The More I Think

The more I think of Sri Ramakrishna’s bhakti, the more I am wonderstruck. Keshab Sen repeats the name of Hari, meditates on God, so he (Thakur [a.k.a., Sri Ramakrishna]) immediately ran to meet him. ­ Keshab at once became his own. He then did not listen to the Captain. That Keshab went to a foreign land, ate with white men, gave his daughter in marriage in a different caste -- ­ all these matters vanished.

“I take only cherries. I have nothing to do with thorns.” In the bond of bhakti the believers in God with form and believers in God without form become the same; the Hindus, the Muslims and the Christians ­ all become one and also the four varnas [castes]. Bhakti be victorious! Blessed you are Sri Ramakrishna! Victory to you! You have embodied the universal view of sanatana dharma (the eternal religion). It is perhaps for this reason that you have such an attraction! You embrace the followers of all religions as your own without any difference! You have but one test ­ it is that of bhakti. You only see whether a person has love for God within, whether he has bhakti or not. If that is there, he immediately becomes your very own. If you see bhakti in a Hindu, he is at once your own. And if a Muslim has bhakti for Allah, he is also your own. If a Christian has the love for Jesus, he is also your near and dear one. You say that all rivers coming from different directions, from different regions fall into the same one ocean.

Thakur does not consider this world as a dream. If that be so, it will "lose weight". It is not mayavada; it is Vishishtadvaitavada. This is because he does not consider the jiva and the world as imaginary. He doesn’t think them to be an illusion. God is real, so are men and the world. Brahman is qualified with jiva and the world. You cannot get the whole of the bel fruit if you take away seeds and its shell.

-- The Kathamrita, Volume I, Section XIII, Chapter Nine

God is Spirit

""God is a Spirit" (or, more accurately translated, "God is Spirit"), declares the Scripture (John iv. 24), "and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth."
If God is Spirit, and God is All, surely there can be no matter, for the divine All must be Spirit....
Hence my conscientious position, in the denial of matter, rests on the fact that matter usurps the authority of God, Spirit; and the nature and character of matter, the antipode of Spirit, include all that denies and defies Spirit, in quantity or quality."

-- Mary Baker Eddy. Unity of Good. Boston: The First Church of Christ, Scientist. 1908. 31; in Mary Baker Eddy. Prose Works Other Than Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. Boston: The First Church of Christ, Scientist. 1925.

What does it mean to "deny matter"? From a Christian Science perspective, Spirit is one thing and matter is another thing completely. But such a perspective posits two ultimates: Spirit (or God) and matter (or not-Spirit). However, Spirit is Infinite and All, thus precluding the existence of anything not Spirit. If Spirit is All, one has at least two possible implications: (1) matter, as non-Spirit, doesn't exist; or (2) matter, apparently non-Spirit, is actually Spirit, perhaps Spirit in a different form (since Spirit is Infinite, Spirit could manifest in Infinite number of forms, including matter). Christian Science takes the first implication, but the second implication is more consistent with both reason and experience.

There is one way that the Christian Science perspective may be accurate, and that way involves defining matter not as a form of being, but as a psychological dynamic. If matter is the assumption that something non-Spirit does in fact exist, then matter could reasonably be rejected and denied. In other words, the problem is not that what we call matter exists; the problem is in mentally presuming that what we call matter is separate from Spirit, not-God.

Fides et Ratio: Some Meditations

The Eucharist is the practice (symbolic and actual) of the Tantric Union of Awareness (Wine) and Matter/Energy (Bread), of Spirit and Matter, of Compassion and Wisdom, of Nirvana and Samsara, of the Everything and the Nothing.

God alone IS. God is the Everything and the Nothing. To say that God created the world ex nihilo, or "out of nothing", is to say that Everything-God created the world out of Nothing-God. The Nothing, being also God, means that the world is also God.

There is only one life: the birth into the world-separate-from-God (or "original sin") and the final liberation-salvation into God-not-different-from-the-world. But this one life has many "going-to-sleeps" (temporary deaths) and "waking-ups" (temporary births). Reincarnation is true, but it's not the final truth. Heaven-and-Hell is true, but it's not the final truth.

A Hindu experiences Infinite Love and calls it "Krishna". A Christian experiences Infinite Love and calls it "Christ". Krishna is Christ, if both are understood correctly. No, let me rephrase that: Krishna is Christ, even if both are understood incorrectly.

The doctrine of papal infallibility states that, under very restricted circumstances and conditions, the Pope, when speaking most authoritatively, cannot define doctrine errantly. Whether this is true or not, is not important. If it is true, there is no way to empirically prove it thusly. In terms of shoring up faith among certain portions of the Christian population, the doctrine may be useful and unobjectionable. The doctrine need only be duly noted, by those who find it superfluous. Indeed, some things are better left alone, until the mystic-eye opens.

Through the mystic-eye, the doctrine of papal infallibility manifests a deeper significance, a significance understood in terms of non-dualism, Advaita Christanta, and intimations of Guru-Bhakti Yoga.

The energetic practice of compassion and wisdom is the foundation. One can then be Methodist, Reform, Ismaili, Vaishnava, or Gelukpa. Communal membership need not matter. Of course, in that case, one must be prepared to enjoy the heretic's reward. Whether such reward is worth it or not, depends upon a host of conditions. But some of us are born a hairesis of one, and could not care less: we don't reject; we transform. Leave politics to the politicians. Leave patriotism to the patriots.

Christ speaks through all scriptures, saints, sages, and siddhas. Translation is the lost art.

Vedanta Vallabha

Stephen Schaffer, better known as Shyamdas, was launched into his spiritual quest at age 17 through contact with Neemkaroli Baba. Now 33, Shyamdas is an avid practitioner of the Vaishnava Vallabhacharya lineage (Pushti Marg, or the Path of Grace), having studied for 7 years with various Vaishnava pundits in the Vrindavan area of India. He is a translator of Hindi, Braja Vasa and Sanskrit and Vice President of the International Pushti Margiya Vaishnava Parishad. An art dealer by profession, Shyamdas resides with his wife in Vermont. He lectures on various aspects of Hinduism and publishes his English translations of Vallab sampradaya scriptures into English. Shyamdas shared the following insights with Hinduism Today in Hawaii on March 14, 1986.

Hinduism Today: Please tell us how you became involved so deeply in the Vallabhacharya sampradaya.

Shyamdas: I went to India, got going there originally by a teacher, Neemkaroli Baba, who was the guru of Ram Dass and he resided in Vrindavan as well as in the Himalayas. So I went to Vrindavan to meet him and remained in the Vrindavan area, a 168-mile area which encompasses all the areas that are sacred to Lord Krishna. I eventually took initiation in Vallab sampradaya about a year or two afterward and lived on the Goverdan hill, which was the hill which Lord Krishna upheld to ward off Indra's rains for 7 days. There I studied with various bhaktas and acharyas on Vaisnav Vedanta. I specialize in 16th century Vrajbhasha poetry which are the poems of Surdas, who is very well known. He is perhaps the Shakespeare of Hindi literature, like Jayadev is the Shakespeare of the Sanskrit devotional literature. Surdas and Tulsidas. Surdas is considered the sun of bhakti devotion, and Tulsidas, who wrote on Rama, would be considered the moon. So I studied the poems of Surdas and I translated his life story and many of his poems, and those of a number of other poets.

I also studied Vedanta, Shuddha Advaita Vedanta of Vallabhacharya, which could be translated as "realistic monism." Vaishnavism has a number of schools, four main schools: Nimbarka, Madhva, Ramanuja (often known as Sri Sampradaya) and Vallab sampradaya. Vallab sampradaya's realistic monism is different from Shankara's interpretation of monism and parallels closely Kashmiri Shaivism and perhaps other forms of Saivism as well in that it is a real advaita philosophy that does not incorporate Shankaracharya's theories of maya, the world being false. The world Is true. But what could be false about the world is the way we see it But the world itself is true and is the manifestation of the Supreme Godhead...Vallab sampradaya believes that everything is Krishna and nothing but Krishna.

Q: Who is your guru?

A: My teacher is His Holiness Goswami Prathameshji, who heads the first seat of Vallab sampradaya. Vallab sampradaya has seven seats. He is very active in Hindu activities. He does a lot of preaching. Hindu Vishwa Parishad invites him to many of the functions.

Vallab sampradaya does not have a monk lineage per se. It's a primarily householder lineage. None of the teachers in Vallab sampradaya are sannyasins. They are all grihastha. They are all householder. That is the way the lineage was set up, unlike the other Vaishnav sampradayas. Some of them are more oriented toward sannyas. The ISKCON lineage is more sannyas oriented.

Q: Do the goswamis wear orange?

A: No, no. White. It is an extremely Vedic sampradaya. Householders are traditionally initiating gurus, too. That is something that is according to Vedic teachings, that sannyasis initiate sannyasis, and householders traditionally initiate householders. The acharyas in Vallab sampradaya observe homa and other Vedic rites as well. Of course bhakti is the main emphasis...Vallab sampradaya has a following of perhaps 30 million people. It is one of the largest Vaishnav sampradayas in India. It is not well known in the West. Its followers are all through Gujarat...And in London you have thousands of Vallab sampradaya Vaishnavas.

Vallab sampradaya is also not well known in the West. There has not been much written in English on it. And what has been written by other people who were not initiated nor studied with the lineage is often incorrect. And that is what I have been trying poetic aspect and some which have to do with its Vedantic side.

Vallab sampradaya is centered in the lilakirtan which means singing the exploits or the divine pastimes of Sri Krishna in a more classical Indian raga system. And Vallab sampradaya is very oriented towards seva, the worship of the swarupa or deity. In Vaishnavism there is no lineage that has such sublime worship - I would not call it temple worship because the worship is supposed to be a private home worship, although there are temples. It is taught in Vallab sampradaya that you should always worship Krishna. One of the ways is offering food and ornamentation, music and bhajan.

Q: Could you elaborate on your perception of Sri Adi Shankara's impact on Hinduism especially in the West.

A: Let me first say I think Shankara was a genius. I don't think there is any teacher, from Saivism to Vaishnvism, who has written as beautiful Sanskrit as Shankaracharya. He was a fantastic writer and a great teacher of what he was teaching. But if you want to view Shankara in the spirit of Vedic teachings, I think there is a problem. Number one, he is called "Buddha in disguise" by many of the earlier teachers, and this is correct. At the time Shankaracharya appeared in India, India was fairly Buddhist, and Shankaracharya could not teach a true Vedic school, because Vedic school teaches of an atma or a soul, and Buddhism does not have an atma concept, per se, and they don't accept the soul existing within the body. Shankaracharya could not bring the theistic aspect of the Vedas directly back to the people because they were too influenced by the teachings of Buddha. So what he did was bring in a teaching which was cloaked in Vedic terminology and mirrored Buddhist teachings. He brought in the pantheon of all the Hindu devas, but his teachings were essentially Buddhist to a large part. When Shankaracharya writes about Buddhism, he is unable to criticize it directly because it parallels his own thinking too much. So he just says the whole school is too ridiculous to even comment on.

Shankaracharya's theory of maya is not supported in the Upanishads. It's not supported in the Brahma Sutras and it's not supported in the Vedas - as the world being false, that this world is an illusion, a dream with no substance and in some way separate from God. This is not a Vedantic thought. Even Western scholars who are impartial who have studied the Brahma Sutras and have studied the teachings of Shankara and, let's say one of the Vaishnav teachers, Ramanuja or Madhva - they would have to side with Ramanuja as being more true to the spirit of the Brahma Sutras.

Q: Why do you think Shankara's teachings have been so popular in the West?

A: I think perhaps because many of the Western practitioners who go into Eastern studies have had it with Western theology. They are either disenchanted with the heaven/hell duality of Christianity and with the personal Godhead as being a father image that strikes terror in the hearts of those who sin against him. They are afraid of a god image, so they move toward something that is far away from it, which is Shankara. Shankara does give respect to all the different deities, to Krishna to Ram to Shiva. But to him, in the final analysis they are mayic. They are illusion, and you must leave all of them and merge into the Ultimate Formless, which for him is the final state. This, I think has appealed to many Westerners because they didn't want any sort of Godhead or God in between them and their final liberation of Ultimate White or Nothingness.

And I think it's because of a lack of study of the true Vedic teachings which do point to a personal theistic deity, if you are going through Saivite or Vaishnavite traditions. And the teachers who have come from India have been predominantly influenced by the Shankaracharya teachings,...because Shankara had such a strong influence on the Indian teachings. He swept India. He was only 36 years old when he left, but he had left such an impression on the Indian mind that even today in India if you say the word Vedanta, people think that you are speaking about Shankara. They say, "Oh, he is a Vedanti," which in certain circles means that he is a follower of Shankara, which is not correct. Vedanta means Vedanta: that which is the end [or final conclusion] of the Veda or knowledge.

This confusion which Shankara put into the world of this world being false means that Shankara's teachings must also be false. So there are certain contradictions. He says the world is false, and he is Jagadguru, meaning guru of the world. This means he is guru of the false world. There are many many problems when we look into the actual teachings of Shankaracharya (If it is an illusion, where did the illusion come from?), if you want to get into the subtleties of where Shankara faltered. And this has always been a great spirit of the Vaishnavas and the Shankaracharyas to have debates, which I think is good, because if you want to have a debate about something it should to do. I've published five or six books on the different aspects of Vallab sampradaya, some historical, some having to do with its be a debate about the Ultimate Reality as opposed to just squabbling about commonplace matters.

Q: Do you agree with the idea that Shankara overlaid his mayavadin philosophy onto the prevailing theistic religion?

A: Yes. Today if in fact you visit some of the Shankaracharya tents when you visit the Kumba Mela, you'll see that the Shankaracharya lineages have Rama and Krishna lila, the play in which children between 10 and 15 enact the pastimes of Krishna. Shankaracharya has these. They ultimately have to go back into the whole Hindu trip of Krishna and Rama and Shiva and all the different pastimes to try to attract followers into their fold to ultimately tell them that it's all false. It's wild and that's what most Westerners follow.

But then again, I think that the concept of Sanatana Dharma is so great that it allows for these things to occur...I may have said something about Shankaracharya, how I don't personally agree with his interpretation, but I respect Shankaracharya...Contradictions can exist within truth, and no one has a turnkey formula. That is one of the most important concepts of Vedantic thought, that the person who says he knows, doesn't know. And the person who says he doesn't know knows. Hinduism is perhaps the only religion in the world that has allowed an incarnation to establish a religion which is anti-Vedic in its actual teachings. What other religion would accept a teacher who taught against their own school? It is a mind-boggling religion if you try to look at it and say this is Hinduism. Hinduism is so broad that to study any particular school of Hinduism would take at least one lifetime and probably several. And to try to make broad, sweeping statements about Hinduism being this or that-Hinduism has the most theistic attitudes of any religion in the world, and it has attitudes that are almost atheistic in terms of the very abstract forms of yoga that don't give importance to the Godhead and just give importance to deep contemplation and samadhi. It's got everything in between. It's got tantra. It's got devotion. It's got Goddess worship. It's got sacrifice. It's got a complete code of law. It's a complete religious system that did not separate art, music, science, philosophy, medicine, from its actual main scriptures. So hence you have all the different branches of the Vedas. It was not essentially a religion. It was a dharma.

A Good Friday Meditation

The One Original Non-Dual Matter


The Original Non-Dual Awareness is Infinite and Eternal.

Being everything it accommodates within itself the Original Non-Dual Matter.

Matter is the Body of Awareness.

Awareness, being Infinite and Eternal, its Body must also be infinite and eternal.

At times the Body appears to be small and at times to stretch into huge shapes.

But even when it seems to have disappeared, it is still within Awareness latently.

Out of the Matter contained within Awareness is projected infinite and eternal Materiality—the Creation, or Finite Everything.

The Original Non-Dual Awareness is One, Infinite and Eternal.

The Original Non-Dual Matter, being in the Non-Dual Awareness is also one, infinite and eternal.

But the Finite Everything that is projected from the Non-Dual Matter comprising innumerable masses or all things in Creation, is innately and unendingly dual.

Within these masses are innumerable temporary masses such as, What is the matter with you? Matter.

What did you eat? Matter.

What is in your hand? Matter.

What do you see? Matter.

And so there is no end to the action and reaction of the experience of Materiality by the innumerable masses of Finite Everything which are projected from the One Original Non-Dual Matter which is infinite.

The Original Non-Dual Awareness is Infinite and Eternal; in it is the Original Non-Dual Matter.

Innumerable masses manifest out of the One Original Non-Dual Matter.

And from these masses is a continuous flow of temporary masses.

And so there are masses and the new-masses of masses within the One Original Non-Dual Matter.

When you compare these masses with the One Original Non-Dual Matter they are indeed matter.

Matter is in Awareness; Awareness would not be a complete whole without Matter.

The Matter that is in Awareness gives birth to matter that seems everything.

Because Matter is, everything seems to be.

All activity everywhere in creation is but a play of Awareness and Matter.

When there is a complete cessation of this activity Matter prevails.

When this Matter is attained you have Awareness.

Relatively, therefore, Matter is Awareness, whereas that which we call Awareness is Matter.

[Inspired by Chp 51, "The One Original Real Nothing", The Everything and the Nothing. The translation-glossary is below.

Awareness is Everything.
Matter (matter/energy, subtle matter, and thought) is Nothing.
Materiality is Nothingness.
Matter is the Body (material, spiritual, and mental body) of God
The Body of God is the Shadow of God.
The finite is the false.
Form is zero.
Imagination is changeableness.
That which is destructible is the dream.
Duality is Illusion.
Non-Duality is Reality.
What is new is what is naught.]

(Good Friday)

The Heart of Illusion

"Emptiness" in Buddhism is analogous to "maya" in Advaita Vedanta. Both point to the (relative) unreality of phenomenal existence, when compared to the (utter) reality of the un-conditioned. Thus, neither "emptiness" nor "maya" is sheer non-existence, as a "maya-vada" interpretation of the Buddhist Heart Sutra demonstrates:

Thus have I once heard:

The Blessed One [i.e., the Buddha] was staying in Rajagrha at Vulture Peak along with a great community of monks and great community of bodhisattvas, and at that time, the Blessed One fully entered the meditative concentration on the varieties of phenomena called the Appearance of the Profound. At that very time as well, holy Avalokitsevara, the bodhisattva, the great being, beheld the practice itself of the profound perfection of wisdom, and he even saw the five aggregates as an illusion of inherent nature. Thereupon, through the Buddha's inspiration, the venerable Sariputra spoke to holy Avalokitsevara, the bodhisattva, the great being, and said, "Any noble son who wishes to engage in the practice of the profound perfection of wisdom should train in what way?"

When this had been said, holy Avalokitsevara, the bodhisattva, the great being, spoke to venerable Sariputra and said, "Sariputra, any noble sons or daughters who wish to practice the perfection of wisdom should see this way: they should see insightfully, correctly, and repeatedly that even the five aggregates are an illusion of inherent nature. Form is illusion, illusion is form, Illusion is not other than form, form is also not other than illusion. Likewise, sensation, discrimination, conditioning, and awareness are illusion. In this way, Sariputra, all things are illusion; they are without defining characteristics; they are not born, they do not cease, they are not defiled, they are not undefiled. They have no increase, they have no decrease.

"Therefore, Sariputra, in illusion there is no form, no sensation, no discrimination, no conditioning, and no awareness. There is no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind. There is no form, no sound, no smell, no taste, no texture, no phenomenon. There is no eye-element and so on up to no mind-element and also up to no element of mental awareness. There is no ignorance and no elimination of ignorance and so on up to no aging and death and no elimination of aging and death. Likewise, there is no suffering, origin, cessation, or path; there is no wisdom, no attainment, and even no non-attainment.

"Therefore, Sariputra, since the bodhisattvas have no obtainments, they abide relying on the perfection of wisdom. Having no defilements in their minds, they have no fear, and passing completely beyond error, they reach nirvana. Likewise, all the Buddhas abiding in the three times clearly and completely awaken to unexcelled, authentic, and complete awakening in dependence upon the perfection of wisdom.

"Therefore, one should know that the mantra of the perfection of wisdom - the mantra of great knowledge, the precious mantra, the unexcelled mantra, the mantra equal to the unequalled, the mantra that quells all suffering - is true because it is not deceptive. The mantra of the perfection of wisdom is proclaimed:

tadyatha - gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha!

Sariputra, a bodhisattva, a great being, should train in the profound perfection of wisdom in that way."

Thereupon, the Blessed One arose for that meditative concentration, and he commended holy Avalokitsevara, the bodhisattva, the great being. "Excellent!" he said. "Excellent! Excellent! Noble child, it is just so. Noble child, it is just so. One should practice the profound perfection of wisdom in the manner that you have revealed - the Tathagatas rejoice!" This is what the Blessed One said.

Thereupon, the venerable Sariputra, the holy Avalokitsevara, the bodhisattva, the great being, and that entire assembly along with the world of gods, humans, asuras, and gandharvas, all rejoiced and highly praised what the Blessed One had said.

A few notes:

1. "An illusion of inherent nature" replaces the original "empty of inherent nature". In Buddhism, to be empty of inherent nature is to be (1) impermanent; (2) unsatisfactory; and (3) without an unchanging "core". In Advaita Vedanta, these three characteristics can also be used to describe "the power of maya", or "illusion"; and the phrase "an illusion of inherent nature" could be understood advaiticly as describing how "inherent nature", or the un-conditioned reality, actually serves as the basis for the appearance of illusion. "An illusion of inherent nature" refers to the illusion of (or "produced by" and "not different from, nor the same as") inherent nature.

2. "Form is illusion, illusion is form" replaces the original "Form is empty, emptiness is form". By "form" is meant specifically matter-and-energy of the kind known to modern Western science; but "form" is also short-hand for all of phenomenal reality.

3. "Illusion is not other than form, form is also not other than illusion" replaces "Emptiness is not other than form, form is also not other than emptiness". In Buddhism, the human body, the form-body, is the site of enlightenment. No human body, no form-body, means no illusion, no emptiness, and thus no enlightenment.

4. Enlightenment, liberation, salvation require illusion, require emptiness. If things were not impermanent, no change would be possible. If things gave perfect and total satisfactions, humans would not seek the un-conditioned. If things possessed an unchanging "core", humans would be fulfilled by grasping such things. However, because those three characteristics of the phenomenal worlds are true, the realization of nirvana or Brahman is possible. In Buddhism, the existence of emptiness means the creation, existence, and further-existence of the worlds. Emptiness makes possible freedom from suffering. Likewise, in Advaita, illusion means that things can change, develop, evolve. Without illusion, there is no possibility for growth, for learning. Because illusion is, the world can be enjoyed. The very possibility of enlightenment, liberation, or salvation is only due to the existence of illusion.

In the Other Direction

Illusion is impermanent (anicca).
Illusion is inconstant (dukkha).
Illusion is bounded (anatta).

Reality is permanent (nicca).
Reality is constant (sukha).
Reality is unbounded (atta).

Existence includes both illusion and reality.

Illusion in itself is imperfect.
Reality in itself is imperfect.
The marriage of illusion and reality,
when man becomes God, or
when God becomes man,
is the realm of Perfection.

The consummation of the marriage
is hidden in maya.
Sneak up behind maya,
in the other direction,
and you find the key
to consummation,
the ever-blissful, ever-powerful, ever-present
scientific-tantric union
of Beloved and Lover.

The Energy of Maya

For hard-core maya-heads:

Concerns about Vedanta, Siddhanta and Maya

One concern that may arise in discussing monism in Saiva Siddhanta is that to accept an ultimate identity between God and soul (monism) would be tantamount to adopting Adi Sankara's (788-820) Advaita Vedanta philosophy. In fact, the pluralistic arguments above were originally formulated as a refutation of his Vedanta. This concern can easily be allayed. Saiva Siddhanta and the Vedanta expressed in the Vedas are not two irreconcilable views. Tayumanavar sang, "Vedanta is the fruit on the tree of Siddhanta." Satguru Siva Yogaswami taught us that "Siva is the God of Vedanta and of illustrious Siddhanta," and "Vedanta and Siddhanta we do not see as different" (nt. 166, 41, 64, 87). Monistic Saiva Siddhanta embodies both Siddhanta and Vedanta. More precisely, Vedanta is the summit of the vast mountain of Siddhanta; monistic Siddhanta is the whole, and Vedanta is the part, the highest part of that whole. Here we speak of Vedanta not as the denial of all but the Absolute, as in Sankara's view, which regards maya, meaning the entire manifest creation, including the soul and its evolution, as an illusion. Rather, we speak of the original and pristine Vedanta of the Upanishads, a perspective that accepts maya as Siva's grace in form rather than deluding appearance. To the Siddhantin, the world is Sivamaya ("made of Siva"), God's gift to mankind. While Advaita Vedantins hold that the world is nothing but maya (by which is meant illusion) and the greatest obstacle to Brahmavidya, "knowledge of God," Siddhantins see this world as Siva's gracious way of leading us to union with Him.

Let me elaborate for a moment on these two perspectives on maya. One is that maya is illusion, that this world is merely an appearance and not ultimately real at all. The other is that maya is God's loving creation, real and important for our spiritual progress. Devotees ask, "Which is correct? Can it be both?" In every aspect of the path there is the highest and the lowest and the in-between look at things, depending on where you are: on the mountainside, on the top or at the bottom. From Absolute Consciousness, maya is illusion, this is true -- an illusion to be disregarded, a barrier perpetuating the all-pervasiveness of consciousness which, from an even higher realization, is also an illusion. We are speaking of the contest between Parashiva being the Absolute and Satchidananda being the Absolute. So, the dual, dual/nondual and the nondual are the yogi's frustration in these higher states of mind. Once timeless, causeless, spacelessness is realized, all of this falls naturally into place. One sees form, time and causation as an illusion, a relative reality, and within it the mechanism of its own perpetuation of creation, preservation and destruction every microsecond, every second, every hour of every day of every year in the great cycles of time. This is maya. Its complexities are even greater than mathematical equations of all kinds.

So, you have a true/true and you have a true. True/true is seen by the Paramatman, the soul that has realized Parashiva. And the true is seen by the atman who has realized the all-pervasiveness of God. One is on the brink of the Absolute, and the other is the Absolute. Being on the brink of the Absolute is true, but being the Absolute and breaking the seal is the true/true. There you see all of the acts of Siva's play, in all of its many manifestations. Then there is the false/true. The false/true is understanding the true/true and the true, and being able to explain them intellectually but being devoid of experience. The true/true and the true are both of experience.

God Siva has endowed all creation of form with three of His powers, creation, preservation and destruction, and all life, as it is known, maintains itself. A flower creates, preserves and destroys. Microscopic organisms create, preserve and destroy. Because everything is not creating, preserving and destroying at the same time -- the process creates various densities of form, which we Saiva Siddhantins call relative reality. Those who don't understand the creative processes of Siva and the yoga processes of seeing through the ajna chakra, may consider the external world as illusory and a hindrance, or a temptation, to their desire for moksha. Therefore, they emphasize the concept of giving up desire, which is the desire to enter the illusory world and become part of the illusion, thereby giving up advaita; whereas monistic Saiva Siddhantins identify closely to Siva and, as an extension of His will, knowledgeably create, preserve and destroy, and understand themselves. Other organisms do likewise, but without being totally aware of these three functions.

I see maya both as creation, preservation and destruction -- and as illusion. The mechanism and the fact form the perspective of Parashiva. You have to realize that when the seal at the crown chakra is broken, the whole perspective changes and you see everything from the inside out, and you, to yourself, are the center of the universe. There is no doubt about it. And every manifestation of maya, which itself is manifestation, and the intricacies of anava and the complexities of karma can be and are seen through.

-- Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami

The Fulfillment of Illusion

Various philosophical traditions, both East (Advaita Vedanta, e.g.) and West (certain esoteric systems), have been criticized for positing that what we humans normally think of as reality is actually an "illusion". In a critical essay on the cinematic phenomenon entitled The Matrix, an insightful commentator contrasts the radically non-dualist notion of "illusion" and the Christian belief that reality, or creation, is "good":

Christians don't believe that this whole world is deceptive
illusion ("maya"). We believe that it is created good, very good, and filled
with the presence of God. "The heavens are telling the glory of God" (Ps
19:1). All creation reveals his presence. It isn't saying, "Look over there!"
to keep us distracted from him.

Certainly, one can interpret the radically non-dualist idea of the phenomenonal creation as "illusion" in a negative manner: since creation is illusion, it must be deceptive, untrustworthy, false; and thus living a normal life within the family, within the world, within phenomenal creation, must be abandoned, ignored, and rejected. But to interpret "illusion" thusly is to forget the total context that "illusion" operates within radical non-dualism. To interpret "illusion" thusly would be analogous to focusing on the Christian idea of eternal damnation at the expense of the more primary idea of God's infinite mercy and love. It would also be analogous to stressing the Buddhist idea of all phenomenal events as "dukkha", or "unsatisfactory", while forgetting that the very existence of the "un-satisfactory" in Buddhism guarantees the possibility of realizing the "satisfactory", or nibbana/nirvana.

There are two senses in which "illusion" is used. In the radical non-dualism suggested by Meher Baba, "illusion" is contrasted with permanence-constancy-infinity: "illusion" is thus that which is impermanent, inconstant, and finite. However, permanence-constancy-infinity, being truly infinite, also indeed contains and includes "illusion", ultimately. Thus, the impermanent, the inconstant, the finite is really God, or Reality, or Truly Good.

However, most of us haven't realize this equation. So the second sense of "illusion" means "false attachment". False attachment to lust, anger, and greed perpetuates the belief that the impermanent, the inconstant, and the finite are not really God, not really Reality, not Truly Good. It is illusion-as-false-attachment that is truly deceptive and debilitating, because it blocks and prevents seeing God, Reality, and the Truly Good in, through, and as the impermanent, the inconstant, and the finite. However, even false attachment to lust, anger, and greed serves a higher purpose: they allow us to fully experience what it means to be distanced and separated from God, and thus to infinitely appreciate the Godness of God when God is realized.

Consciousness and awareness of the non-God, of creation, of the impermanent, of the inconstant, and of the finite, is the only way to allow consciousness and awareness of God to flower. To be deceived into thinking that the non-God exists is part of the process of spiritual maturation. The purpose of creation is to see God in, through, and as creation. The purpose of creation is truly good, even if our current perception of creation as non-God is a perception that does not represent the ultimate fulfillment of human happiness.

The Logic of Illusion

The Advaita school of Vedanta, and the Wujudiyyah school of Sufism, both teach that existence is not-two, or not-more-than-one. In simple terms, all is God.

The idea that all is God is quite logical, given certain commonly accepted definitions of God. If God is truly "infinite" in all ways, then God is indeed not simply "in all" or "everywhere", but simply "all". All of this is God, utterly and indubitably. Whatever is not apparently "God" is, thus, not really real; it is false and an illusion.

Does this mean that the world in which we live, should be thought of as "false", an "illusion"? Should the blue sky, the singing birds, the vast ocean, the cup of coffee, the bright face, the sonorous speech, should all of that be dismissed as false and illusory? Should we try to negate all of that, in the search for the really-real God?

Not at all. To start from the assumption "God is the only reality" or "God is all" is to put the cart before the horse, to violate the true logic of illusion. As an Avatar once said, "God cannot be explained...God can only be lived", pointing to the spiritual fact that God is not subject to human understanding, or human conceptualization, or captivity within human thought. God can only be lived; God can only be loved. And the living-loving of God starts from the living-with-and-loving-of our world, our fellow non-human creatures, and our human brothers and sisters. This true love of God means the surrender of our selves, and the ultimate realization of God as the true Self. This realization involves a radical revolution of consciousness, the implicit knowing that change, instability, and finiteness are not real, are indeed false and illusory.

The realization of God as truth, as reality, does not mean that the blue sky, the singing birds, the vast ocean, the cup of coffee, the bright face, or the sonorous speech, are then negated into "nothingness". They were already "nothing" to begin with -- that is, as entities existing independently of God. Instead, they are "gated" into Somethingness, into reality and truth, into God. But, from the everyday perspective, all these things do seem to exist independently of God; and from the God-perspective, such an existence is truly illusory and false. True existence, whether that existence takes the form of the world, life, or humanity, is existence-from/of/as-God.

The proper approach to Wujudiyyah or Advaita doesn't start with "believing" that the appearances around us are illusions, or with negating the matter/energy cosmos in which we live. Such a path could easily divert us from the proper critique of existence-independent-of-God, and into a mere negation of existence itself. Instead, the proper logic starts with living with God, loving God, and thus loving the world, others, and ourselves; and then letting that process reach its radical conclusion, in its own sweet time.

The Birth of Illusion

Thus though the whole world of duality is only an illusion, that illusion has come into being for a significant purpose.

-- Meher Baba, Discourses, vol. 1, 6th ed. (San Francisco: Sufism Reoriented Inc., 1967), 164.

"Illusion" was the term Meher Baba often used to describe the world of everyday existence; of the five elements (water, fire, air, earth, ether), the subtle fabric, and the mental factors; of hot and cold, near and far, lust and hate. As seen from the quote above, though, "illusion" did not refer to non-being and total non-existence. Illusion, in fact, possesses being and does exist. Otherwise, how could illusion ever be perceived, conceived, or known? But there's something about illusion that separates it from non-illusion, or reality. Reality is that which does not change, that which is totally stable, that which is infinite. In short, reality is God. God, being infinite, is the only reality. From the perspective of the everyday world, however, God is not the only reality; God is hardly any reality at all, it seems! The world, our bodies, our energies, our feelings, our intellect, our causal-souls, are all changing, none are stable, and not one is infinite. (In traditional Buddhist terms, the world is anicca and dukkha.) And yet, God is non-changing, stable, and infinite -- indeed, God is the really real, and the only true existence -- mocking our perceptions and conceptions of what we think the world is. Thus, that which is "illusion" is that which is changing, non-stable, and finite; since, from the God-perspective, only God is really real and thus all else must be not-really real, or illusory. But the not-really real is indeed real, from the world-perspective. Indeed, the not-really real is God, since God, being infinite, contains everything, both the really real and the not-really real.

Illusion (the changing, the non-stable, the finite) is real, but it is not reality. Illusion is a "play" (Latin: "ludere", "to play") with"in" reality, a play with a cosmically important function. This is God's play. We're just actors in it, but actors acting with a purpose. How can you beat God, dear reader?

The Susie Q Sutras

Sutra 1: Maya is a process, not a substance.
Sutra 2: Maya is a power, not an entity.
Sutra 3: When the process ends, substance remains.
Sutra 4: When the power ends, entity remains.
Sutra 5: Befriend the process, the power; and liberate maya.

The Susie Q Gita

Billy Bob: Dontcha' know, Susie Q, that all of this is only God? We think that this car here is a car, and this tree over yonder is a tree. But we think these things in the wrong way. Only God is real.

Susie Q: OK, Billy Bob. So what else is new?

Billy Bob: Dontcha' see, Susie Q? We're thinking, and therefore, speaking and acting, in the wrong way. This whole process of wrong living, of wrong thinking, is called 'maya'. Whatever is wrong, must be immediately replaced with what is right!

Susie Q: Billy Bob, so what are you fixin' to do?

Billy Bob: Well, I'm gonna get me some right thinking under my cap. I'm gonna keep in my mind, the idea that maya is not really real, but is something we humans create. I'm gonna keep in my mind, the idea that maya is not really real, only God is really real. Maya is illusion and the source of further illusion. I'm gonna refuse to suffer the slings and arrows of maya, and take up arms against maya's unreality. I won't sleep until my work against the un-real, against illusion, against maya, is completed!

Susie Q: Good Lord, Billy Bob, you done gone off the deep end!

Billy Bob: Silence, woman! The only way to realize reality, is to defeat that which is not real. We're all wallowing in maya like a pig in mud on a hot summer's day!

Susie Q: Billy Bob, your son was harvesting the corn last week, right?

Billy Bob: Uhh...yeah?

Susie Q: And the week before that, he could barely walk home from the bar. Which of these two sons of yours, do you think, represents your son at his best?

Billy Bob: Well, when he was harvesting, he was working and making something of himself, and also helping out with the chores. When he was drunk, he nearly got himself clobbered by a tree. So, I reckon, he was at his best when he was working.

Susie Q: And how did he go from being drunk, to working on the farm, all diligent and all?

Billy Bob: Let me figure here. I took him in, fed him, got his papers in order, signed him up for AA, and took care of his debts. He owes me about $20,000 by now.

Susie Q: So you cared for him, and loved him, and he was able to go from drunk to gung-ho harvester.

Billy Bob: So what's your point, Susie Q?

Susie Q: My point is quite elementary, Billy Bob. You can't fight against maya, illusion, unreality, as if it were some dragon you fixin' to slay. You have to look at maya with soft eyes, willing to go into the trenches with unreality, ready to become bosom buddies with illusion. Love the car, which apparently is different from God; revel in the tree, which apparently is different from God. Only by fully accepting maya, and renouncing the desire to destroy or even change, maya, can you allow maya to fulfill its purpose. Aim your arrows of love towards maya, rather than scheming for maya's dissolution. Love maya! And then see if maya can resist your love.

Vallabham Saranam Gacchami

Vallabha means Beloved. Unlike Sri Sankara, Sri Vallabhacharya posited that only God is real, and rejected the notion of maya (or the "illusory power of God"), since to assume the existence of maya would violate God's utter sole reality.

Vallabham saranam gacchami: I take refuge with the Beloved.