EL: In talk number 11 of the Vedanta 16 part series, Which I am following with keenest interest (it’s great)… James uses the metaphor of appearances in a mirror to explain how awareness shines on Maya, such that objects are “reflections”. This is a very powerful explanation.
Sundari: The mirror is a powerful metaphor. However, it needs some work. Awareness does not strictly shine ‘on’ Maya because Maya is not a person, though there is no Maya without Awareness. Maya is the name for beginningless ignorance, a power that exists in Awareness. It is the reflecting medium for the reflection (apparent creation/jiva) to appear. It would be more correct to say that Maya is the mirror, and the reflection in the mirror is the mind, appearing as reflected awareness, the jiva or personal egoic entity. The mirror (Maya) and the mind (mithya) are both objects known to Awareness.
Maya is not always manifest, but when it does manifest, the effects of ignorance appear; this is called mithya, the world of objects, both subtle and material. Though neither the reflecting medium nor the reflection are real, they exist only because their essence is Awareness. Neither are inherently aware though they seem to be because the light of Awareness shines on the mind and all objects. You can see this light of intelligence shining in the whole creation.
As stated, Maya is not a person – it is an impersonal principle. But when Maya covers the mind, it is deluded into identifying with the reflection in the mirror, taking it to be real, and its true identity. Awareness however, is unaffected by Maya, both as Macrocosmic ignorance, and as avidya, personal microcosmic ignorance. Only the jiva, who is actually the Self, under the spell of ignorance is affected.
The Self is ever-free, it does not need moksa. Moksa is only for the jiva under the spell of ignorance. When the qualifications for self-inquiry manifest and the right teacher appears, Self-knowledge gradually removes the spell of duality (ignorance) and restores the mind to its rightful nondual origin – pure unborn, ever-present, unchanging, Awareness. That is moksa.
EL: And yet, 2 thoughts come to mind, I would have asked him right there could I have, so I’ll ask you and hope I can get past these. First, reflections in a mirror are invulnerable. If I fired a gun into the reflection only the mirror would break. If however I fired the gun into myself it would be disastrous. This gives me a quandary on how to understand objects as merely reflections. They are not subject to consequences. How can I equate lived experience with mere visual reflection?
Sundari: You still have a satya / mithya confusion, as I explained previously. You (who?) cannot shoot a gun at you, the Self, because you are the only ‘thing’ that is invulnerable. Nothing else is – certainly not the reflection in the mirror which is totally dependent on the one casting the image and on the mirror being present. If you take the reflecting medium away, or the one casting the image, you have nothing.
The mirror, the reflecting medium, is certainly not invulnerable either, because it can shatter. When Maya first appears, there are no jivas, no creation. There is only sattva, pure intelligence, shining brightly, just like a mirror. When rajas and tamas appear, the pure mirror of sattva ‘shatters’ into innumerable forms . All jivas are thus imbued with a tiny ‘piece’ of Maya, the hypnosis of duality, called avidya, or personal ignorance.
AS stated, as the Self, you are unaffected by the presence or absence of anything known to it – which is the definition of any object. If it is known TO you, it cannot BE you. You can use this simple exercise to discriminate between satya and mithya. It is the essence of self-inquiry.
EL: This leads to the follow up. On objects of extreme intensity, say the need to breathe or to urinate or to eat, while the logic of these being mithya is comprehensible, the sheer force of their power over the body or the emotions is overwhelming.
Sundari: Yes, and so what? They are nonetheless objects known to you as the Self, and as such, you are unaffected by anything that goes on in the body, whether through the autonomic system or through conscious volition. Again, you are imposing what belongs to the jiva, mithya, onto the Self, satya.
EL: How can one become detached from physiological necessities? For “optional” objects, getting things we merely want, certainly yes, these can be understood as ignorant attachments. But for vital necessities and primal needs a stronger involuntary force takes over the mind and it becomes nearly impossible to use the knowledge. What do you think?
Sundari: What I know is that you do not understand the basic difference between that which is real, meaning satya, the Self/Consciousness, the only ‘factor’ that is always present, not subject to change, birth or death, and that which is only apparently real, mithya, the jiva and the world it inhabits, that which is not always present, always subject to change, birth and death. Which one do you identify with?
Who says you need to be detached from physiological necessities? The body is the body, it is mithya, but it still needs what it needs to exist. It does not disappear when you know that you as a body/mind are not your true and primary identity. Isvara still takes care of the autonomic system, and we must take care of the body if we want to have a good life, primarily because a body that is ill or in bad shape severely affects the mind. And a mind in distress or diseased is not capable of self-inquiry or peace of mind, which is the primary aim of any true inquirer.
Om
Sundari
