What is 'Maya' and why is it an essential concept within spirituality?

Namaste.

This came up in the other thread I started, and I would like to take the opportunity to expand on it here.

Often, Maya is thought to be a cute way of expressing an ineffable truth, particularly agreeable with an ascetic perspective, ideally, or a misguided deterministic perspective, as it may happen. However it seems that the concept of Maya is really not covered at all in new-age spirituality these days. One is left to consult material of a more Easterly origin, as even suggested by leading new-age figures themselves. To me, this is a disturbing sign, because as the Eastern perspective clearly explains, the concept of Maya is an essential concept within spirituality, if one is to truly realize spiritual evolution. Although it is viewed fairly similarly among different Eastern spiritual faiths on a basic level, there is much debate about its ultimate nature and implications, which for instance is a major distinction between various Buddhist schools of thought. Sort of like debating whether or not the rim of a coin exists, beyond the two sides, within the two sides, simultaneously both, simultaneously neither, etc, etc. So, what is Maya, then?

I'll tell you how I See it.

The term "Maya" signifies that which may be said to be conventional as opposed to fundamental. This would be a wordy affair to express very fully, going by these two contrasting terms. Suffice it to say that where the fundamental is ultimately also the essential, it is the essential that then extends from the fundamental in step with all conventional manifestation from the fundamental, the conventional and the essential remaining juxtaposed in polar interplay of opposites (that is, in correspondences of interrelatedness, interconnectedness, and interdependency) through symbolism of varying degrees. The greater the conventionality (as opposed to fundamentality), the greater the symbolic distance between the conventional and the essential; even the most trivial thing is fundamental in essence. The fundamental is comparable to Brahman for instance, and the essential is like how any "thing" conventional is not a "thing" at all and, actually less and hence greater than "it"self, is actually the fundamental/Brahman. Note that I do not personally use or advocate the term "Brahman" per se, but you get the picture. Instead of continuing in this vein, I wish to rather describe Maya in practical terms, which I find is a truly excellent way to express certain truths at the heart of spirituality (again, not seen in new-age spirituality).

Maya is the illusory world of convention, and although an illusion exists to the extent that it is perceived less it not be perceived at all in the first place, so is it not in-and-of itself real but rather subject to its perception and interpretation. Is this emptiness of something in-and-of itself's 'soul'/essence a positive real emptiness or a negative void emptiness, this is a good example of what schools of Buddhism see differently, but I digress. Maya is the most real thing there is, as nothing infinite exists apart from the finite. If you do not grasp it, therefore, because it is everything, then you miss it entirely (although certainly you can have it one instant and then not the next). For everything is infinity, and the point of Maya is the relative nature of all things that allows for all things to be deconstructed and Seen truly, including and most importantly one's own self. In this sense may one be rather the Self, and in this vein does it drastically change things whether one believes in a personal or in an impersonal divine universal nature (I believe in the latter).

The beauty of all this is that it leaves nothing to faith, for it can all be proven. Like if logic is good for anything, then at this is it truly at its best! A logical grasp of Maya involves recognizing the universal oneness of all things by virtue of the emptiness of all things, where a thing's emptiness is a matter not of non-existence of the thing in-and-of itself but rather of the thing's inevitable and inextricable interrelatedness, interconnectedness, and interdependency with foremost the things around it and indeed ultimately with all things (as the same applies to any "thing"). In this way of learning to See things differently, more truly as they are, one can no longer draw so clear delineating limits and boundaries around anything to take it out of the living breathing whole as if but a static concept suspended in animation (and but representative/symbolic of the "signified"). Here the concept of fractals becomes pivotal, as one Sees patterns and modalities (of the Whole, however you call it) in everything, or rather instead of any "thing" else.

One realizes themselves to be infinitely impermanent, as change is the only constant, and thereby actually more permanent than previously thought, as an eternal point of confluence in the only pattern that ever truly Is, Eternity. The practical results from this kind of contemplation of Maya, governed by the infallible logic of the constancy of change, involve cessation of defining one's self by virtue of the most superficial forms of Maya such as failures/accomplishments, possessions, etc., in favour of more deeply realizing the mindful and silent perspective in life of observer where judgment and definition is only used in order to help clarify one's intent when needed. A key element in this, again rarely discussed very aptly in new-age spirituality, is the realization of one's immortality, which is the flip side of the fear of death. When fear of death is overcome and hence immortality embraced, then all of a sudden life takes on a whole new kind of tone, as life is less rushed, and ironically one accordingly realizes more clearly how to best spend their time.

The area of logic that really makes Maya crucial to the process of one's self-realization, I have saved for last. It is the line of reasoning by which one can no longer deny the illusory nature of conventional reality, so solitary and secret because once one begins to See it then one cannot turn back or look away. Society is built in a way most naturally opposed to this, because such is where humanity is at, and even if the situation is improving then it can still only possible do so safely and surely, at its own pace. This logic has to do with the way one regards humanity, hidden in the sense that the very illusion it dispels is a primary constituent of the 'normal' person's state of awareness and life perspective in the first place. Once realized, then it *will* change everything, and really here I cannot be making reference but to the process of self-realization itself; such is the importance of the concept of Maya.

So this logic is the following. That one's identity just like the identity of anything else is not real, because it is an amalgamation of various variables perceived a certain way in order to stagnate life's passing down to a speed(stupidity) whereby self-control is feasible and easy, the arising of the "I" separate from the self so as to be able to control the self. It has to do with presumptions arising naturally from birth, such as that "I" exist in some sort of permanent way despite the constant passage of time. This implies commonalities between who I am Now and Now and Now and so on, beyond the mere relative constancy of the notion that indeed I do exist and in such and such ways moreover (insert list of failures/accomplishments, possessions, etc.). This can be examined from many angles, which may all be arrived at through logic, and it is these angles that are lacking exposure in new-age spirituality today. For example, how can you exist without the empty space around you to delineate your contour? If you were the entire universe, all within the confines of your body, then you would not be able to do a single thing, since there would be no world outside of you in which to live. Therefore, you do not exist in absolute isolation and sovereign independence from the universe around you, because who "you" presently "are" is mutually contingent with the universe, interrelated, interconnected, and interdependent.

If the same applies to everything, then to what extent is everything "everything" as opposed to one single thing? Then, what is the other side of the argument, what makes anything something in particular? If you take a thing, then you can always break it down into a group of smaller things, and vice-versa any given thing is always a part of countless larger wholes. Considering the human being, a human proper is certainly much more functional than its sum spread out over a distance, an arm there, a leg over here, and head somewhere over there. In what way, then, is the seemingly illusory or at least relative 'whole' so apparently greater than the sum of its parts? What is more or less conventional or fundamental, what is the spectrum across which such difference may be measured? The subjective nature of things involves the space of the present Now as it is structured as well as eternal time as things have been and will be; as everything is a piece of a larger whole and a collection of smaller wholes through space, the same applies through time, and the two always meet in the present, except that some "thing" in space may not be considered a "thing" in time or vice-versa. If change is the only constant, then what but illusion can change, for there must be "something" that always changes if change is the only constant, and yet this "something" cannot be constant for the only constant is change and this "something" is ever subject to this change as opposed to being the actual change itself. Or is it?

Spiritual faiths and ways with a heavy focus on the concept of Maya focus much on the retraction and synthesis/integration of the "I" back into the Self through great contemplation of all the great logic that surrounds this concept. The trouble with expressing Maya as something most real indeed, I think, is that answering all these complicated questions entails nothing less than self-realization itself. Hypotheses, theories, analogies, metaphors, and symbolic representations, none apply, because there is only one reality. Strangely, it seems that to understand the concept of Maya, and the spiritual mysteries of the universe at that, involves only a single thing, self-understanding. The entire process of self-realization is exclusively a matter that is expressed in Blake's saying about being able to see the universe in a grain of sand, and yet despite the overwhelming truthfulness of this statement, as we have considered in this text, the saying still remains "metaphorical", "symbolic", or at the very least, only an example. Indeed, the grain of sand is not you. Well, I mean, it is sort of.. er.. oh you get what I mean!