Brahman and Maya

Hi, Ted.


Maya it is known. Since it is a force. True. It governs the universe. So Maya is seen as Mithya.

Yet Brahman is god when maya is there..and I do not see it as not God allthough maya is seen as god because it can create.


Ted: Technically, Isvara is the creator. Maya is the conditioning principle that makes Brahman appear as the manifestation.

Ingrid: Since the ocean/Isvara  is still water Brahman although it can create waves/objects.


Ted: Yes.

Ingrid: But let us agree to disagree about the Self being God or not.


Ted: Personally, I am okay with agreeing to disagree on this issue. But, strictly speaking, traditional Vedanta says that Brahman is not God-the-creator. Isvara/God is Brahman, just as all objective phenomena essentially are due to the non-dual nature of reality, but Brahman is not Isvara/God in the sense that Brahman is not comprehensively defined as Isvara/God. In other words, Brahman is not only Brahman when it is apparently imbued with relatively limitless iccha (i.e., will), jnana (i.e., knowledge), and kriya (i.e., power) and apparently assumes the role of Isvara, or God, the projector-sustainer-resolver of the manifestation.

Ingrid: Brahman is ok to use. It is anyway Awareness/ Love/ Knowledge which to ne is God byt not for you.


Ted: For Vedanta. For the reason explained above.

Ingrid: Some when  has when becoming enlightened been entitled for Bhagavan. That must be since the God or Self shines through and the vasanas has vanished . It is not because they are Isvara but Brahman since we all as jivas are Isvara but not all of us have realized ourselves and are shining as the pure self as some very purified Sanyasis do..


Ted: Jivas are not Isvara. Isvara is the reservoir of relatively limitless will, knowledge, and power that not only projects the manifestation, but is also the dharma (i.e., body of physical, psychological, and ethical laws) that govern its operation. No apparent individual enjoys the status of God. Since reality is non-dual and the fundamental nature of reality is limitless conscious existence, all jivas, along with all other objective phenomena, are essentially nothing other than Brahman.

Ingrid: I can not convince you of Awareness real being God but you know how I see it.
And I know how you see it and that Isvara is seen as god but not it’s cause .


Ted: Isvara is the cause of all relative objective phenomena. This type of causation is referred to as parinama-upadana-karanam, which is actual transformation. In this type of causation, Maya, the material principle within Brahman, actually transforms into the various forms of the objects we experience.


Brahman is the “cause” of Isvara in the sense that Isvara is dependent on Brahman for its existence, just as waves are dependent on water for theirs. This type of causation is referred to as vivarta-upadana-karanam, which only an apparent transformation. Due to the influence of Maya, Brahman apparently becomes objective phenomena, but the essential nature of Brahman remains unchanged, just as the essential nature of water is not changed whether it takes the form of a wave, bubble, swell, or spray.

Ingrid: It is fine as long as it is limitless awareness. 🙂


Ted: That is the bottom line.

Ingrid: When maya is said to be unknown I think that is not ressonating as totally unknown which unknown would mean .


Ted: I don’t know what you mean.

Ingrid: Since allthough we can not really know all about god since god is not giving all wisdom to one jnani.


But we are shown something and scripture reveils a great deal.


Ted: The implied meaning of scripture points us to that which is beyond words.

Ingrid: While the Self is unknown since we are it and witness creation not the witness.


Ted: This doesn’t make sense. I think it is a language barrier.

Ingrid: But even then we know ourselves as the self/ Consciousness.


Ted: The mind can understand its true nature via the akhandakara vritti.

Ingrid: I just had to ask regarding if maya could not be real aswell since it is is unborn and is allways the potential in Brahman to create.


Ted: Maya is real in the sense that it is a principle existent within Brahman. It is not real in the sense that Brahman, or limitless conscious existence, can hypothetically exist even if Maya does not. That is to say that Brahman is the substrate of Maya, or the principles of obscuration and projection.

Ingrid: So the question is what real is.


Ted: According to Vedanta, what is real is that which does not change and cannot be negated. While the very nature of Maya is change, you could say that Maya itself doesn’t change. Still, Maya cannot exist without the support of Brahman, while Brahman, which is existence itself, exists whether Maya is active or not.

Ingrid: Brahman with the potencial to create/ with the force it is seen as not real.

But without it it is seen as real?


Ted: Yes, for the reasons explained above.

Ingrid: But how is that possible to be real without the inert maya “seed ”  or potential ? How can we seperate or negate the ability to create apart from Brahman?


Ted: For the reasons explained above. Brahman is a more fundamental reality than Maya.

Ingrid: If Brahman IS pure limitless Awareness with the ability to create implisitt in it ?


Ted: We are not separating Maya and Brahman as if they were two different entities. We are determining which is more fundamental, which of the two enjoys independent existence.

Ingrid: Apparantly not since the answer you gave me did not say so but this is why I asked since it is inert unborn and eternal..or the thing is that it is not eternal since it comes and goes and changes.
But the potensial is eternal. Qnd the potencial is called maya.

So it is one Brahman with creative potencial
Wich anyway  can not be taken out of Brahman..

But tge real is not a theory. So i wonder if the real is without creative potencial aswell. To see the  nature of pure limitless awareness.


Ted: Yes, limitless conscious existence is technically without creative capacity. Creativity is an attribute, a known phenomenon, an object. It can be defined and, thus, it is not limitless.

Ingrid: And why do they call it Isvara when Brahman pluss maya is together? Nothing is exept Brahman.
Brahman is the sibstrate or sibstance of all. I really do not see how maya could be without Isvara.
So why is it not called Isvara all of it. Just as maya when maya is never without brahman.


Ted: Because according to your logic, we could say everything is Brahman. But it is not true that Brahman is only Brahman when it takes the form of any particular object or even the collective of all objects. When the universe resolves into the unmanifest state, Brahman doesn’t cease to be. And even the unmanifest state is an objective phenomenon due to the fact that it can be conceived of.

Ingrid: Brahman must just be the witness or the I. This awareness is intelligent and loving  and aware which is what Consciousness is .
The maya must have the exact same qualities. Intelligent loving aware etc.


Ted: Yes, this is what has been said all along. The difference is that Maya is not limitless, while Brahman is.

Ingrid: But somewhere along the line or  in the picture comes action in  that are not seen as good . Caused by the seemingly free will that creates “evil ” on earth because Isvara is both yin and yang or positive and negative as the duality ; pair of opposites.

So Isvara becomes the giver of karma when itself initiates action.


Ted: Yes.

Ingrid: Are we tested by Isvara?


Ted: Not in the sense that we are rewarded or damned, but you could say in a figurative sense that in one way life is a test to see whether we can understand its true nature or remain fooled by its appearance.

Ingrid: Tempted in the way it gives us vasanas or tendencies toward liking and disliking fear and desire for us then to stear away from?


Ted: Likes, dislikes, fears, and desires are not problematic unless we are controlled by them.

Ingrid: Since if we indulge in Isvara that gives consequences ?


Ted: Results or consequences are experience, not a test of our worthiness. We are already Brahman, and as such perfect. The only question is whether we suffer. If we don’t want to suffer, we need to understand the true nature of reality. If we do suffer, however, it is not because we are bad or evil violators of the rules God has set forth for us to obey, but rather simply that we are ignorant.

Ingrid: Brahman is Satya.

It seems as if Brahman maya together is the unknowable  God.

And isvara is mithya.

So maya is between brahman and jagat or isvara shristi.


Ted: Maya is the principle that makes Brahman appear to be something it is not, namely the manifest universe.

Ingrid: I know this body mind is Isvara.


Ted: Nope. The body-mind-sense complex is a product of Isvara. No individual is the all-powerful, all-knowing God.

Ingrid: And the Self or I is Brahman.
Ted: Yes.
And this constitutes the Self.


Ted: Yes. The true self. The apparent person is a portion of Brahman appearing to be a limited individual.

Ingrid: So is it with the universe since the universe is nothing but me etc.


Ted: Yes, though you are not the universe for the reasons previously explained.


Ingrid: The universe is operated by Isvara and is within Bahman.  Consisting of Brahman or Awareness. Just that it is manifest when appearing as the universe.


Ted: Yes.

Ingrid: Yet what operates the world is Isvara  Brahman in maya uphadi.


Ted: Yes.

Ingrid: And the Isvara is not attached to the world since it is god. ..But really it is is it not? As I remembered the machine I am ( one with ) is being operated by an inate force and that is why i am partless part of it. Jiva is Isvara but not equal in power and size..


Ted: Jiva is Isvara in the sense that they share the same fundamental nature as Brahman. But the jiva’s will, knowledge, and power is limited, whereas Isvara’s is relatively limitless.

Ingrid: So the universe IS maya / Isvara?


Ted: Yes.

Ingrid: Maya is impossible to seperate from/ take out of creation. Creation is maya.

At the same time maya IS in Brahman.


Ted: Yes.

Ingrid: I understood it as  the force could exist or be without creation what it creates.
But can it not?


Ted: No. Brahman can exist without creation or a creative force, but Maya/Isvara/manifestation cannot exist without Brahman.

Ingrid: It seems to me that maya CAN be  only with brahman. OR ALSO attached with creation.

As if it can be both god free from creation , and at the same time one with creation.


Ted: God can be without creation. This is the unmanifest state, or what James refers to as the macrocosmic causal body and what traditional Vedanta refers to as avkayta, or the unmanifest state of pure potentiality. Creation, however, cannot come to be without God, the creative principle that is Maya.

Ingrid: So what is it whitout creation?


Ted: Avyakta.

Ingrid: Is it classified as Mithya even when it not creates and are just inert in Brahman?


Ted: Yes.

Ingrid: Many thank’s.