Talk:Maya (illusion)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I feel Maya as illusion, has three pargamtics within its semantics. Maya (illusion) as used in Philosphy, The Vedantic Maya and the Buddhist Maya. These three concepts are similar yet has subtle diffrences.
Contents |
[edit] Makyo should not redirect here
Makyo is a distinct concept from Zen and should not redirect to Maya:
- The Zen term makyo, meaning bedevilling illusions, refers to the hallucinations and mental disturbances that arise during the course of intensive meditation and are often mistaken by the practitioner as enlightenment or kensho.
[edit] changes
Edits on June 14th seem to have eliminated some previous contributions, without comment or justification. -Tim
[edit] Matrix
Would a Matrix referrence be appropriate? It certainly evolved from Maya.--Scix 12:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Don't forget Star Wars[1] --Ne0Freedom 04:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ne0Freedom (talk • contribs)
[edit] Schopenhauer
Schopenhauer's philosophy of WORLD AS WILL AND IDEA also evolved from the same concept of Maya. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.7.175.2 (talk) 20:24, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mulholland Drive
I removed the following text:
The nightclub Club Silencio in the film Mulholland Drive alludes to the concept of Maya through the repeated phrase: "No hay banda." (There is no band). Though seemingly real, all the music in the club is illusionary, provided by a tape recording.
Does anyone have a source for that claim? It sounds like someone is throwing out their theory of a movie that was hard to understand to begin with. If you can source it, put it back, but this isn't a place for new theories or unsourced material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.184.99 (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] just added connection to exact science
i hope noone deletes it as whole. i want to be sure that those old guys - hindus(or whatever) sorry ;) were just really smart MATEMATICIANS.
and i want to begin a little heretic thing here by sayng so. and adding that this religion can be took to exact science and more-less say same stuff if one makes comparation (of course it will can not be more exact).
and i just do not get those stories. they are full of inexact and religious references. what is it good for? i believe (and believe that it was proven, for example nietzche killed god ;) im kidding but there has to be proof ) that they are misleading for human minds. no offense please.
i just do not see how this all mumbo jumbo stuff around some pretty simple thoughts can be good for anything. i really do not like whole libraries being full of it. i do not want to burn books. no. i mean that, well guys read it aloud in front of someone who is not of the same herd.
i myself feel weird talking about programming in front of non-programmers. i am a sheep in programmers herd. well i may start bringing here maya is the same some as first enlightenment of programmer data = algorithms. Gods of programmers knew that. later people developed lot of mumbo jumbo and hide this stuff away.
i say good. hide the stuff. tell stories. so far ok. but it is very dangerous for some minds take those stories as truth not the stuff behind them. some minds just do not see that data (stories) = algorithms (purpose of those stories). stories are to be told. they are inexact.
mathematics strive to be exact.
feel free to se goddel. who proven enclosed system cannot prove itself ....
i hope you all open to world.
and i believe that you are kind to lost souls as me and answer and develop my stuff. otherwise i was wrong thinking you were thinkers.
i said what i had on mind. no hiden sh*t. very probably someone will delete my post. hope some mind will see it before that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.16.123.194 (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- This is an encyclopedia. It is a place for verifiable statements, not your own spiritual musings or vague proselytizing. The "Circle of Knowledge" section contains no citations, not to mention it is completely unintelligible and grammatically incorrect. The fact that you added it knowing that it will be deleted just hoping "some mind will see it before that" goes against the whole goal of Wikipedia. At best, this is unverifiable POV, at worst it is spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.207.114 (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sources
This article, while interesting, needs sources. Perhaps users should also begin posting possible places to find reliable sources for this article.Bless sins (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

