Maya and the Illusion of Perception and Reality in the World

In the Hindu and Buddhist tradition there is the mention of Maya, which is generally defined as the illusion we face in our everyday lives. It is Maya (literally meaning “Not-That”) that blocks our true perception of Reality, Truth and the real meaning of life.

But where exactly does this illusion lie? In other words, what creates this illusion or gap between our perception of the world and its reality, the “such-ness” of the world. Is it inherent in the source itself; is the world itself not real but an illusion, or does the problem exist because of our “perception” of the world? Does it reside in our minds then?

It is a worthwhile question. If what looks like reality is indeed reality, if there is a “real” material world out there, then we would not have to doubt it anymore. Instead it would become a psychological matter of “cleansing” the mind, of attempting to see things as they really are.

I would spend less time philosophically and existentially on examining (the) matter, but will see and accept everything as truly and undoubtedly there. Seeing will be believing. And I would say, hey listen, Descartes, the world out there exists, I exist as well, now let us synchronize the two and achieve a vision of truth and reality. We do not look at the world existentially anymore, but rather psychologically.

This is not Plato's posture, however. To Plato the world is simply appearance. All things have a perfect eternal source, but the way they appear is only its copy, an imprint, an imitation. The Form is itself the true object while many diminutive forms exist in the world. It is like a fax; the imprint is the same, but it is only a copy of the original document. At its extreme, all things on Earth no matter how faithful they look are “forgeries” then.

What would such a worldview entail? This would mean that we need to “train” our mind to be able to see through things as they appear in order to get a glimpse of its real ultimate Source or Form. This is, in Platonic tradition, achieved through reason and deductive logic.

Still there would be a gap there that could be filled with the concept of God or a Supreme Being. The highest good there is would be perfect and eternal in nature, just as the monotheistic religious tradition claims. The world we see in our daily lives are only shadows on the wall compared to the true life and meaning in the other heavenly world. That was one of the reasons why Plato became a perfect mouthpiece for the Christian religion.

On the other hand, to return to our first argument, if the world is the Form itself – if the two of them are identical and match perfectly - then there would be nothing beyond our world; therefore, an idea about a Platonic Form as the real essence would be a case of faulty thinking or simply Maya. If the Reality is there, right in front of our noses, it is our own fault of being too blind or too confused to perceive it as it is.

Which one is it then? There is an example in Buddhist thought that may be reconciled with Plato's ideas. It goes with the saying that the map is not the territory or that the finger pointing to the moon is not the moon itself. In my opinion, this is true.

The world as we see it is in fact a perfect case of illusion. With modern technology we have been able to delve deeper into the subatomic world and there is definitely more than meets the eye. These findings will have sooner or later repercussions on our religious and philosophical beliefs.

The world becomes then a veil created, sustained and incorporated by the Cosmos. Now the Cosmos could be the embodiment of Brahman in the Hindu tradition or God as defined in the Christian tradition. This view, however, would mean that God is the world and that has a mystic flavor to it (what some Christians would define as a "bitter taste"). It can be reconciled with Plato's views and is Spinozian in nature.

And at this point, we have suddenly turned full circle and combined what seemed like a gap between two perceptions. Perhaps the world is really one whole, both interacting and harmonious within its little parts or monads, as Leibniz would say. Maya may lie in the faulty assumption that there is indeed any gap between the two. One is the other the same way drops make up the ocean.

At best, this is a positive and comforting conclusion and may satisfy and embrace most religions. At its worst, it may add to the endless pathways of Maya. It would be then like looking from a mirror into a reflection in a mirror with absolutely no idea which the real source is or whether such a thing actually exists. We would be caught up in an indeterminate web of self-propagating lies and mirrored deception with nothing solid to fall back on. For better or worse, I prefer the previous option.

The Tree of Knowledge: God, Gnosticism and the Bible

One of the main tenets of gnosticism is that the Bible is misleading. This does not necessarily mean that the Bible is wrong, but rather that it has been twisted and contorted over the centuries. It has become a document that is purported to be drowning instead of upholding the original truth; its truth may reveal itself in a close study, yet only in the form of flecks or sparks according to the gnostic tradition.

The main premise is that the God represented in the Western tradition is not the ultimate or “real” God. He is, in fact, not even the most powerful, yet the most ambitious and – yes, you guessed it – the most jealous. This might explain the horrible acts that this god, or demiurge, commits, especially in the Old Testament. In other words, this god is seen as the spoiled child of the mother of god, known as Sophia, meaning in this case "eternal wisdom."

Does any of this make sense or is it simply heresy? One thing that strikes me despite my dislike and hesitance towards this interpretation is that it could somehow shed light on problems I have with certain events in the Bible. It might give me an answer to the problem of evil, Adam and Eve, problems with gender – at times in form of blatant misogyny - and the general non-acceptance of other religions.

First, let us start with Adam. He was in paradise with not much to do. The jealous god, or again demiurge, could not prevent that some of the “higher echelon” or “executive” gods put a tree of knowledge in this supposed paradise. So this god of the Bible decides to entertain Adam with various delights, including a beautiful woman made in his image. This would help lull Adam and prevent him from seeing and understanding the truth.

Now here is when the interpretation becomes twisted and why gnosticism is branded as "devil worship," or inversely why some followers of gnosticism accuse Christians to be following -unwillingly - the “evil one.” According to gnostic tradition, a senior god appears for the first – but not the last – time in this Bible, as a snake! He wants Adam and Eve to understand the truth and to see and think for themselves. In other words, he wants them to realize that the paradise they are living in is fake and so is their god for that matter.

And the snake does not address Adam, but Eve. She as a female is blessed with intuition and quickly believes the messenger. What is often supposed to be a “weakness” is reverted into strength. Eve later persuades Adam, and they both partake of the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge. And suddenly truth dawns upon them. They are as enlightened as a Buddha.

The jealous god finds out. He is furious. He wants to kill and destroy them. He curses them. He gives Eve, the instigator, a curse to haunt all women: labor. And he ejects both of them from paradise with the “gift” of suffering and death.

At various times the demiurge gets angry at humans and attempts to annihilate everyone in the process. The higher gods manage to save Noah from this god's wrath and, as such, humanity continues its existence. Then the jealous god comes up with specific rules claiming that he is the only one to be worshiped and that grave punishment waits for all those who do not. He talks of eternal damnation and induces fear in all people. He says believe only in me and do not have any other gods or idols; he does so lest they find out the truth the same way Adam and Eve have.

After eons of looting and destruction on earth, the executive gods send their own messenger to pave a new path. It is Jesus. He is the truth embodied and comes as a healthy counterbalance to the vengeful and even bloodthirsty god. He proclaims peace. He preaches acceptance. And he transmits secret knowledge to his apostles.

The jealous god has him crucified. But the popularity of Jesus has grown rapidly so instead of dismissing him as a heretic, he actually embraces him and calls him his son. If you can't fight them, join them! All this happened out of necessity, and it might explain the subsequent split of the Bible as it is suspended between violence and peace, vengeance and love.

What to make out of all this? If you disagree with it, it makes at least good fiction and an interesting hypothesis. It is a novel and different interpretation and gives food for thought. It can, at best, put things into perspective.

To me the forbidden tree parable offered by traditional sources leaves me rather confused. Why would God tempt people for no particular reason and why would be it a bad thing to have knowledge? Why would God seem so insecure and try to shield us from that? What does he have to hide?

At the same time, the gnostic hypothesis would explain the problem of evil. Evil exists then because the higher powers are in conflict, something that happened often in Greek and Roman mythology. There would be no all-powerful god controlling everything but rather a constant struggle for power.

This would also shed light on some of the excruciating violence in the Bible. Why nearly destroy the whole of the human race? Why is there such a huge difference between the Old and the New Testament in its depiction of God. Could we – or rather should we – choose only the aspects of the Bible that we respect most? Is the Bible to be taken literally, figuratively, seen as analogy, philosophy, literature, as the Word of God?

Although the issues that gnosticism raises about the Bible and God may have some appeal in a sort of devil's advocate manner, it does not mean that gnosticism is necessarily true. However, there is no doubt that historically many people in power have altered or changed the Bible and/or its interpretation for political or social motives.

Women had to take the brunt in most of this and “original sin” has been the proposed reason and justification for various “witch hunts” on the female species. At the same time, various parts and even gospels of the Bible have been suppressed or discredited over the years perhaps because they did not fit or benefit the ideology of those in power. There are many issues in organized religion that one ought to reflect upon and be wary about, and one should not simply and blindly accept everything as given truth. Now where is that tree of knowledge when you need it most!

It's a Wonderful Life: Christmas from a Father's Point of View

So it is that time of Father Christmas again. Surprisingly, I am not really in much of a Christmas mood (yet) but there are certain vibes in the air. Alas no snow here to bathe all in its traditional white glow but then again there are still a few more days left.

Anyhow, Christmas and with it Santa may have a new admirer this year: my two-year-old son. He had his first encounter with the big bearded ho-ho-ho fellow at the mall. And my son was more than thrilled. He is asking Santa to get him a garbage truck.

All this aside, I must say there is also a cynic in me. Call him Mr Humbug. Christmas sometimes seems like a bunch of baloney, a calculated, mean-spirited attempt to exploit and capitalize on people's sentiments in order to make money. Heck, it is generally believed or rather known that Christ wasn't even born around this time. I do not want my child to be spoon-fed blatant lies!


And yet, I cannot deny the fact that there is more to Christmas. My son's and along with it many a child's expression. The sense of wonder that will envelop my son like a warm blanket. His excitement. His joy of a world of magic, and peace and love and reindeer flying across the sky carrying a jolly fat man who traditionally despite his plump weight climbs through chimneys.


Sooner or later my son will discover and know the truth of the nonexistence of Father Christmas and another magical bubble will have burst. And reality will dawn upon him. This is some magic that I have never really been part of. Something that I have missed out in my past. Christmas has often missed its spark.


Something has been amiss despite or because of the frantic efforts of my family to create that kind of Christmas-like atmosphere. Yet its deeper noncommercial and joyous aspects have resonated within me on an intimate and personal level. I would listen to Bach's Weihnachtsoratorium or watch the monumental Jesus of Nazareth.


Most of those personal traditions or rituals have changed now. This year we are treeless, not because of any convictions, but perhaps mostly because of laziness (on my part). Or stinginess. Or busyness. Or again maybe because the Christmas mood is rather slow to set in.


Just recently I watched a renowned seasonal movie in an attempt to instill the Christmas spirit within, namely the good old-fashioned Capra's It's a Wonderful Life with Jimmy Stewart. And yes, all the hype around this little jewel is more than deserved. It moved and thrilled me and revealed perhaps what may be the true face of Christmas under all the commercial glitter and confetti.


A time for peace, a time for new beginnings, a time for re-evaluation of what one has taken granted the whole year. And to hug those close to you. And to believe in all that is in cosmic harmony, the unseen world behind the seemingly trivial and insignificant. Merry Christmas to you and remember no man is a failure when you have friends! Or rather, no man or woman is a failure period.