful and of a form which is inexpressible.(speechless).

H H SrichandrashekharaBharti swaminah explined in their comentry on ViVekachoodamani(Sanskrit):

In the world, reality of what is never sublated and the unreality of what is sublated are wellknown as is the case with truth and falsehood. What is never experienced at any time by anybody is unreal as in the case of the horns of a hare or of a skyflower etc. By shruti and smrti texts like bhUyashcAnte vishvamAyAnivrttih [svet.]; taratyavidyam vitatAm hrdi yasminniveshite! YogI mAyAmameyAya tasmai vidyAtmane namah !! mAmeva ye prapadyante mAyAmetAm taranti te [B.G.]; “again at the end, i.e., after sravana, manana, nididhyasana, there is the cessation of cosmic mAyA”; “I bow to that vidyAtman namely Brahman, who dispels may when he is lodged in the heart”, and “those who seek refuge in me cross this mAyA”, its [mAyA’s] being annulled by jnana is understood. Therefore, it is not possible to associate reality with it like the reality of the atman. According to the Gita statement: nAbhAvo vidyate satah: “there is no non-existence for what is real”, it is clear that it cannot be real as it ceases to exist after the dawn of jnana. Before jnana arises, as it is seen in the form of its effects and of their transformations, as it is also the subject of inference, it cannot be said to be unreal like the horns of a hare. It is not of the nature of both i.e., it is not both existent and non-existent as existence and non-existence being opposed to each other, it is not proper to predicate them in one and the same place. As it cannot be each of these separately, its being of the nature of both is absolutely impossible. In respect of objects seen in a dream and of those produced in jugglery, they are said to be of the nature of mithya as they disappear even as they are seen. Hence they are said to be different from the sat and asat, the real and the unreal. So too is it with mAyA. For it is said in the Gita: nAsato vidyate bhAvah nabhAvo vidyate satah! Ubhayorapi drSTo’ntastvanayostattvadarshibhih!! “Of the unreal there is no being; of the real there is no non-being. Of both these the truth is seen by the seers of the essence”. If to origination and non-existence by destruction of what has come to the absolute sat and asat has been declared by Lord himself who said that the fact of these, that the superlatively real cannot be non-existent, and the absolutely unreal cannot become existent and that has been determined by the seers of Truth. Thus also, this mAyA is not a sadvastu [real], it is not an asadvastu [unreal] and it is not both [real and unreal]. As it is not possible to determine if it is real or unreal, it is indescribable [anirvacanIya]. As it is not capable of being stated to be real or unreal and so is called anirvacanIya, so too it is said to be anirvacanIya also for the reason that it cannot be said to be different or non-different from Brahman. If it is said to be entirely different from Brahman, that will conflict with the shruti-texts intimating non-difference. In the world there is absence of difference between a power and the possessor of that power. But if it is said to be non-different from Brahman, difficulty will arise as it [maya] is liable to destruction while Brahman cannot be sublated in any of the three periods of time. If it is said to be both different and non-different, that will be to indulge in a contradiction. The real and the unreal are opposed to each other, relate to different periods of time and it is not right to predicate them together in the same place. Therefore, it isnot of the nature of both what is real and what is not real. Hence it means it is not different, it is not non-different; it is not both. Similarly, it is beginningless. So, it is without parts. For, if it is with parts, it must be said to have originated. But if it is said to be without parts, its evolution [into things of the world] cannot be asserted. Hence, it is not without parts. It cannot be both as both cannot be affirmed of a thing in the same context. Hence, as between reality and unreality, difference and non-difference, being with parts and being without parts, nothing can be predicated of mAyA. Hence it is anirvacanIya, indescribable. It is of a very amazing nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeevothama (talk • contribs) 06:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Lede

I know it's a weird subject, but the lede seams unnecessarily obscure and idiosyncratic. 1Z (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed too. I restored a previous version that was much clearer and without idiosyncratic elements. Hoverfish Talk 20:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Hoverfish. I think it is much better. Dazedbythebell (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)