If anything, rather than a Paradox, I think this nicely showcases the validity of the Four Noble Truths.

It's not exactly maya that induces dukkha, rather than the attachment to that illusion. Maya can be a hindrance to truth and to renouncement of desire - but it doesn't have to be. The illusion is neither good nor bad, it's what you make of it. Some are bound by it, while others find truth precisely through - or because of - that illusion.

As such, the Beautician attempts to lift dukkha through tampering with maya. That will never work though. Hence the dissatisfied clients keep coming back to the Beautician, in their vain attempt to lift dukkha within their illusion, where in truth, the cessation of dukkha is found beyond the illusion.

So where’s the paradox?

If anything, rather than a Paradox, I think this nicely showcases the validity of the Four Noble Truths. — Hermeticus

How can that be? The Buddha thinks maya is the source of our dukkha; dismantle the illusion and we see the truth...nirvana.

The beautician, on the other hand, claims the truth is dukkha's point of origin; create maya to hide the truth...anti-nirvana.

It's not exactly maya that induces dukkha, rather than the attachment to that illusion. Maya can be a hindrance to truth and to renouncement of desire - but it doesn't have to be. The illusion is neither good nor bad, it's what you make of it. Some are bound by it, while others find truth precisely through - or because of - that illusion. — Hermeticus

According to the Buddha maya is the well-spring of our dukkha; no maya, meaning we know the truth, no dukkha. Attachment is part of maya; it's induced in us by maya.

So where’s the paradox? — khaled

See above.

How can that be? The Buddha thinks maya is the source of our dukkha; dismantle the illusion and we see the truth...nirvana. — TheMadFool

Buddha Gautama, as far as I am aware, speaks very little of Maya. Maya is a concept that stems from Hinduism and it has changed it's meaning over time.

In the Rig Veda, Maya was a form of "magic" used by Devas and Asura. For the most part you could consider it as something like "divine action". The act of creation is Maya. The changing of things is Maya. The notion of trickery, for example in the changing forms of the Gods, is present already - although I would not call it essential.

In the Upanishads the meaning of Maya had slightly changed, although I think it's easy to see how it evolved from it's Vedic meaning. Maya is to be understood as a projection of Brahman itself. Maya is what gives shape to our world, it's the basis of the universe, of the reality, we know. There is no dismantling Maya, it's an intrinsic part of reality. Yet the notion of trickery, or rather deceit, plays into here much stronger: The Self, the Atman, deceives itself through the means of Maya. It deceives itself to be seperate, to not be Brahman, when beyond that veil of Maya, everything is Brahman.

In Buddhism this later concept of Maya has been adopted, although the focus has slightly changed. Hinduism philosophically takes a look at the metaphysical, while Buddhism is meant as a more practical guideline. In that Buddhistic sense, Maya is more about the act of deceiving the Self - but the original idea still applies - it's still that same deception, the concealment that Atman is Brahman.

Ultimately, there is no escaping Maya. Existence as we experience it is deeply entangled in Maya. It's the illusion of being. To see the truth, one can see through the illusion - be a witness to that universal self that is Brahman - but as a human, you can not be without Maya. This game of hide and seek is essential to our mode of being.


On suffering or dukkha, Siddhartha Gautama said everything that is essential to Buddhism in his supposed first sermon.

"“Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering."

"“Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination."

"“Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, nonreliance on it."

“Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering: it is this Noble Eightfold Path..."

You're right that attachment and craving is induced by Maya. It entices us to seek sensation, both pleasure and pain. But again: Maya here is neither good nor bad. It simply does what it does. It's us that act upon these invitations. Because we can not be without Maya, the Buddha gives us step by step. The idea is something along the lines of: "Well, try being without doing this or that, then incrementally, you'll learn that most aspects of Maya that you engage with are not important at all."

It's not Maya itself that we're dismantling here. It's the idea of our Self that we try to deconstruct until there is nothing left. Of course this idea in a way is also Maya - that's why the lengthy differentiation between Maya as our ground of being versus Maya as self-deception was necessary. I'd say a better way to put it is that we're trying to find the truth despite being bound under the illusions of what we perceive. We do so by attempting to take ourselves out of the equation as much as possible - because if what we perceive is an illusion, what we know is not to be trusted.

Eventually, we then come to the point where all cravings and all attachment is dropped. That's when we see Maya for what it is: Our individualistic physical perception of Brahman. We come to learn that there really wasn't much of an illusion to begin with. That you and me, and everyone and everything, is all part of the same Supreme Self. Even Maya itself is Brahman - both the trickster and the tricked. We learn that the only trickery we've ever been dealing with was refusing to see what was always there.

Two people thinking different things is not a paradox.

Two people thinking different things is not a paradox. — khaled

:ok:

Buddha Gautama, as far as I am aware, speaks very little of Maya. — Hermeticus

He does speak of maya, just very little, huh?

Anyway, indeed I agree the illusion (maya) is nothing more than our misconceptions of reality out of which stems unrealistic expectations and when these don't materialize, dukkha. It's a simple formula for generating suffering of all shapes and sizes. Buddha's aim/goal was to do an exposé on this formula of misery and he achieves that by focusing sharply on misconceptions aka maya (illusion).



The beautician, in contrast, realizes that, yes, we're under all and sundry misconceptions about reality but then has an epiphany - reality is more unbearable than maya - and ergo, opts to live on in maya.



This is the paradox.

The beautician, in contrast, realizes that, yes, we're under all and sundry misconceptions about reality but then has an epiphany - reality is more unbearable than maya - and ergo, opts to live on in maya. — TheMadFool

The Buddha does something similar. I'd argue that Siddhartha Gautama very much opted to live on in maya as well.

In terms of enlightenment, there is a distinction to be made between Pratyekabuddhas (solitary Buddha) and Samyaksambuddhas (perfect Buddha).

The first one finds truth and keeps it to themselves. It is a sort of blissful ignorance that disregards everything that goes on within the illusion of existence.

The Samyaksambuddha on the other hand comes to the conclusion that while blissful ignorance is blissful indeed, this is not true liberation. They opt to live on still entangled in maya, teaching their way to others entangled in maya. They are similar in that way to the Beautician, attempting to make the illusion as nice as it can be.

Only, the principle idea here is different from the Beautician: While the nicest version of illusion for them is one that conceals the truth, for a Samyaksambuddha, the nicest version of illusion is one where everyone can see the truth despite living in an illusion.

The Buddha does something similar. I'd argue that Siddhartha Gautama very much opted to live on in maya as well.

In terms of enlightenment, there is a distinction to be made between Pratyekabuddhas (solitary Buddha) and Samyaksambuddhas (perfect Buddha).

The first one finds truth and keeps it to themselves. It is a sort of blissful ignorance that disregards everything that goes on within the illusion of existence.

The Samyaksambuddha on the other hand comes to the conclusion that while blissful ignorance is blissful indeed, this is not true liberation. They opt to live on still entangled in maya, teaching their way to others entangled in maya. They are similar in that way to the Beautician, attempting to make the illusion as nice as it can be.

Only, the principle idea here is different from the Beautician: While the nicest version of illusion for them is one that conceals the truth, for a Samyaksambuddha, the nicest version of illusion is one where everyone can see the truth despite living in an illusion. — Hermeticus

Indeed, you hit the nail on the head. I've been looking at the issue from a XOR instead of an OR standpoint. We may, there seems no logical contradiction therein, have the best of both worlds - know the truth, enjoy the illusion. That maya translates as magic is telling indeed - we all know a magician is employing trickery, deception, misdirection, sleight of hand, etc. but yet we still applaud their performance as if it was real. The point of it all seems to become a cross between Neo and Cypher, a Neo-Cypher.

Sweet dreams. — Cypher (to Neo)

Easier said than done...

I think is not a paradox but an equilibrium. Buddhism is about (in a general perspective) of trying to figure out a point where all our emotions or awareness can be together. I guess this is why illusion and dissatisfaction is related to those Buddhist principles. Maya and dukkha could be the power to make an equilibrium on truth

The Buddha does something similar. I'd argue that Siddhartha Gautama very much opted to live on in maya as well.

In terms of enlightenment, there is a distinction to be made between Pratyekabuddhas (solitary Buddha) and Samyaksambuddhas (perfect Buddha).

The first one finds truth and keeps it to themselves. It is a sort of blissful ignorance that disregards everything that goes on within the illusion of existence.

The Samyaksambuddha on the other hand comes to the conclusion that while blissful ignorance is blissful indeed, this is not true liberation. They opt to live on still entangled in maya, teaching their way to others entangled in maya. They are similar in that way to the Beautician, attempting to make the illusion as nice as it can be.

Only, the principle idea here is different from the Beautician: While the nicest version of illusion for them is one that conceals the truth, for a Samyaksambuddha, the nicest version of illusion is one where everyone can see the truth despite living in an illusion. — Hermeticus

This is some kind of Mahayana doctrine.