Linda's Literary Home

Tag: Maya

  • The Reality of Human Differences

    Image created by ChatGPT/Grok inspired by the poem
    Image created by ChatGPT/Grok inspired by the poem

    The Reality of Human Differences

    We live in a world where no two people are exactly alike. Human beings possess differing interests, ideas, and intentions, a fact that makes relationships inherently difficult. When you look at how distinct we all are on the inside, it is no wonder that it is so rare for any one human being to develop a peaceful and purposeful relationship with another.

    The Root of the Difficulty

    This struggle for human beings to get along is built right into the fabric of creation. As the unmanifested Spirit, God is pure Bliss, but to create the world, He utilized a cosmic deception called maya—the grand magical measurer [1]. Paramahansa Yogananda explains this cosmic setup [2]:

    Spirit overspread and permeated Its creative desire with cosmic delusion, a grand magical measurer described in Hindu scriptures as maya (from the Sanskrit root ma, “to measure”). Delusion divides, measures out, the Undefined Infinite into finite forms and forces.

    Delusion divides the Undefined Infinite into finite forms. Because of this division, we all navigate existence with avidya, or individual illusion, which makes us feel completely separate from everyone else. Trapped in individual egos, our human condition unfolds through a multiplicity of perspectives.

    Most of our trouble comes from the fact that we look at life through our five senses and limited human minds, yet the senses are unreliable, catching only what happens on the changing, physical level. 

    When the Infinite is chopped up into billions of separate human beings—each shaped by unique experiences, temperaments, and aspirations—individual persons develop their own unique set of desires and motives. With so many different minds running around, it is a mathematical certainty that our intentions will eventually clash.

    The Myth of Effortless Harmony

    These divergences extend beyond mere preferences into our core intentions—the silent drivers of daily choices and long-term paths. Relationships, by their nature, require constant negotiation between these distinct inner worlds.

    The family unit, often idealized as a sanctuary of unconditional unity, frequently illustrates this 

    challenge most acutely. Siblings raised in the same household may develop opposing worldviews, while parents and children encounter generational shifts in values that widen the gap between expectation and reality. 

    Similarly, the marital bond confronts the daily reality of two separate consciousnesses attempting to merge trajectories, and friendships dissolve when evolving intentions pull individuals in irreconcilable directions.

    Because we are wrapped up in personal illusions, finding true harmony with another person is incredibly rare. To achieve a peaceful and purposeful relationship, two people must quiet their egos enough to see past their own selfishness. 

    The inner world of another person—their hurts, thoughts, and true intentions—is entirely ineffable. It resembles the experience of tasting an orange: on the material plane, you can try to describe the taste to someone, but they will never truly know it until they taste it themselves. We can never perfectly climb inside someone else’s mind.

    Dr. David Frawley notes that to find true harmony, we must look deeper [3]:

    We can discover that Divine face and presence of consciousness everywhere, but for this to occur, we must first discover it within our own hearts and in the hearts of all beings.  Most people have not found that presence within themselves yet, so they remain stuck in the outer shell of the ego. And where there is ego, there is friction.

    Redefining Relationship Fractures

    With human nature structured this way, we should not be shocked when things fall apart. Fractured family relationships, broken marriages, and ended friendships are natural phenomena in a dualistic universe. 

    In a material world defined by constant change and division, things come together and things fall apart. Just as creation itself goes through cycles of manifestation and dissolution [4], human relationships go through cycles too. When the underlying reasons that brought two people together expire, the relationship naturally dissolves.

    Society loves to play the blame game, immediately searching for a villain when a relationship fails. Much suffering arises from the imposition of these unrealistic ideals—the belief that true love conquers all differences effortlessly, or that familial duty demands perpetual agreement. When reality falls short, individuals internalize failure or assign fault.

    Assigning bitter blame is usually a mistake. It assumes that everyday human beings have the spiritual power to override the laws of maya at will. Until a person learns to completely quiet the body and the mind so the soul can take over, they will be pushed and pulled by their changing ideas and desires. 

    Broken marriages often reflect the honest recognition that continued union would stifle the authentic development of one or both partners; ended friendships signify the natural completion of a shared chapter rather than betrayal.

    Removing Blame and Accepting Reality

    If we want to have peace of mind, we must accept reality without holding onto resentment. I am Linda Sue Grimes, and as I have mentioned before, I have many aspects and nicknames—Sissy to my sister, Grammy to my grandkids, and Nubbies to my husband. Those roles are a part of my life, but they are not the eternal soul. Human relationships are temporary arrangements on the physical plane.

    By recognizing relationships as dynamic interactions between distinct souls rather than proofs of personal merit, we cultivate compassion and remove blame. When a relationship ends, it is not always because someone is an evil person, but simply because the temporary alignment of their interests has come to a natural end. Accepting this truth softens the blow for postmodern minds constantly hurt by broken hearts.

    When two people do manage to bridge that massive gap and create a beautiful bond, it stands as a genuine, transcendent blessing.  Such connections require conscious cultivation: patience to listen beyond surface disagreement, humility to release the need for complete agreement, and wisdom to honor the other’s path even when it diverges. 

    This understanding aligns with broader spiritual insight. The difficulties of human connection invite the development of virtues—forgiveness, adaptability, and non-attachment—that facilitate progress on the spiritual path.

    Ultimately, the human journey involves balancing the longing for connection with the reality of separateness. When intentions can harmonize sufficiently to allow mutual flourishing, something sacred occurs. When they cannot, releasing the bond with understanding preserves dignity and opens space for new possibilities.

    An Important Caveat

    However, a crucial distinction must be made: relinquishing blame and judgment of others does not mean we suffer fools and criminals. It must be acknowledged that evil does exist in this world of maya delusion, and evil individuals do try to victimize the innocent. 

    The understanding that human intentions diverge because of individual illusion is a philosophical tool for personal peace, not an excuse for passivity or a license for others to do harm.

    Criminals must still be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Society requires structure and protection from those whose delusions manifest as destructive violence or fraud. Furthermore, evil acts that may not be punishable by civil law still require banishment from one’s life. 

    Boundaries are essential; recognizing that an individual is acting out of ignorance or avidya does not mean you must allow them to remain a toxic presence in your domestic or social circle.

    It is simply that crimes against us can be forgiven by us even if they are not forgiven by the legal system. The legal system must punish the act to preserve order on the material plane, but the individual victim can choose to release the burning resentment within their own heart. 

    Forgiveness is a spiritual function of the soul that frees the victim from the karmic tie of hatred, allowing them to move forward in quietude, even as the law takes its necessary course.

    Sources

    [1] Paramahansa Yogananda.  “Maya.”  Self-Realization Fellowship.  Accessed June 22, 2026.
    [2] Editors. “Law of Maya.” Paramahansa Yogananda: The Royal Path of Yoga. Accessed June 22, 2026.
    [3] David Frawley. “Is Hinduism a Monotheistic Religion?” American Institute of Vedic Studies. August 27, 2014.
    [4] Swami Sri Yukteswar. The Holy Science. Internet Archive.  Originally published by Self-Realization Fellowship.

    Sri Yukteswar and “Forget the Past” quotation

  • Emily Dickinson’s “If recollecting were forgetting”

    Image: Emily Dickinson - Amherst College - Daguerrotype of the poet at age 17, circa 1847 - likely the only authentic, extant likeness of the poet
    Image: Emily Dickinson – Amherst College – Daguerrotype of the poet at age 17, circa 1847 – likely the only authentic, extant likeness of the poet

    Emily Dickinson’s “If recollecting were forgetting”

    Emily Dickinson’s speaker in “If recollecting were forgetting” follows a line of thought that mirrors obliquely that of Aristotelian logic—searching for a way of thinking in order to find a way of knowing.

    Introduction with Text of “If recollecting were forgetting”

    Emily Dickinson has been noted for having read and studied widely in history, science, and philosophy, and this little poem could likely have happened after she happened upon the discourses of Aristotle’s Organon.  

    While her speaker seems to be employing, however creatively, the premise of the syllogism, her language choices are so direct and simple that she makes her position quite clear without engaging in the jargon of philosophical logic.

    If recollecting were forgetting

    If recollecting were forgetting,
    Then I remember not.
    And if forgetting, recollecting,
    How near I had forgot.
    And if to miss, were merry,
    And to mourn, were gay,
    How very blithe the fingers
    That gathered this, Today!

    Commentary on “If recollecting were forgetting”

    The speaker is exploring the nature of meaning as it intrudes upon the engagement of the human mind and heart with sorrow and mourning.

    First Movement:  Musing and Meaning

    If recollecting were forgetting,
    Then I remember not.

    The speaker is musing on the nature of meaning, employing the “if/then” structure:  “if” one event occurs, “then” another event follows.  She first employs what appears to be a paradox, rendering one act the opposite of itself.  

    She inverts hypothetically the literal meanings of “recollecting” and “forgetting.”  She is playing both a word game and a meaning game: if the opposite of one act is, in fact, its opposite, then what will happen?

    The speaker specifically claims that she would not “remember,” that is, she would not be “recollecting” if remember meant “forgetting.”  Ultimately, this seemingly confusing turnabout simply emphasizes her strong determination not to forget.  She does not offer any clue regarding what she might remember or forget, but such information is not necessary to this complex philosophically juxtapostional cogitation.  

    The delineation regarding the definition of opposites renders thought both wavy and stationary.  The “if” clause introduces the meaning trade-off, while the “then” clause states a definitive claim.  The mind weaves in considering the “if” clause that reverses the meaning of the terms involved but then returns to a stationary position in order to accept the “then” clause.

    Second Movement:  The Emphasis of Reversal

    And if forgetting, recollecting,
    How near I had forgot.

    In the second movement, the speaker continues her musing on transference but in reverse.   Interestingly, this “if” clause juxtaposition does not result in the same event as when the very same two terms were first offered in opposition to each other. Instead of a stationary claim, the speaker now asserts that she merely got close to “forgetting.” 

     As readers refer back to her original claim in the first movement, they are struck by the fact that she is saying she prizes remembrance over forgetfulness—unsurprising that this speaker of minimalism would make such a choice.

    Of course, in the pairs of opposites that drive the world living under the delusive spell of maya, one of the pairs is nearly always a positive for the good while its opposite is usually considered negative, representing the opposite of good.  In the pairs of opposites focused on here—to forget vs. to remember—the obvious positive of the pair is to remember.

    The complexity of the second premise does lend itself to the difference that the speaker has infixed in the contrast she had created between the first two movements.  That she nearly forgot, but did not completely forget, demonstrates her favoring the positive peg of the pair of opposites, forgetting and remembering.  Thus, if she recalled, which is actually forgetting, she approached that state but did not enter it as she did in the first movement when remembering was actually forgetting.

    Third Movement:   Missing and Mourning

    And if to miss, were merry,
    And to mourn, were gay,

    Having resolved the issue of forgetting and remembering, the speaker moves on to a new set of opposites which are not of the same paired quality as those with which she began in the first two movements.  She is now simply reversing the traditionally accepted nature of missing and mourning.  When an individual is missing a loved one, that individual mourns.  

    When the human heart and mind mourn, they are anything but “gay,” that is, happy or cheerful.  But then the speaker makes it clear that she intends to follow the same line of thinking that she has explored in the two opening movements, the “if/then” structure.  

    But the “then” part of the structure has to wait to be expressed in the next movement because the speaker has now focused on two encompassing acts, not merely word meaning.  If missing someone were considered a happy, cheerful situation instead of “mourn[ing]” that loss, and if mourning the loss, or missing someone were considered also happy, cheerful, then what happens?  

    Instead of an exact tit-for-tat, that is, meaning for meaning, the speaker has offered two negative acts as representing a positive, setting up a mystery as to how this situation can be resolved.

    Fourth Movement:  Nullification or Homogenization

    How very blithe the fingers
    That gathered this, Today!

    Finally, the speaker concludes the implied “then” clause with the excited utterance indicating that the person who has concocted this little exercise has remained cheerfully unconcerned with it all.

     If all that went before were the actual situation instead of being their opposites, then those “fingers” responsible for “gather[ing]” this philosophical pastiche would be proven to be mindlessly unimpressive.  

    “Today!” placed with an exclamation mark heralds the excited notion that turning things upside down in order to look at them from a new position in the present, instead of accepting the pain and anguish of the past and dealing with it.  

    This bizarre heralding impels the mind to stiffen like “blithe . . . fingers.”  Fingers that are heedless, indifferent, and uncaring represent the mind that drives the fingers.  Quite obviously, fingers cannot gather, think, move, or do anything without the mind first engaging with an idea that will drive the activity.  Thus, it is the mind that is blithe working through the fingers.  

    The philosophical result of the four movements concludes that while the positive may be chosen by the masterfully thinking, moving mind, a simple juxtaposition that renders one quality its opposite may rearrange the very atoms of the brain that then will create a world that does not exist and never can.  The push for dominance of one pair of any pair of opposites will result in the nullification or homogenization of any blinkered philosophical stance.

  • Original Song: “Twixt Good and Evil” and Prose Commentary 

    Image: Created by Grok

    Original Song: “Twixt Good and Evil” and Prose Commentary 

    I chose the quotation from Isaiah because it demonstrates the omnipotence and omnipresence of the Almighty Creator.  Some religionists, especially Christian, argue that God is all good and therefore could not have created evil.  But such a claim limits God’s power and ability—an odd thing to do since they claim that God is omnipotent and omnipresent!

    Twixt Good and Evil

    “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.”    —Isaiah 45:7

    Chorus

    In the fight twixt good and evil
    Good will always win;
    For God created the devil
    Just tempt us all to sin.
    God doesn’t cause us to bear sorrow;
    He tries to lead us to His light,
    And His Word guides our tomorrow
    If we learn to read It right.

    First Verse 

    Good morning, Satan!
    Are you doing OK?
    What kinds of nasty
    You going to throw at me today?
    Will my daughter get cancer?
    Will my son fall off his bike?
    Will my husband crash his truck?
    Will my dog lie down and die?

    Second Verse

    Good morning, Devil!
    Are you doing just fine?
    How will you try to tempt me
    To cross that boundary line?
    Will you make me think I’m sexy?
    Will you make me want to flirt?
    Will you take me to a place
    I’d never go without your dirt?

    Third Verse

    Good morning, Lucifer!
    How’s it going, Old Dude?
    What you got in store for me today—
    What kind of rude and crude?
    Will you shine your light on sorrow?
    Will you tempt me to believe
    I’ll be so good tomorrow
    That today I can misbehave?

    Fourth Verse

    Good morning, Maya!
    Of all the things in the fold
    Which one will grab my thoughts today
    To divert me from my goal?
    Will I seize upon another’s mote
    Though there’s one in my own eye?
    Will I hurt anyone whose handy?
    Or will I just sit, sigh, and cry?

    Chorus

    In the fight twixt good and evil
    Good will always win;
    For God created the devil
    Just tempt us all to sin.
    God doesn’t cause us to bear sorrow;
    He tries to lead us to His light,
    And His Word guides our tomorrow
    If we learn to read It right.

    To listen to the recorded version, please visit “Twixt Good and Evil” on soundcloud.

    Commentary on “Twixt Good and Evil”

    Epigram:  “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.”    —Isaiah 45:7

    I chose this quotation from Isaiah because it demonstrates the omnipotence and omnipresence of the Almighty Creator.  Some religionists, especially Christian, argue that God is all good and therefore could not have created evil.  

    But such a claim limits God’s power and ability and at the same time introduces a second force into being.  Because there can be no second force, only God can be responsible for all that exists, including evil.  In the Isaiah quotation, God is speaking and He clearly says, “I . . . create evil.”

    At first, such a claim may seem paradoxical, but just because God creates evil does not make God evil: it makes Him all powerful, the very quality that Christians believe God to possess.

    So with that fact established, the next question is why did/does God create/allow evil?  And the answer is so that a physical creation can exist.  Without pairs of opposites, there can be so creation: forces rub against forces; conflict pits good and evil against each other.

    We cannot recognize a quality unless we have something to which we can  compare or contrast it.  Image that only good things had happened to you in your life.  How would you know that only good things had happened if you had never experienced the less than good or the bad?  

    Humanity is faced with these forces in order to learn and to evolve.  According to Paramahansa Yogananda and other great spiritual leaders, the only purpose of life is to unite the soul with the Over-Soul or God.  In order to do that, each human being has to work out its karma, its issues that lead it to believe it is nothing more than a bag of bone and flesh.  

    Each human being must learn that he or she is essentially a soul that has a physical body.  That soul is already perfect but because it lost its divine awareness by being born in a physical encasement, it has to relearn to be divine.

    Now, why did God make such a plan, such an existence?  Why not just let us  keep our divine status and not have to go through incarnations that may take many millennia?  Only God knows the answer to that question.  Offering one possible explanation, Paramahansa Yogananda contends that creation is God’s lila or play, and He made for his own enjoyment.  

    Because that explanation may not satisfy, the following exchange between Sri Yukteswar, the guru of Paramahansa Yogananda, and a student suggests additional reasoning:

    “Why did God ever join soul and body?” a class student asked one evening. “What was His purpose in setting into initial motion this evolutionary drama of creation?” Countless other men have posed such questions; philosophers have sought, in vain, fully to answer them.

    “Leave a few mysteries to explore in Eternity,” Sri Yukteswar used to say with a smile. “How could man’s limited reasoning powers comprehend the inconceivable motives of the Uncreated Absolute? T

    he rational faculty in man, tethered by the cause-effect principle of the phenomenal world, is baffled before the enigma of God, the Beginningless, the Uncaused. Nevertheless, though man’s reason cannot fathom the riddles of creation, every mystery will ultimately be solved for the devotee by God Himself.” (my emphasis added)

    The opening quotation, therefore, establishes the spiritual nature of the song: a monotheistic worldview in which nothing—light or darkness, peace or evil—exists outside God’s sovereignty.

    By invoking Isaiah 45:7, I preempt the simplistic dualism: evil is not an equal rival to God but a force that God Himself created to serve a divine purpose. This contention prepares the listener/reader to understand temptation and suffering not as evidence of God’s absence, but as part of a moral testing ground in which human choice matters.

    Thus, although the singer/speaker has undergone all of these tests foisted by Satan, the Devil, Lucifer, and Maya—all of which are simply different names for the same force—she seems to be implying that she is transcending them because she realizes that God only created these forces to tempt his children. 

    She is also implying that she has learned to read God’s word correctly and now she understands that by not allowing that evil force to dominate her she will no longer suffer.

    Chorus: “In the fight twixt good and evil”

    In the fight twixt good and evil
    Good will always win;
    For God created the devil
    Just tempt us all to sin.
    God doesn’t cause us to bear sorrow;
    He tries to lead us to His light,
    And His Word guides our tomorrow
    If we learn to read It right.


    The chorus opens the song/poem with its theme, which focuses on the battle between good and evil in the world of humankind. It makes the explicit claim that “good will always win,” and then it explains that the devil is just a tempter—not a separate force— because God Himself “created the devil.” 

    That “God created the devil / Just to tempt us all to sin” reflects the exact message of the Isaiah quotation. God made the devil to introduce temptation in our lives, but God allows it, and He did not create temptation to make us suffer, at least, not eternally. 

    We  know of God’s intention because God has offered a guide in written scripture, which all religions and spiritual faiths possess.  But it is interpreting those pages of guidance that confounds us and keep us in darkness.  God wants to lead us to light, and learning to interpret his Word correctly and effectively can lead us there.

    First Verse: “Good morning, Satan!”

    Good morning, Satan!
    Are you doing OK?
    What kinds of nasty
    You going to throw at me today?
    Will my daughter get cancer?
    Will my son fall off his bike?
    Will my husband crash his truck?
    Will my dog lie down and die?


    The singer/speaker addresses Satan directly, asking quite conversationally how he’s doing?  Assuming that he is doing “OK.”  Then she pitches a series of questions at him.  These question involve “nasty” events that no one wants to experience:  a daughter getting cancer, an son falling off his bike, a husband crashing his truck, a dog dying.

    The answer to each of these questions is yes: Satan will throw all of these things at me eventually.  And I personally have experienced every one of them.  So addressing Satan in such a friendly way must be understood a high sarcasm. 

    Satan will always remain the adversary, but showing him that I can take him lightly lessens his power over me.  Besides, I have already told you in the chorus that I know the score on these issues.  Satan does not hold the power; God does.

    Second Verse:  “Good morning, Devil!”

    Good morning, Devil!
    Are you doing just fine?
    How will you try to tempt me
    To cross that boundary line?
    Will you make me think I’m sexy?
    Will you make me want to flirt?
    Will you take me to a place
    I’d never go without your dirt?

    Addressing Devil with the same tone expressed when she addressed Satan, the singer/speaker assumes Devil is “doing just fine.”  Again, with a series of questions:  how are you going to temp the today?  will you use sex and promiscuity to make me do things that otherwise I would deplore?  

    Because vanity and sex lead to so much mischief and depravity in the world, one would likely be a consummate prevaricator to deny having been caught up in such “dirt.”  That’s all the personal confession and testimony I will offer for this one. But obviously, again, the from Devil, the answer is “Yep, I’ll get you, my Pretty, and you little dog, too!”

    Third Verse:  “Good morning, Lucifer!”

    Good morning, Lucifer!
    How’s it going, Old Dude?
    What you got in store for me today—
    What kind of rude and crude?
    Will you shine your light on sorrow?
    Will you tempt me to believe
    I’ll be so good tomorrow
    That today I can misbehave?

    Addressing the devil/satan in his light-bearer form, Lucifer, the singer/speaker makes no assumption but simply asks how things are going for the “Old Dude. Then again wants to know that the Light-Bearer has “in store” for her.”  She knows that whatever it is it will likely be “rude and crude.”  She has learned about this being’s ways in earlier verses.

    She wonders if Lucifer will put a spotlight on self-pity and thus allow her to engage in sorrowful feelings.  Then abruptly, she shifts to wondering if he will encourage her think she will behave tomorrow so well that today she can engage in all manner of  debauchery.

    This verse captures the moral danger of self-bargaining and the illusion of future repentance as permission for present wrongdoing.

    Fourth Verse:

    Good morning, Maya!
    Of all the things in the fold
    Which one will grab my thoughts today
    To divert me from my goal?
    Will I seize upon another’s mote
    Though there’s one in my own eye?
    Will I hurt anyone whose handy?
    Or will I just sit, sigh, and cry?


    In this final verse, I address the evil one as Maya, which means delusion, and is the Hindu concept for Satan/Devil/Lucifer.  Maya seems less judgmental and harsh than the Christians concepts, although the end result of “delusion” is the same as the end result of sin.  It is delusion that causes us to “misbehave” and therefore “suffer.”  

    The satanic, evil, mayic force all steer the human being to engage in sense gratification, and such activities divert the person from seeking Divine Awareness, which is the goal of life, according to Paramahansa Yogananda.

    When I reference the “mote” and the “beam,” I am, of course, echoing Christ’s teaching on judgment, offering that as the first possible wrong thing I might do today.  Then again I continue questions as I wonder what the magic Satan/Maya will do today to “divert me from my goal.” 

    I might engage in activities that hurt people, or maybe I will just sit, think useless, thought, become maudlin and then “cry.”  The negativity supports the wretched influences that has been on display in the entire song/poem.  

    Chorus:  “In the fight twixt good and evil”

    In the fight twixt good and evil
    Good will always win;
    For God created the devil
    Just tempt us all to sin.
    God doesn’t cause us to bear sorrow;
    He tries to lead us to His light,
    And His Word guides our tomorrow
    If we learn to read It right.

    What saves the whole mess from languishing in pool of sorrowful dreck is the chorus, which is repeated at the end.  Despite the battle each human being has to face each day, eventually according to each person’s karma “good will always win.”