Maya

I just transcribed this bit from the autobiography of a Yogi, by Yogananda,

I really dig how teachings that are thousands of years old line up perfectly with what Jesus taught (both in the canonical and Gnostic Gospels). It basically proves there’s this universal consciousness living inside us—some kind of Absolute Truth..

Maya is essentially the cosmic illusion, which literally translates to "measure." Think of Maya as the magical force behind creation that makes it possible to perceive boundaries and divisions within something that is actually immeasurable and indivisible. Modern science is actually starting to uncover how this magic of unreality permeates atomic matter. For us mortals, we're constantly under the thumb of maya—this principle of relativity, inversion, and opposites. When Biblical prophets spoke about Satan (which literally means "adversary" in Hebrew), they were talking about maya. Satan, or maya, acts like a cosmic magician, spinning a web of diverse forms just to mask the one single, formless Truth. In God's grand design and game, the whole point of Satan or maya is to try and pull a person away from the spirit and toward matter, from reality and toward the unreal.

Christ describes this deceptive force—this veil hiding the eternal Truth—like this: HE WAS A MURDERER FROM THE BEGINNING AND DOES NOT STAND FIRM IN THE TRUTH, BECAUSE HE IS A LIAR AND THE FATHER OF LIES. Since it's baked into the physical worlds, maya doesn't really have a starting point in that sense; it’s an eternal, fleeting flow that stands as the antithesis to God's unchanging nature. FOR THE DEVIL HAS BEEN A SINNER FROM THE BEGINNING. THE SON OF GOD APPEARED TO DESTROY THE WORKS OF THE DEVIL, which is to say:

The manifestation of Christ consciousness within one's own being is the only way out of maya.

I wonder what a Hare Krishna follower would make of this?

I’ve been sitting here thinking about this one; it really sticks with me...It's better to live an imperfect life that is truly your own,
rather than living a perfect imitation of someone else's existence. Bhagavad Gita

Don't you dare mess with my Maya.
She comes straight from God.

Jeremy Alvarez5 said:I wonder what a Hare Krishna follower would make of this?

I’ve been sitting here thinking about this one; it really sticks with me...It's better to live an imperfect life that is truly your own,
rather than living a perfect imitation of someone else's existence. Bhagavad Gita

From where I'm sitting, Krishna is just one of those many names used for God, so I'm guessing they'd be on board with that idea🙂..

I haven't spent a ton of time diving deep into Hare Krishna's teachings, but I dug up a link that might give you the clarity you're looking for:

http://www.harekrishnatemple.com/chapter27.html

2) Every single person isn't just some physical body, but an eternal soul—a piece of God (Krishna). Because of that, we're all interconnected through Krishna, our common Father.

Jeremy Alvarez5 said:I wonder what a Hare Krishna follower would make of this?

I’ve been sitting here thinking about this one; it really sticks with me...It's better to live an imperfect life that is truly your own,
rather than living a perfect imitation of someone else's existence. Bhagavad Gita

That’s an interesting way to look at it, but I can't quite get on board with it. I don't really buy into "Destiny." To me, everyone has a choice at every single moment, and making the right choices is what eventually leads us toward Perfection.

"Be therefore perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect!" (Matthew 5:48).

Regardless, there's no point in trying to live someone else's life, since everyone's got their own unique path to walk..

A person can never truly grasp reality in its raw, unadulterated state—we can only perceive it through the various mental frameworks we build for ourselves. In essence, what we call "reality" is always just a construct... a sort of elaborate psychological game

You can slap whatever labels you want on it, dress it up in mystical terminology, or spin endless complex theories to explain it away, but in the end, you’re really just spinning your wheels in the same cycle

placidwolf27 said:A person can never truly grasp reality in its raw, unadulterated state—we can only perceive it through the various mental frameworks we build for ourselves. In essence, what we call "reality" is always just a construct... a sort of elaborate psychological game

You can slap whatever labels you want on it, dress it up in mystical terminology, or spin endless complex theories to explain it away, but in the end, you’re really just spinning your wheels in the same cycle

Sure, but that’s exactly why enlightened people use parables. They talk about a heavenly Father or Mother—using concepts familiar to us humans to paint a clear picture of what reality actually looks like.

Take my favorite parable, for instance:

The disciples asked Jesus:
“Tell us, what is the kingdom of heaven like?”
And he replied:
“It is like a mustard seed, which is smaller than all other seeds,
but when it falls into fertile soil, it grows into a massive tree
that becomes a shelter for all the birds of the air.”

You could easily compare Maya to the Matrix from the movie Matrix..

Jeremy Alvarez5 said:I wonder what a Hare Krishna follower would make of this?

I’ve been sitting here thinking about this one; it really sticks with me...It's better to live an imperfect life that is truly your own,
rather than living a perfect imitation of someone else's existence. Bhagavad Gita

I believe the verse is this:

BG 3.35: It is far better to discharge one's prescribed duties, even though faultily, than another's duties perfectly. Destruction in The course of performing one's own duty is Better Than engaging in another's duties, for to follow another's path is dangerous.

''It is better to perform one's own duty imperfectly than to perform another's duty perfectly.''

Now, the nuance feels entirely different...

Maya is what happens when we post on forums, Facebook, or whatever else; sometimes it brings us satisfaction, and other times it doesn't.

Krishna:

BG 7.14: My divine energy, composed of these three modes of material nature, is quite formidable to conquer. However, those who surrender themselves to Me find it easy to transcend it.

In Sanskrit, Maya literally translates to "that which is not." It represents a lower energy of God that stands in direct opposition to spiritual consciousness—essentially, the energy of ignorance. It is often called "illusory" because it leads living beings to fall under a spell, causing them to forget God and their eternal relationship with Him, leading them instead to identify solely with their physical bodies. In this sense, Maya itself isn't an illusion or non-existent; rather, its function is illusory. Similarly, this world, manifested through material energy, is not an illusion—it is very real, just inherently temporary.

Furthermore, Maya is also used to describe the personification of this material energy (which is impersonal in its essence) that governs it. Her other names include Durga (meaning a fortress or prison), Kala (time), and Parvati. She holds the position of Shiva's consort, acting as the force that manages the modes of ignorance.

Ultimately, Maya remains under the complete control of God and serves Him. One might compare her role to that of a prison warden serving a king.

amberharbor70 said:I just transcribed this bit from the autobiography of a Yogi, by Yogananda,

I really dig how teachings that are thousands of years old line up perfectly with what Jesus taught (both in the canonical and Gnostic Gospels). It basically proves there’s this universal consciousness living inside us—some kind of Absolute Truth..

Maya is essentially the cosmic illusion, which literally translates to "measure." Think of Maya as the magical force behind creation that makes it possible to perceive boundaries and divisions within something that is actually immeasurable and indivisible. Modern science is actually starting to uncover how this magic of unreality permeates atomic matter. For us mortals, we're constantly under the thumb of maya—this principle of relativity, inversion, and opposites. When Biblical prophets spoke about Satan (which literally means "adversary" in Hebrew), they were talking about maya. Satan, or maya, acts like a cosmic magician, spinning a web of diverse forms just to mask the one single, formless Truth. In God's grand design and game, the whole point of Satan or maya is to try and pull a person away from the spirit and toward matter, from reality and toward the unreal.

Christ describes this deceptive force—this veil hiding the eternal Truth—like this: HE WAS A MURDERER FROM THE BEGINNING AND DOES NOT STAND FIRM IN THE TRUTH, BECAUSE HE IS A LIAR AND THE FATHER OF LIES. Since it's baked into the physical worlds, maya doesn't really have a starting point in that sense; it’s an eternal, fleeting flow that stands as the antithesis to God's unchanging nature. FOR THE DEVIL HAS BEEN A SINNER FROM THE BEGINNING. THE SON OF GOD APPEARED TO DESTROY THE WORKS OF THE DEVIL, which is to say:

The manifestation of Christ consciousness within one's own being is the only way out of maya.

Here’s a clip of a certain chubby Yogananda telling us how to get some shut-eye: 😉

"You people do not sleep correctly."

"You people don't sleep right."
"If Americans learned yoga, they would live hundreds of years in perfect health."

Except he didn't hit a hundred, nor was he exactly healthy—he had diabetes and passed away at 59.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feh3wPk3oCo

Too bad he didn't show off any of those "other" yogic powers he wrote all about while he was in New York City. 😢

Betty Patel172 said:Maya is what happens when we post on forums, Facebook, or whatever else; sometimes it brings us satisfaction, and other times it doesn't.

Maya encompasses all those activities aimed at satisfying the senses—and yes, even the mind falls under that category. In contrast, any activity performed not for sensory gratification, but for God, is considered transcendental.

BG 4.18: One who sees inaction in action, and action in inaction, is intelligent among men, and he is in the transcendental position, although engaged in all sorts of activities.

Bodjan said:Krishna is a historical figure who lived around 3,500 BC. An immensely enlightened being—much like the Jesus of Hinduism, an avatar and a messenger of God.

Krishna is identified as a historical individual who participated in the events of the Mahabharata.

Legends have been woven around him over time, blurring the lines between history and myth until he became a legendary figure.

BG 7.7: O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread.

Krishna is the absolute truth, the supreme divine person, a fact affirmed throughout the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, the Mahabharata, the Puranas, the Brahma Samhita, and more.

Anyone claiming otherwise is simply a charlatan driven by envy toward Krishna. Krishna says:

BG 7.15: Those miscreants who are grossly foolish, who are lowest among mankind, whose knowledge is stolen by illusion, and who partake of the atheistic nature of demons do not surrender unto Me.

BG 7.21: I am in everyone's heart as the Supersoul.

BG 7.26: O Arjuna, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, I know everything that has happened in the past, all that is happening in the present, and all things that are yet to come. I also know all living entities; but Me no one knows.

BG 7.30: Those in full consciousness of Me, who know Me, the Supreme Lord, to be the governing principle of the material manifestation, of the demigods, and of all methods of sacrifice, can understand and know Me, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, even at the time of death.

Even Shankaracharya, in his commentary on the Bhagavad Gita, identifies Krishna Narayana as the supreme divine person...

Arjuna says:

BG 11.18: You are the supreme primal objective. You are the ultimate resting place of all this universe. You are inexhaustible, and You are the oldest. You are the maintainer of the eternal religion, the personality of Godhead. This is my opinion.

amberharbor70 said:From where I'm sitting, Krishna is just one of those many names used for God, so I'm guessing they'd be on board with that idea🙂..

I haven't spent a ton of time diving deep into Hare Krishna's teachings, but I dug up a link that might give you the clarity you're looking for:

http://www.harekrishnatemple.com/chapter27.html

2) Every single person isn't just some physical body, but an eternal soul—a piece of God (Krishna). Because of that, we're all interconnected through Krishna, our common Father.

That’s an interesting way to look at it, but I can't quite get on board with it. I don't really buy into "Destiny." To me, everyone has a choice at every single moment, and making the right choices is what eventually leads us toward Perfection.

"Be therefore perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect!" (Matthew 5:48).

Regardless, there's no point in trying to live someone else's life, since everyone's got their own unique path to walk..

You cited the Gospel of Matthew, yet you seem to be advocating for impersonalism? In the Bible, God is decidedly personal. Jesus' teaching centered on love for God as a person.

Yogananda belongs to the mayavadis, whose teachings are rooted in Shankaracharya's commentary on Vedanta Sutra—the so-called Advaita Vedanta, or monism. According to that doctrine, God is formless and this world is merely an illusion. They suggest that once we are liberated from our material bodies, we become Brahman; essentially, they claim we are all God, but we have simply forgotten due to an illusion.

Mayavadis reject the existence of a personal form of God, which stands in contrast to the Brahmavadis (such as the four Kumars before they became devotees) who do accept a personal form of God, even though they still share the ultimate goal of merging into the impersonal Brahman.

The mayavadi teaching is erroneous and born of ignorance. God is a person. He can be realized in three aspects: as the impersonal Brahman, as the localized Paramatma, and as the personal Bhagavan.

Impersonal Brahman possesses the attribute of sat (eternity); the localized Paramatma possesses sat and cit (knowledge or consciousness); and the personal Bhagavan possesses sat, cit, and ananda (bliss).

Bob said:Krishna was some historical figure back around 3500 BC.

If you want to be considered a "historical figure," you actually have to show up in the history books.

Moses, Noah, Jesus—they're all just myths at this point. There isn't a single shred of historical evidence to prove any of them actually existed.

A real enlightened soul.

There are all kinds of "enlightened" types out there, big and small.

Krishna was actually a real guy who played a major role in the whole Mahabharata saga.

Who’s saying that? Some Brahmins?

People have spun so many legends around him that the truth is buried under layers of myth. He’s basically a legend at this point.

Who actually turned some historical figure into all those legends and superstitions used to build up Krishna? 🤷

Anthony Perez9 said:If you want to be considered a "historical figure," you actually have to show up in the history books.

Moses, Noah, Jesus—they're all just myths at this point. There isn't a single shred of historical evidence to prove any of them actually existed.

A real enlightened soul.

There are all kinds of "enlightened" types out there, big and small.

Krishna was actually a real guy who played a major role in the whole Mahabharata saga.

Who’s saying that? Some Brahmins?

People have spun so many legends around him that the truth is buried under layers of myth. He’s basically a legend at this point.

Who actually turned some historical figure into all those legends and superstitions used to build up Krishna? 🤷

Nothing existed before Gutenberg; similarly, we won't exist in three or five thousand years because someone will claim we aren't saved on some digital drive... for instance,

Kate Peterson5 said:You cited the Gospel of Matthew, yet you seem to be advocating for impersonalism? In the Bible, God is decidedly personal. Jesus' teaching centered on love for God as a person.

Yogananda belongs to the mayavadis, whose teachings are rooted in Shankaracharya's commentary on Vedanta Sutra—the so-called Advaita Vedanta, or monism. According to that doctrine, God is formless and this world is merely an illusion. They suggest that once we are liberated from our material bodies, we become Brahman; essentially, they claim we are all God, but we have simply forgotten due to an illusion.

Mayavadis reject the existence of a personal form of God, which stands in contrast to the Brahmavadis (such as the four Kumars before they became devotees) who do accept a personal form of God, even though they still share the ultimate goal of merging into the impersonal Brahman.

The mayavadi teaching is erroneous and born of ignorance. God is a person. He can be realized in three aspects: as the impersonal Brahman, as the localized Paramatma, and as the personal Bhagavan.

Impersonal Brahman possesses the attribute of sat (eternity); the localized Paramatma possesses sat and cit (knowledge or consciousness); and the personal Bhagavan possesses sat, cit, and ananda (bliss).

Not really, I have no idea where you're getting that from...

Here's a quick verse from the Bible:

God is spirit,
and those who worship Him
must worship in spirit and in truth.

Kate Peterson5 said:You cited the Gospel of Matthew, yet you seem to be advocating for impersonalism? In the Bible, God is decidedly personal. Jesus' teaching centered on love for God as a person.

Yogananda belongs to the mayavadis, whose teachings are rooted in Shankaracharya's commentary on Vedanta Sutra—the so-called Advaita Vedanta, or monism. According to that doctrine, God is formless and this world is merely an illusion. They suggest that once we are liberated from our material bodies, we become Brahman; essentially, they claim we are all God, but we have simply forgotten due to an illusion.

Mayavadis reject the existence of a personal form of God, which stands in contrast to the Brahmavadis (such as the four Kumars before they became devotees) who do accept a personal form of God, even though they still share the ultimate goal of merging into the impersonal Brahman.

The mayavadi teaching is erroneous and born of ignorance. God is a person. He can be realized in three aspects: as the impersonal Brahman, as the localized Paramatma, and as the personal Bhagavan.

Impersonal Brahman possesses the attribute of sat (eternity); the localized Paramatma possesses sat and cit (knowledge or consciousness); and the personal Bhagavan possesses sat, cit, and ananda (bliss).

That's actually exactly what the Bible teaches:

PSALM 82
I said, "You are gods,
sons of Vishnu! All of you will die like mere mortals,
falling like any other great man!",

34Jesus answered them,
"Is it not written in your Law:
I said, you are gods!
35If the Scripture cannot be broken,
and it calls those to whom God's word came 'gods'
- and the Word is absolute -
36then how can you say to the one whom the Father set apart
and sent into the world
'You are blaspheming!'
- just because I said, 'I am the Son of God!'
37If I am not doing my Father's work,
don't believe me.
38But if I do,
even if you don't believe me,
believe the works themselves,
so you can see and understand
that the Father is in me
and I am in the Father."

You should probably check out Thomas' Gospel too; it goes even deeper into what our existence is actually about.

Anthony Perez9 said:Here’s a clip of a certain chubby Yogananda telling us how to get some shut-eye: 😉

"You people do not sleep correctly."

"You people don't sleep right."
"If Americans learned yoga, they would live hundreds of years in perfect health."

Except he didn't hit a hundred, nor was he exactly healthy—he had diabetes and passed away at 59.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feh3wPk3oCo

Too bad he didn't show off any of those "other" yogic powers he wrote all about while he was in New York City. 😢

So, let me ask you something.

What's the actual point of you flooding this religion and spirituality forum with thousands of posts if it's just to mock anyone who even glances toward something beyond this flat, two-dimensional illusion?

Maybe the fact that you keep showing up here proves you aren't entirely convinced that "God" doesn't exist. If that's the case, just keep going.

Keep typing, keep searching, and eventually, things will open up for you.

amberharbor70 said:So, let me ask you something.

What's the actual point of you flooding this religion and spirituality forum with thousands of posts if it's just to mock anyone who even glances toward something beyond this flat, two-dimensional illusion?

Maybe the fact that you keep showing up here proves you aren't entirely convinced that "God" doesn't exist. If that's the case, just keep going.

Keep typing, keep searching, and eventually, things will open up for you.

Hope this is actually on topic. 🙂

What's even the point of me typing this stuff out?

This question actually cracks me up. It’s pretty obvious someone ran out of actual arguments and has nothing left to do but nitpick my post count.

Maybe hanging around this forum just proves you aren't actually sure God doesn't exist. If that's the case, go right ahead.

I'm definitely not 100% sure about anything, just out here learning until the day I die. 👍

Just type it in and it’ll open up. Search, find, done.

If they don't open up, just kick the door down.
Don't act shocked when you end up catching these hands.

Anthony Perez9 said:Hope this is actually on topic. 🙂

What's even the point of me typing this stuff out?

This question actually cracks me up. It’s pretty obvious someone ran out of actual arguments and has nothing left to do but nitpick my post count.

Maybe hanging around this forum just proves you aren't actually sure God doesn't exist. If that's the case, go right ahead.

I'm definitely not 100% sure about anything, just out here learning until the day I die. 👍

Just type it in and it’ll open up. Search, find, done.

If they don't open up, just kick the door down.
Don't act shocked when you end up catching these hands.

It happens to the best of us—I've been there myself—so you just have to try a different entrance. But make sure you're absolutely certain there's an answer waiting for you, because the truth really does set you free.

And yeah, I get it, he's a bit much🙂, but I think his spiritual path before he moved to the USA was pretty solid. He was basically sent out as a lamb among wolves.

My bad for keeping track of your posts...