Maya means appearance.
Karma means that nothing ever appears to be what it is.

Physics tells us nothing less. Physics tells us that nothing can appear to be what it is because the observer determines the observations be they particles, waves or photons (that always vanish into probability-clouds on closer observations).

Cause and effect thus has to be illusion. And if the observer determines the observations then the observer also determines the results of all actions on the observations. And so not only is the observations illusion (so that nothing can ever appear to be what it is) but also the cause and effect (of observations).

Appearance is Maya
Cause and effect is karma.

Now is Maya,
Time is karma.

Just like molecules are exactly like atoms, so too reality is exactly like a dream.
Dreams and hallucinations are Maya. Reality is karma.

What you are and what you do is the perfection of Maya.
What you think (about what you are and what you do) is karma.

Words are maya
Asking questions (cause and effect) is karma.

-- all words are YOUR words, thinking (questions) is karma; UV-gap

Maya means appearance.
Karma means that nothing ever appears to be what it is.

In my experience, your definition of 'karma' is faulty.
It is 'wisdom' that says that nothing is ever as it appears.
Maya is 'existence/illusion'. Karma is the result of delusion, and 'attachment' to the 'illusions' of Maya. Maya is everything transitory, insubstantial, changing, temporal.. Attachment to the transitory links you to the effects. Time is Maya, attachment to it lets you grow old and die. Karma. Killing someone out of ignorant attachment to the illusory value of his possessions and being attached to the concept of your solitary and isolated existence that needs to be bolstered by those possess-ions brings the fruits of Karma. Transcending those attachments and the ignorance therein transcends Karma. No more 'action-reaction'. No cause/effect..
Perspective...

Of course, Karma is only Maya's twin sister... Karma is another 'illusion' of Maya...

What great names they would be for twin girls!
*__-

wel from whati am learning....'MAya''--the term and usual definition, accepted--is the denigration of the female, the Goddess, and material creaton~ing. its roots are 'mater' which refersto mama and measurement....Alan Watts gave it a more fun translation of magic...creative magic, which i prefer than the negative ptriarcha-mysticism translation of 'Illusion' , which tedns to experience material reality, and bodily emotion, and celebratory ecstasy as a seductive trap, which seduces the ascetic away from HIS goal of 'transcendence', and/or 'unattachment' attitudes. all that is subtle dualism between concepts of matter and spirit

'Karma'---again, i like Watts' definition of simply 'doing/action'---and detest the patriarchal interpretation of universal law which punished people for their'past lives'. an ideology that assures a rigid hiearchihal system. perfect for the ruling elite!

Ditto.
Where did you you get that from?---
As I said, experience.
*__-

In my experience, your definition of 'karma' is faulty. .... No more 'action-reaction'. No cause/effect..
Perspective...

Of course, Karma is only Maya's twin sister... Karma is another 'illusion' of Maya...

What great names they would be for twin girls!
*__-

It is simply the universal language of monism, non-duality, Advaita -- the language of physics' Unified Field.
The language is so simple that it leaves nothing to question, or doubt.

If "you" disagree with it then it is only because you don't understand it because in monism 1: there is no "you" and 2: there is nothing to understand.

It is simply the universal language of monism, non-duality, Advaita -- the language of physics' Unified Field.
The language is so simple that it leaves nothing to question, or doubt.
I'm not sure that a 'Unified Field' that has not yet been 'discovered' can have a 'language' yet.
I've had to listen to the neo-advaitists before. It seems very difficult to maintain... honesty and credibility, as, for instance, 'who' will be defending 'whom' if a big ugly threatens to tear your face off? Or offered to tear your loved one's heads off?
'Who' will pick up a weapon to 'kill/disable' 'whom' in defence of 'what' against 'whom'?
'Who' will tell that person to take 'who's' skateboard off the hood of 'who's' new SUV?
Perhaps you are a 'renunciate' (living honestly according to your understanding), with no posessions (after all, there is nothing to posess, and no one to posess it!), who would not defend his (who's?) life if threatened by brigands?
Your 'life' can display the depth of your understanding, your words cannot.
This is where the 'rubber meets the road'.
Ego creeps in where angels tread.
If 'you' 'Know', words cannot convey anything but metaphor, parable, a 'rickety sign-post' at best for others (where are those words comming from?), perhaps, to follow until they too are 'Knowing'. There is 'nothing', after all, to transmit to no-one at that point, eh?
But.. here we are(n't)...


If "you" disagree with it then it is only because you don't understand it because in monism 1: there is no "you" and 2: there is nothing to understand.
First, you cannot 'understand' Monism.
Understanding is within 'duality'.

Certain obvious questions naturally arise, such as;
1) if there is no 'you' (and I am not a 'you', I am a 'me', just as you are! But, having to use dualistic language to convey dualistic concepts, within a dualistic brain, of 'Oneness' seems a bit of a fool's (egoic) errand...) then who is 'disagreeing' with 'it'?
2) 'Who' doesn't understand?
3) And 'what' is not being understood by whom?

All words are metaphor.
To 'Know' is to Be.
To Be is to Know.
Know words, know lies; No words, no lies.

"To speak is to lie!" -Rene Guinon

That is a given.

There are levels of communication.
If you are discussing Karma, as if it is real for you, I can discuss that concept in great depth due to my experience and knowledge and memory. All within the contextual paradigm of the believer. We can hold an enjoyable conversation on the subject. I was not asked to disabuse anyone of their 'belief', just to discuss it. One doesn't have to go into immediate boring neo-advaita jargonic discourse to display, at once, ones 'great metaphysical understanding', and one's ego. Words are counter-productive snares as I have just shown. We are trying to impress 'whom' with our knowledge? Our(who's) 'self'? Who?
I seem to be sounding like an owl.


A problem with neo-advaitans, I've found, is that happiness, joy, bliss, isn't possible at your (who's?) (pretended, yes, I've said it!) level of 'non-existence'.
I like to swim up here with the fishes!
*__-