BUTLER t

TiMl
WOES,

THE SELWOOD

PRINTING

Fum

AND LONDON,

PREFACE
of

Maya

is

the pivotal principle in

the Advaita Philosophy

of Indian speculation

the final pronouncement

of Reality

on the conception

During the last thirty years a good deal has been written on the Vedanta, and naturally this doctrine has also been treated of, though only
in passing

and Appearance.

in the later richly^ supported

and by the way. Vedanta

That
is

it is

already

an established

fact,

but a number of writers seem

it is

to conclude, rather hastily, that

not the genuine

product of the early speculation of the Upanisads,

but has been later added to the original Vedknta by Sankara and his followers. Some critics believe
that
it is

imported from Buddhism and receives

hardly any countenance from the Upanisads.

point
is still

The

debated, and
little

it is

only with a view to

contribute a

on

this

problem that

towards a clearer understanding I undertook to examine the

I

Upanisads as minutely and as fully as

the

could,

always relying upon the original texts more than

many more

or less slipshod translations which

are to be found.

Hitherto these treatises have

vi

PREFACE
looked

been

upon

as

paradoxical,

inconsistent

and unsystematic. Scholars 'nave only dashed at them to get out some meaning, but have hardly attempted to see if there existed in them an inner principle of unity and system. Deussen has, til
course, indicated in bis Geschtchte the evolution 4f

thought within the Upamsads, and has attempted to base their chronology on such internal evideaafc. Working independently on the original texts of Upamsads, I have also reached practically the same conclusion, hence in Chapter II have enlarged and developed that scheme with the aid of all the more important passages bearing on each point. My method has been analytical, more appropriately

&

I have not stated a fact synthetico-analytic ; dogmatically, but have in every instance supported
it

which

with appropriate references, an examination of will lead us inductively to the established

conclusion.

To

those

who do not hold

the same

view as

I,

a statement here and there

may

appear

dogmatic, but that hardly touches me, since I have kept out all questions of personal belief and have only made an honest attempt to treat the
little

press perquestion scientifically. sonal belief and point of view in a scientific inquiry vitiates, I believe, the conclusions to be arrived at.

To

one's

own

On
is

present day,
investigated

the question whether the conception of Maya found in the literature from Sankara down to the The point to be all opinions concur.
is

how

far

and to what extent the con-

PREFACE

Tii

ception is to be traced in the earlier literature before the time of Sarikara(who flourished about a thou-

sand years before his spiritual disciple, Schopenhauer). Hence I have confined my inquiry to the Vedic literature, especially the Upanisads, and have earned my investigation down to Sahkara.

My
is

conclusions are

as old as

some

(i) that the conception of Maya of the later books of the Rgveda

inhere its forms are clearly noticeable,

and that

it

gradually developed through the speculation of the Upanisads, and passing through the hands of

Gaudapada and Sankara was* crystallized into a technical form, elaborated more and more as time
went on
of
;

"

(2)

that the word

"

illusion

"

Maya," in the sense

for the first

of course, occurs later

tune, in the Svetasvatara Upanisad (iv. 10) ; and (3f that most of the critics of Maya have started

with gratuitously assuming

reality,
it

Maya

to be

concrete

standing face to face with the Absolute as were, a tertium quid between the Absolute and

the Universe

and

this has

made

then-

whole

criti-

and irrelevant. Some again have critiwhile perfectly ignoring one of its chief principles, which, expressed in modern Kantian phrase, would run: "The transcendental ideality
cism
futile
it

cised

of the world does not deprive

reality."

it

of its empirical

Chapter I is more or less introductory, as it is intended to help indirectly towards a thorough grasp of the idea of Maya. The philology of the

Tiii

PREFACE
is

word
I

strict scope of my essay, but have collected some suitable materials which may an insight into the gradual transition help to give of meaning of the word itself. In Chapter II I have attempted to trace the development of the I do not, baaf* conception, apart from the word.

not within the

ever, claim that the internal

system of the Upafli^ sads as sketched there, the transition of the varipttt

stages of thought, etc., is to be looked upqp Its as ultimate scheme or the only possible scheme. But surely it is one of the possible systematic ways of
treating the Upanisads, consistent and coherent as far as it goes ; and as yet I know of no better

scheme.

In the same chapter

brief analysis of

dukya Upanisad, so
This has
its

I have given a very Gaudapada's Kankas on the Manfar as they bear on the subject. own justification, since the book 'is

who know
it

unfortunately not so well known, and even those it cursorily do not always understand

Some of its epigrammatic stanzas correctly. have been erroneously construed so as to countenance either the doctrine of Sunyavada or that of the reality of the world. I have selected the most typical as well as the most difficult passages, which, It J may hope, will remove doubts on this point. seems to me perfectly clear that Gaudapada was a thoroughgoing idealist and a worthy precursor of Sahkara. Then in Chapter III I have examined in brief the fundamental objections of the three
other schools within the Vedanta, especially those

I
of

PREFACE
the
Theistic

Idealism of RSmanuja. These objections have nevdr before been collected together and discussed in reference to the doctrine of

My&

The brevity in this part of the work was intended in order not to make the essay unnecesI had a mind, however, to append sarily long.
proper.

on the analogies of the Conception ipther chapter i in European philosophy, especially in the
Plato,

t
is

out, since

Plotmus, Berkeley, Kant, and But in the present volume I have it was felt that the present essay
in itself, arid that the additional

in a

way complete
is

part,
in

which would have taken a considerable length

not necessary for the purpose.

itself,

have given

which in

my own translation of passages my opinion have not been quite accurately

I

reftdered in the current translations.

have em"
illusion

ployed the words

rather
"

"

"

appearance

and

"

indiscriminately
I

maya," though
difference in the

am

translating the word conscious of the subtle

two conceptions. The word illusion has been most current in this connexion. PersonI would prefer the term appearance. The world, says the Maya theory in its correct interally

an appearance, not a mere illusion, such is impossible. There are some passages where the latter conception seems to
pretation, is
since the latter as

be held;

"

e.g.,

mere

illusion

"

mdyamatram
detail

"

if

rendered as

would* imply

this.

But as
to

a have

"

shown

in

some

.ith reference

passage^

PREFACE

Erom the Chandogya Upanisad, this was not exactly what was meant by the old indian thinkers. I
dold that even
if

some

of

them

really thought so,

they were

temper

is

mistaken, and their ultra-rationalistic to account for that. The BrhadS-

ranyaka Upanisad emphatically proclaims that the Atman is the only reality and that all plurality ia>t the Chandogya a me^re matter of words
;

Upan%W^|

instead of starting with the the world, and comes to the

this

Atman, does so iritir same conclusion from

standpoint as well, viz., that the world is strictly speaking the Atman? itself , since there is no other These two positions existence but the Atman.
correspond to Schopenhauer's parallel sayings : " (i) that the word is my Vorstellung," (2) that "
it

is

my

causality
it

is

the

My

Wille." As limited by space, tune, and it is an appearance, but in its own nature Atman. best thanks are due to Professor Paul Deus-

sen (Kiel), the Rev Dr J. Estlin Carpenter, Professor A. A. Macdonell and Professor J. A. Smith
I am (Oxford), for their various useful suggestions also grateful to Dr. F. H. Bradley, Dr. H. Rashdall,

Dr. F. C. S. Schiller, Rev. L. P. Jacks (Oxford), Professor Henry Jones (Glasgow) and Professor

Rudolf Eucken (Jena), who were kind enough to give me opportunities to discuss with them the
subject of Maya in the light of European philosophy in order to remove some of my difficulties. I have
also to

thank Dr. F. W. Thomas, Librarian, India

PREFACE

fl

Office,

Professor

D, Barnett, of the British

manuscripts,

To

Professor Barnett

am

further

;tmg

the

proof

sheets,

PRABHUDUTTSHASTRL

January, 1911

CONTENTS
PAGE
[ACE.

CHAPTER
IISTORY OF THE

WORD

"

MAYA

*
.

1-32

Introductory Bothkngk and Roth on Geldner Uhlenbeck Grassmann

Maya Momer
of the

Wilbams-The Nigbantu and

Conclusions so far

the Nirukta

The various forms

word arranged
occurrence

in order of their frequency of References to R.V. Hymns of

RV
word

where the word occurs

in

RV

Meaning of the

Lndwig,
of

explanations

The idea

Physical Power Rare occurrence of the word in Y V and S V. AV.-The Brahmanas The BadaUpanisads-Gaadapada's Kankas
distinguished from that of

Rosen Sayana's " " Power as Will " "

---Reference

&

rftyana's Sfltras

BhSsya-Philomeanings Etymosophical logy Two-fold Conception of Maya Inter-

Ankara's-

and

Popular

CHAPTER

II

)EVELOPMENT OF THE CONCEPTION OF MAYA.

Germsfof the Idea in R.V. x. 139, etc.-Search after Unity The Brahmanas and the Upanisads

33-110

Importance of the Bfh. Up.-Yijflavaiziii

CONTENTS
PAGE
kya's Idealism-Metaphysical and Empirical

standpoints

Idea of

"Accommodation"
stages of

The Upamsads as a system-The

Pure
Idealism,

Pantheism,

Cosmogomsm,
-Quotations

Theism and
in

Materialism,

etc

support

Discussion of the Idea in the

BhagavadgJta-Gaudapada, and SankaraGeneral view of the

modem way

of interpre-

-Recapitulation

OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE WITHIN THE

'

VEDANTA
The four

111-138
Vedanta-Their funda-

schools of the

mental doctnne in relation to

nuja's
his

Maya-Ramaof

cnticism

of

Maya-Examination

arguments

Their chief fallacy

Stand-

point of Vallabha and

Madhva

Other more
Recapi-

important objections to the Theory

tulationConclusion.

CHAPTER
HISTORY OF THE
"

WORD

"

MAYA

"

|
la

is

one of the most important and prominent

the vocabulary of the Vedanta philosophy.

I an unalterable and fixed meaning throughfthe history of Indian thought, our task would have been lighter and we should have been saved the
labour of writing this chapter,

But as

it

is,

the

word IB very fluid, and has

Vedic literature seems at
contradictory to
its

at different times

assumed
in the

various shapes of meaning.

What
first

it

meant

sight to be almost

later connotation.

Our present

inquiry
links

is

intended to bring out the connecting

its

between

various meanings as they gradu-

ally passed
all

through stages of transition.

To avoid

subsequent error and confusion in understandit

ing the conception of Maya,

seems necessary to

make

clear the

ground by

first

coming

to terms

with the word

use of words
hence,

itself.

The misconception and mis;

is

at the root of a host of fallacies

we
if

believe that

finished

we

are able,

no mean part of our task is by means of a careful philo-

logical research, to define the concept of

M5y4

in

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

This will relation to its historical development. furnish an insight into the tfoctrine of Maya itself,

which has always been a crux to the student o

philosophy.

In

treating

of

the

word we

shall

proceed chronologically, and trace the development of its meaning down to the times of Sankara, whett, it acquired a rigid and technical sense, which sufv
vives even to-day

Bothhngk and Roth (in St. Petersburg try) give the following different meanings of word Kunst, ausserordentliches Vermogen
:

iftfe

derkraft, Kunstgnff, List, Anschlag, Trug, ein kunsthches Gebilde, Trugbild, Blendwerk,

Tauschung.
their

Now

mere juxtaposition.

these do not help us much by In order to be free from

the fault of false analogy and hasty etymolojgizing

we
in

shall proceed inductively; and we now oegin to view the meanings connexion with the context which the word occurs.

Geldner

assigns the following meanings to the

word as

it

occurs in the

Rgveda and the A.V.

(i)

Verwandlung, angenommene Gestalt ; die Kunst, sich und andere zu verwandeln, Verzauberung,
Zauberkraft, Zauberkunst, die Macht Wunder zu tun, Allwissenheit ; Betrug, List, Schlauheit ; (2)
Illusion,

in das Verborgene

Tauschung, Schem, Erdichtung; (3) der eindnngende Geist, Phantasie.

Karl F. Geldner, Der Rtgveda in Auswahl, Stuttgart,

1907.

HISTORY OF THE
Uhlenbeck
1

WORD
to

"

MAYA "

also

takes

it

mean Wunderkraft,

Trug, Trugbild. Gra&mann* (after referring it to the root ma =man, vgl. matt, Grk. /IWTTI?) gives the equivalents ubermenschhche Weisheit oder
:

List, gottliche
bild, Trugbild.
1

Kunst oder Zauber-Kunst, Zauber-

* Following Bohtlingk and Roth, Monier Williams " " art," wisdom," meanings of "Extraordinary or supernatural power" are only found in the earlier language but when he adds " " that in R.V. the word also means unillusion," " " " "

ajso says that the

reality,"

"

deception,"

fraud,*'

trick,"
is

sor-

"

cery,"

witchcraft,"

magic," he

not accurate,

and

using these words loosely. Some shade of these is of course in V., and their further developis

ment ^is noticed

in A.V., but to say that all these

is

are found in R.V.

not correct, but a hasty and

erroneous generalization.

The Nighantu, which is one of the earliest collec" " tions of Vedic homonyms, mentions m&ya as " " one of the eleven names of prajfia (intelligence).4 The great commentator on the Nighantu, Yaska,*
1 Uhlenbeck, Etymologisches Worterbuch der Altindiscken Sprache, Amsterdam, 1898-99

Grassmann, Worterbuch zum Rig-Veda. Williams, Sansknt-Enghsh Dictionary, new Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1899, p. 811. Nighantv, vol i of Bt bl. Ind. ed Calcutta, 1882 see p 324, ch 111. sec 9. Cf. Roth's ed Gottingen, 1852 ;

Momer

edition,

,-

See'rAs

WuAfo,

Bibl. Ind. ed., vol. u., published 1885,

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

" " while exprajfia brings out the same sense of " " (Nir. i. 6, 4),' plaining adhenva carati mayiyaisah " "

imam u nu kavitamasya mayam

" "

(Nir.

vi.

3,

4),'

mayam u
visva hi

and
2,

maya

tu yajniyanam" (Nir vii 7, " avasi svadhavah (Nir.

5),*
xii.

6).*
far

We

shall

have occasion to see presently

*

how

Slyana sticks to this meaning in his montv mental commentary on R.V. Without citing an^r more lists of meanings, let us approaclj directiy the Sanskrit literature and the Vedas first in order to judge the meaning correctly from the usage
in the context.
'

After a careful examination of

all

the passages

where the word occurs in any of its forms in the huge bulk of R.V., we arrive at the following conclusions
.

I. As regards frequency of occurrence the* form most commonly met with is may ah* (nom and It occurs no less than twenty-four times. ace. pi.). Next in order comes may ay a * (mstr. sing ), which

p
1.

134,

vol in

published 1886, p 190,

1

p. 427,

10

" 1 Cf. Roth's ed of YAska's Niruhta," Gottmgen, 1852 ; i 20 (p. 39) R V x 71 5. Cf Ibid, vi 13 (p 95-96) R V v. 85 6. Cf Ibid vu 27 (p 124) R V x ^8 6 Cf Ibid xii 17 (p 174) RV. vi 58 i Cf. R.V i 32 4, 117. 35 u ii 10,27 I6J1U.20. 8 ! v 2 9, 31 7, 40 6, 40 8 , vi 18 9, 20 4, 3. 53 2Z. 9, 44. 22, 45 9, 58 I , vu i 10, 98 5, 99 4 ; viu 41. 8 ; * 53- 9. 73- 5. 99- 2. "i. 6 Cf. R.V. i. 80. 7, 144. i, 160. 3 ; ii. 17. 5 j ii. 27. 7 ;

vol. iv., p. 278,

10

HISTORY OF THE
occurs nineteen times
sing,
(instr.
;

WORD "MAYA"
*

mayinah

(ace. pi.

and gen.
*

of mayin} occurs fifteen times ; tnayabhih times ; mayinam * (ace. smg pi.), thirteen
,

the word may a * itself three bf mdytn), ten times * times, and each of the forms ma.ya.rn (ace.
of mayl sing, maytn), and (nom. 7 also occurs three times. Mdyinl is fQdyindm x. 5. 3), and maytna found twice (RV. v 48 i
sing.),
,

(iistr. sing, of mayin) only once (R V vi 63. 5). Other forms, including compounds, which occur once are mdytm (R.V. v. 48. 3), mdydvind (R.V.

x. 24. 4),
ii.

ii. 9),
2.

mdydvdn (R.V iv. 16 9)* mdydvtnam (R.V. and mdydvmah (RV x. 83. 3).

There are altogether seventy-five hymns in R.V. in which the word appears in its simple or

compound
dresse'd
iv.

forms.
;

Out
8

of these thirty-five are ad-

to Indra

eight to
63
;

Agm
,

(R.V.

i.

144

24 85
i

30 12, 30 21 , viu 23 15, 41

18,

v.

3,

63

3
2,

ix 73 5,

73 9, 83 3
4,

177. i

Cf
;

R V.

i.

39.
7,

51

5,

54
3

64
ii
,

7,

38 9, 56 I , 82 3 ; viii. 3. 19, 23 14 , x 138 Cf. R.V. i. ii. 7, 33 10, 60. i ; v 30 6, 44. 2, 78 6 ; vi x 147 2. Cf R V i ii 7, 53 7, 5 6
' '

II. 10

m. 38

v 44

vi

61
ui

vn
6,
j

51 5, 151 9 47 18, 63 5 ;
3,

34

vm

14. 14

80

u. ii. 5

30.

Cf.

Cf Cf
'

RV RV RV
R.V

111

61

v. 63.
;

x. 54. 2.

v
i.

85

5,

85 6
;

88. 6

vii

28. 4
;

Cf.

32 4
i.

m.

99- 10, 147. 5 20. 3, 34 3.

Vtde R.V.

n,

32, 33, 51, 53, 54, 56. 80, 144, 160;

8
iii.

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

20, 27
;

v. 2 ; vii. i ; vui. 23 ; x. 5, 53) ; four ; to the AsVins (R.V. i. 117 ; v. 78 vi. 63 ; x. 24) as well as to the Maruts (R.V. i 39, 64 ; v. 58 ; vi. 48) three to Visve-devah (R.V. in. 56 ; v. 44^
;

48)
v.

Soma

viii. 41), two each to Varuna (R.V. v. 85 (R.V. ix. 73, 83), Mitravarunau (R.V. i. 151 an/i 63), and Dyava-prthivyau (R.V. 1. 100, 159)
; ; ; ;

one each to U3as

61), the

(RV m

61), Sarasvati

(RV.

vi.

Adityas (R V.
40),

n. 27),

Pusan (R.V. vi

5$),

Atn \R V. v
XBf.V
(R.V.
38),
in. 60),

(R.V. x. 85),
vii

Jfianam (RV. x 71), the Rbhus Indravarunau (R V. vu. 82), Somarkau Mayfibheda (R V. x 177), Indravisnu
,

99)

Prajapati-Vaisvamitra

(R.V.

111.

and Surya-vaiSvanarau (R V. x. 88). " " The word Maya is not employed in one and the same sense throughout R.V The Indian tra3.

dition itself bears

As a

gives

ample testimony to this "fact. Yaska, Sayana in most cases meaning pra^nd i.e energy, mental power as distinguished from physical but he is in fact, he could not be so. not always definite It would be a gratuitous assumption on our part to expect the same word to be used one and the same rigid sense by so many different Rsis, who were by no means all contemporary. Tradition
rule, following

the

>

as

preserved

in

Sayana's

commentary
v

tells

us

u 11,17
44. 45-

34. 53
vii. 28,

iv. 16,
;

30
viu

30, 31

; ;

vi 18, 20, 22,

x. 73, 99. ill,

47

98, 104

3, 14,

76

138. I 47 .

HISTORY OF THE

WORD "MAYA"
parallel.

that the two meanings prajnd and kapata l are the

most common, and Sometimes run

For

instance, even in the very first hymn (R V. i. n. 7). *m which the word appears as mdydbhth (and mdyinam), Sayana seems to waver between these two

meanings, and leaves the reader to

(Choice

make

his

own

He

(lit by special stratagems, artifices ") but adds " a* the same time that it may also mean praj" Wilson nabhi h (" by wondrous powers, Griffith) " the first adopts meaning, by stratagems," Lud" wig* translates it as durch ubefnaturliche Kraft." " " But these Rosen* also renders it as praestigus
' '

"

explains mdydbhih

by kapatavisesaih

are not the only meanings accepted

by

In R.V.

27 7 Sayana explains mdyayd * by karmavtsaydbhijMnena," i e "by knowledge of sacred rites." This meaning appears to us to
111
,

"

tradition. "

be rather far-fetched.

In R.V.
6

in.

60. i

he renders
"

the same word as karmabhih " is translated as power,"

In
"

m
"

61. 7, tttdya

glory rapa," ht. in the form of effulgence or light.

1

prabhaIn R.V.

artifice, deception, cunning List, Betrug, Kunst, Kraft, etc. ' Ludwig, Der Rigveda Prag, 1878 Fndericus Rosen, Rigveda-Samhita, Liber Primus, Sanskrit^ et Latinfi, London, 1838 minute janlte Sayana denves this meaning thus

Which mean

Germ

karma miyate anayeti va maya karmavmyajftanam

.

(root

ma, to know), 3rd conj mimile, or ma, to measure, miyate. * Sayana adds miyante jfiayanta' iti mayah karmaiii. " Cf. also R.V x. 53. 9, where Sayana says Karmana.

maitat."

io

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

and
v.

iv. 30. 21,

30

6,

Sayana emphatically gives

moment Mandalas i. and R.V. which are now supposed on good evidence* have been subsequently added to the original collection we find the same want of fixity of the meaning conveyed by the term in the other books of R.V. For instance, according to Sayana's tradition " " in R.^. the word is used in the sense of deception
x. of

the meaning sakti (power). Again, keeping aside for a

to

ii.

II. io,

111.

34. 6, iv

16. 9, vi.

20

4, viS

104. 24,

and so forth, while both the meanings "power" " " and deception are taken in v 30. 6 simultaneously. " In v. 31. 7 the word is taken to mean a young woman." This meaning too has its own justification and is not unconnected with the other two meanings. In what sense a woman can be called

mayd

is

not to be discussed here, but will find

therefore, " "

its

appropriate place in the sequel.

The two chief meanings, word is assigned in R.V. are

"

which the
(Prajna,
lit.

knowledge
cana).

")

and

"

power
"

deception

(" Kapata,'

Van-

The above examination of the various passages in which the word occurs has shown us that " " " " wherever it means power the idea of mystery i.e., it does not mean any necessarily goes with it
,

"

physical
will,"

a mysterious power of the power, but which we would translate into such Sanskrit
as
saiikalpa-sakh

"

"

expressions

or

tcchd-iakti.

In

R.V.

iii.

53. 8, for instance, Indra is

different forms,"

"assuming many

and

spoken of as it is not

HISTORY OF THE
done by
his

WORD "MAYA"
power but simply by
" "

it
his

"
physical

"

wonderful and extraordinary

rupagrahanasamarthya). He wills assume such and such forms and

hence Indra
the Vedic
results are
is

(anekawill-power that he may

it

is

realized

very frequently termed mayin in

Certain mysterious things or
this mysterious will-power,

hymns

produced by

and these
nature

ma^y understanding, which because of its inherent " " is apt to be deceived by such pheno" " mena. Hence, the idea of being commystery mon to both these meanings, it is quite easy to " understand the transition from the idea of mys" " " to that of terious will-power In deception

results being extra-ord.ma.ry by their very be said to set at naught the ordinary

human

limitations

two ideas interpenetrate each other, so much*so that it seems to us rather a forced distincfact the

tion to

make when we speak

of the transition.

Still,

be made, especially when they help us to a clearer understanding of that which is really beyond them.
distinctions are to

We
(cf.

may, however, note here

is

in

passing that

spoken of as assuming various forms m. 53. 8 and vi. 47 18) it appears that the singers of the hymns and Indians of the Vedic age in general were not unaware of a distinction between the one and the many, of the possibility of the one becoming the many and of the latter being a deceptive creation of a mysterious
especially

where Indra

power.

12

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

This inference seems to us to be reasonable and valid. The fact is very important, as we shall have
the opportunity to speak more of
it

later.

Here

we cannot do anything more than simply mention it, since we are now concerned only with the meanings of the word so far as it can be determined by a collocation of ancient texts in a more or leas'

chronological order.

Now, the word does not

so often ocgir in

Che

Yajurveda and the Samaveda This cannot surprise us any way. These two Vedas contain mostly the mantfas of the Rgveda which are

adapted and arranged to

tions
all

suit their particular func-

as well as

some new mantras

In the Y.V.

ideas are subservient to sacrifice (yajna) and its while in the S.V. various elaborate ceremonies
;

chanting or singing the mantras is the chief function. The R.V. is the chief source of these two Vedas, " which along with it form what is known as trayi
vidya," i e., triple knowledge. The comparative absence of the word Maya from the Y.V and the
S.V. does not affect our examination, as the R.V.

can be safely taken to be an index to the ideas and views of the ancient Indians of that age. It was
not very long before these two Vedas sprang into existence, to be ranked with the R.V. as to their

importance and authority in the tradition of the In fact these three Vedas seem to have been brought into existence almost simultaneously,
Aryans.

though

it

must be admitted that

it

took a consider-

HISTORY OF THE WORD "MAYA"

13

ably long interval of time to give them the shape in which they are found at present, i e., as a complete
set of

books

The Atharva-Veda was added to the trayl-vidya later. The fact has been amply proved by a critical examination of both external and internal

much

esadence.

It is

not for us to enter into the question

represents a different state of society from that described in the are satisfied to note that the word
*

here

The A.V.
of

civilization,

R.V.

And we

May5 is not missing in it Altogether the occurs in ten books only, in sixteen hymns

word and

twenty times in all (in A.V. vm. 9. 5 and vm. 10. 22 the word occurring twice in each of the hymns and
twice also in xiu. 2 and xix
27).

Tire form may a occurs only once (A.V. vni. 9. 5). * The instrumental singular, may ay a, occurs most

Maymah occurs frequently, viz., eight times. three times and may am* and may ah* twice each.
Other forms which occur only once are maye (viii. 10. 22), mdyaydl} (vm. 9. 5), mayabhih (xii. i. 8) and mayl (v n. 4). 1 A V u 29 6 iv 23 5, 38 3 v II 4 vi 72 I vu 81. 1 vm. 3 24, 4. 24, 9 5, 10. 22 x 8 34 xn i. 8.
j

xui.
Cf.
the

II ; xix. 27. 5, 27 2. 2. 68 I. 6, 66 I, 3, Whitney's Index Verborum to the Published Text of Athana-Veda, New-Haven, JAOS. vol xu p 225.

AV

iv. 38.

vi

72

vu. 81
I.

vill

4 24

X.

8.

34 ; xui. 2 3, 2 II ; xix 68. A.V. xix. 27 5, 27 6, 66 i. A.V.

iv. 23.

vm. 3

24.

14

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

From

the very nature of the contents of the Atharva-Veda it is easy to ju*dge the meaning of the

word mdyd

as used in

it.

power spoken of in the Rgveda is more emphasized, and there hardly seems any scope for doubting the meaning. It means
magical element of the
"
"

"

Here the mysterious o{

"

magic
"illusion"
subject)
it is

throughout, and
(the great
1

is

even translated

'

by Whitney.

controversial word in ojir The two passage* in whfch

rendered so are found in the well-known

"

tic

"

Mys-

hymn,
!

"The
A.V.

extolling the Viraj, e.g., in A.V., 10. 22, Illusion* (maya), Asuras caOed to her,
It

come "
vii.

may

also

be stated, by the way, that

81. i, viii. 3. 24, vm. 4 24 are taken from 85 18, v. 2. 9, vn. 10. 4 respectively. Now we have seen so far that may a in R.V. means " " an extraa wondrous or supernatural power," " " elesupernatural ordinary skill," and that the

R.V.

x.

ment is more strongly emphasized in A V., where " " " illusion." means and hence magic With regard to the word occurring in the Brahmanas it would be useless for us to enter into any
it
1 Cf Atharva-Veda Samhita. trans by D Whitney (Harvard Oriental Series), 1905, vol 11 p 507, 514. For see also Les Lwres vw, et is de L'Atet Comments, par Victor Henry, Pans, 1894 and Griffith's The Hymns of the Atharva-Veda. and Ludwig's Der Rtgveda, Band ui Einleitung, Frag,

translation

harva Veda Tradwts

,

" " mystery instead of Whitney's " " use of the word illusion here.

1878, p. 493-

We would rather say

HISTORY OF THE WORD

details

"

MAYA

"

15

here.
of

The

really

philosophical

treatises,

which are

fundamental importance for our pur-

pose, are the final portions of the Brahmanas, called the Upamsads But before we take up the Upani-

sads proper, we may quote a few references from the Brahmanas too in the way of Sthdli-puldkafiyaya

.The

Vajasaneyi-Samhita
(xi.

"

contains

the

forms
8

mayam," mayaya* and mayayam, and Mahidhara in his commentary gives the words " " " " " and buddhi as synonyms of maya." prajfia The Aitareya Brahmana' has faayaya (vi. 36),

maya

69),

mayam, mayavant, and mayavattarah (viii. 23), " where the word clearly means supernatural or " " magical skill." The form mayayS also occurs
in the, Taittiriya
1

Brahmana 7
of

(m. 10. 8. 2) where,

the cooking-pot and the boiling " nee By finding one grain well-cooked we infer the same So the conditions of the class with regard to all the others may be inferred from that of a part, if the whole is made up
i

the

maxim

"

Cf Patafijah's Mahaof homogeneous and similar parts " bhisya, i 4 23 (Vart 15) Paryapto hi ekah pulakah " sthalyS mdarsanaya Weber, The White Yajuneda, part I, The VajasanejrlSamhita, in the Madhyandrna and the Kanva-Sakha, with the commentary of Mahidhara Berlin and London, 1852. V S xui. 44. Mahidhara adds, " miyat* Ibid . p 420 " ji&yate anaya iti may a * Ibid S xxw. , p 728, 52.

Ibid.,p 841, VS xxx 7. Das Aitareya Brahmana, heransgegeben von Theodor Aufrecht, Bonn, 1879. See p. 184 and 230 * The Tatttiriya Brahmana of the Black Yajvrveda,
*

16

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

" " as Sayana also adds, it means by divine power Further the Satapatha-Brafimana * too contains " the forms mayam (n 4 25) and "maye" (m 241), " mayavant (xm 5 4 12) where the word a The Pafica means power supernatural vims'ati Brahmana also has the word mayaya (xm
'

6
Is

12

in the same sense Mayavant (as an ad]4' <J) seen in Ait Br via 23 and in Sat Br xm 5 ^ These typical examples are more than suffi-

cient for our purpose,

references from the

vadgita, which may be termed the final the kernel of all the Upamsads 3

and we now hasten to quote Upamsads and from the BhagaUpamsad or

oldest as well

The Brhadaranyaka Upamsad the

as the most important in many ways, contains the " " word 5 19),* the Prasna Up (11 mayabhih
with the Commentary of Sayana ed by Rajendra Lala Mitra Calcutta 1859 vol 111 p 237 1 The Satapatha Brahmana of the White Yajurveda with Sayana s Com ed by Acarya Satyavrata Samasrami , vol

Randall Calcutta 1906 p 191 and vol m.Kandalll Calcutta 1905 p 1 19 (Bibl Ind ) Sayana translates maya here as Aghatita ghatanasakbh and in the next passage expresses the same idea
11

These synonyms paramavyamohakannl saktih give a clear explanation See G A Jacob Concordance to the Principal Upani sads

by

'

and Bhagavadgita This is the famous quotation from R V vi 47 18 which also occurs in Sat Br xiv 5 5 19 , also in JaimSee Brhadaranyakopamsad inlya-Uparusad Br i 44 I herausgegeben und ubersetzt von O Bohtlingk St Peters
burg, 1889.

22.

HISTORY OF THE WORD "MAYA"

mSyS.
(i.

17
io),

i6),

the Svetaivatara
3

Up maya

(i.

mayam, mayinam
(iv. 9).

(iv, 10),

mayl,* and

mayayS
;

Upamsads too the word occurs the forms maya, mayam, mayaya m Nrp. Up. (ni.

Among
v. i)

the later

and

in Nrut.
(i

Nrut. Up. .tram we read

Up. (Khanda and 5). 5 In

9),

mayamaUp.
(3)

Cul.

i Bibl Iri&ic vol vm No Here Maya is spoken of 29 as a defect along with jihmam (moral crookedness) and It is itself mithyacararupadosa anrtam (telling a he)

(the defect of hypocrisy)

com

In his Here maya means the great cosmic illusion on the passage Sankara adds, " sukhaduhkhamohatmakaSesaprapaficarupamaya," i e the whole world as a sum-total of pleasure, pain, delusion, etc ' Here the Prakrti of the Sankhya is spoken of as mdyA. " Cf "jnayam tu prakftim viddhi mayinam tu mahe^varam * The Great Lord is called mayl here and in the followhis stanza He is said to create the universe only by ing
1
,

maya-Sakti

" The Nrsimha-Tapani Upamsad," Bibl InSica, Cal , As these and other minor Upamsads are not easily 1871. " available we give the following quotations in full MayS " va esa narasimhl," natmanam maya sprgati," " Kse-

evam evaisa mSya," may5 cSvidya ca svayam eva bhavati," " mayam etam Saktim vidyat," " "ya etam mayam Saktim veda," mayaya va etat sarvam
rfipanubhuteh,"
vestitam," "mayaya vahirvestitam," "mayaya hy an" " mudha iva vyavaharann aste may ayaiva, " mayyad iva, " ay a nasamvittihsvaprakage," trayam apy etat (and trayam atrSpi) susuptam svapnam m&y3un,tra,m," (Nrut i), * idam sarvam yad ayam atma mayamatram " (Nrut. 5). For Culika and other Upamsads see the Collection of
' '

"

"

i8
"

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

VikSrajananim

mayam astarupam ajam dhruvam,"

is spoken of as bringing about the existence of the phenomenal world. The Sarv, Up 1 reads

where Maya

"

Katham pratyagatma paramatma atma maya ceti,"

is

where an inquiry
.

made

four terms including in section 4

into the meanings of these maya, and the answer is give/i

*
.

" Anadir antarvatni pramanapramanasadharana na sati nasatl na sadasati svayam avikarad vikarahetau mru-

pyamane asati,* amrupyamane mayety ucyate,"

sati

laksanasunya s3

where the mysterious nature of maya is described. The Ramap Up.,8 which is one of the sectarian Upanisads, speaking of Rama and Sita as Rrakrti and Purusa, reads thus
"tato
"

RSmo manavo mayayadhyat"

(61)

(17).

kbnaparsve ramamaye"

thirty-two Upanisads, published -by the Anandasrama The Cul Up conSansknt Series, No 29, Poona, 1895 tains only twenty-one slokas, divided into two khandas, and belongs to A p 230 1 The Sarvopamsatsara is a small prose-treatise containing only five sections, in the last of which it gives a good See Ibid p 587-92 description of maya * The Great Lord is called may! here and in the following stanza. He is Said to create the universe only by his

maya-sakti

The RamapQrvatSpaniya Up
Slokas divided into ten khandas.

contains

See

ibid.,

ninety-four pp. 487-529,

HISTORY OF THE WORD

"
"

"
"

MAYA "

19

mayavidye ye kaiapSratattve namo mSySxaaySya. ca" (30).

(89).

The Gopicandana Up. reads

I
"

"

m&yasahitabrahmasambhogavasat

"
(4)
)

mayasabahtam Brahmasit

"

(Ibid

fhe
"
"

Krsna Up.

also reads

m5ya maya

" "

s5 tnvidha prokta (5) " tredha hy udahfta (6) " (7) ajayya Vaisnavl maya Hanh saksan mayavigrahadharanah "

Mayaya mohitam jagat (12) (13) tasya m3y3 jagat katham

these passages
1

"

(11)

In
"
in

all

illusion,"

etc.

" maya means appearance," The same sense is further found

"

"

sa

evam
and
2).

"

mayapanmohitatma

Up.

12),

indrajalam iva

m5y5mayam

(Kaivalya "
(Maitri

Uf.* iv.

One

of the
is
8

Advaitism

and important works on Gaudapada's Kankas on the,Mandukya

most
brilliant

Upamsad.
Advaita
as
;

These
(i)

are

divided
;

into

four
;

parts

(prakaranas)
(4)

Agama

(2)

Alata-santi, each of

(3) Vaitathya which is regarded

a separate Upamsad.

Of the subject-matter

of this important work we shall have occasion to speak in Chapter II. But here we may only point
1

We are consciously

using these

two words

as

synonyms

The Mandfikya-Upamsad (of A. V), with Gaudapada's Kankis, together with Sankara's Comm., Anandairaina Series, No. 10, 1890, Poona.

20

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

of

out that the word

same sense
ii.

" " maya is here also used in the * illusion " (In one appearance," " supernatural power," passage, however, it means "

12)

The Karika contains sixteen passages altogether which the word maya occurs. Out of these, Part III contributes no less than six passages, Part IV contnbutmg four, and each of the other two parts
in

contributing three,
"

svapnamaySsarupeti

sfstir

anyair

vikalpita,"

where the world is likened to a world to illusion, both of which are false.
"

of

dreams and

anadimayaya supto yada jlvah prabudhyate

"
(i.

16),

where the cosmic illusion under the influence of " " is spo'ken which the individual feels as if asleep
of as begmningless.
"

" Mayamatram idam dvaitam advaitam paramarthatah

where the duality,

e
is

word
"
"

is

composed,

the multiplicity of which the declared mere illusion.

" Kalpayaty Stmanatmanam atma devah svamayaya

(

),

where maya is said to be the Lord's own " wondrous Here the sense of such a supernatural power."

power

is

maintained.

sently, the

two ideas are

But, as will be shown preclosely allied to each

HISTORY OF THE WORD "MAYA"

other.

21

The

sense

of

"
of

illusion

"
is

natural

development of the idea

"
i9).
is

such a

"

power."

" mayaisa tasya devasya yaya sammohitah svayam

(

where maya
"
3i),

spoken of as the Lord's great illusion.

"

svapnamSye yatha dfste gandharvanagaram yathH

(

where again maya is collated with svapna, and it is said that the waking world has no substantiality, " fata morgana." like a dreaming world or like a
"

samghatah svapnavat sarve atmamayavisarjitah

"
(m. 10),

so-called objective existences in this world are declared false and mere creations of the At-

where the

man's maya (amdyd).

"

may ay a
(111

bhidyate by etan nanyathajam kathamcana"

19).

where the differences or the plurality are said to be due to mere illusion. The same thought is
repeated in
" neha naneti camnayad mdro mayabhir ity api " (ui ajayamano bahudha mayaya jay ate tu sah

24).

Further, in the following two passages it is discussed how the world is created not from not-being " " " " but from being not in reality but as it were :
" " sato hi (ut. 27) mayaya janma yujyate na tu tattvatah " " asato mayaya janma tattvato naiva yujyate (iu. a&).

ID Part IV we find

22
"

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

Upalambhat samacaran mayahasti yathocyate
"
(iv. 44),

where the empirical existence of the world is granted like the one granted to an illusive elephant.

"janma mayopamam tesSm

(iii.

sa ca

maya na vidyate"
real existence at

58),

where " maya

all.

"
is

said to

have no

"

yatha mayamayad

vijaj

jayatetanmayo 'nkurah"

(iv 59),

where the creation? destruction, etc., of the worldly objects is described as maya, an appearance, seeming
true only in the realm of appearance.
"

yatha svapne dvayabhasam cittam

calati

mayaya,
"
(iy 61),

tatha jagrad dvayabhasam cittam calati

mayaya

where the seeming duality is spoken of as mere vijUdnamaya, and the waking and the dreaming
states are

Mah&bharata.
" "

compared in this regard. The same sense is observed in the great For instance
purS vikurute

epic, the

mayam
i

" "

Cf also

(i 6,029) 7,631,111 2,557. xiii 7.595. (i

"

mayam mohinim samupasntah

" apsara devakanya va maya

1,156),

(111

15,580)

Now we come to the BhagavadgitS, which is the finest gem in our New Testament of the Upanisads,
and which contains the
sophy.
essentials of all our philo-

HISTORY OF THE WORD "MAYA"

"

23

prakrtim svam adhisthaya

"
(iv.

sambhavSmy atmamayaya

6).

Here

it

means
"

" will-power

"

Daivi hy esS gunamayi mama tnaya duratyaya, mam eva ye prapadyante

mayam etam
Here it means on God is spoken
"

taranti te

"

(vii.

14)

"
illusion,"

of as

"

which being dependent

divine."

mayayapahj-tajaana asuram bhavam asntah "

(vii.

15).

Here, too, the same sense of

**

illusion."

"bhramayan sarvabhutani " (xvm yantrarudham may ay a

"

61).

illusive Power." Here, too, it means the great Now let us turn to the System of the Vedanta, properly so called as one of the six systems or schools

of

Indian

philosophy.

The

Sutras

(aphorisms,

condensed formulas) which constitute tliis system are called the Brahma-Sutras or the Vedanta-Sutras, and are 555 in number The word maya, however,
occurs only in one of these
(ui.

2. 3),

which runs

thus
"

Mayamatram

tu kartsnyena anabhivyaktasvarupatvat M1

world

where, speaking of the nature of a dream, the dream" is pronounced to be mere illusion." Max

i Cf. Deussen, Die Sutras des Vedanta, Leipzig, 1887, 504 ; Thibaut, Ved&nta-Suiras, Part II (vol. JDCCWH. of S.B.E ), Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1896, p. 134.

p.

24

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

Midler 1 seems to be incorrect when he says that " the word need not mean more than a dream." In
that case the sutra would

mean

that the dream:

world is a dream, which hardly has any sense. " " Doubtless the word means illusion here, as it
is

quite in keeping with the spirit of the preceding

sutras, which also bear on the same subject df the unreality of the dream-world. The most important, authoritative and popular, as well as the oldest, commentary on the Vedanta-

two

Sutras

is the one by Sankara (otherwise called " " This Sankaracarya) called the Sariraka-Bhasya Bhasya has so much been respected that it forms a

part and parcel of the technical system of the Vedanta together with the Sutras Of the intrinsic

merit of Sankara's commentary or of its relajion to the Brahma-Sutras we shall have occasion to s'peak " " later on. Suffice it to say here that the term maya is found, in the commentary fifteen times in the
following passages, " of illusion."
"
2

and

it

invariably has the sense

i mayamna's carma-khadgadharat sutrena yatha Skasam adhirohatah sa eva maydvi paramartharupo bhumistho 'nyah" 8 (On i i. 17) i

Max

Muller, The Six Systems of

Indian Philosophy,

Longmans, 1899, p 243. * We have selected here the more typical and important No doubt there are some others too, some of passages
these having been quoted in ch 11 Sankara's Comm on 1 i 17 p. 120, Ved&nta-Sutras, Bibl. lad., Cal , 1863.
1.

16 of the

HISTORY OF THE WORD

" "

"

MAYA

"

25

Here the word occurs and means a mayavin " " s too it means in the following i uggler
2.

"

eka eva paramesvarah kutastha-mtyo vijfianadhatur 1 avidyaya may ay a mayavivad anekadha vibhavyate." (On i 3 19)
"

(On i 4. 3 )> "mayamayi maha-susuptih " Kvacm maya ita sucitam " (Ibid 3 " 5 ." Avyakta hi sa maya (Ibid )* 6 "MSyavI iva mayayah prasaritasya jagatah
g.

4.

"

(On

u
"
7.

i)

yatha svayam prasantaya mayaya mayavi tnsv api kalesu na samspjsyate avastutvat.^vam paramatmapi samsara-mayaya na samsp^syate iti," etc (On u. i 9)*

8
9.

"

mayamatram

hi etat

"
(Ibid
)

"

yatha ca mayavi svayam-prasaritam " (On apayasena eva upasamharati

"

mayam
11

icchaya
8
)

21

10

dena eva
(On u
i

loke 'pi devadisu mayavi-adisu ca svarupa-anumar" vicitra hasta-asva-adi sfstayo djsyante

28)

These are the ten passages in Sankara's Bhsya in which the word occurs. It is possible to discover

more passages in the same on a minuter analysis of the vast and voluminous commentary, but that would not affect our problem in any way. It is
Sankara on 1 3 19
Ibid

Ibid

269,
*

~- J

Ibid, p. 343, 343.

p. 342,

I. I1.

9.
I-

II 1-3 Ibid , p

342,

I.

12.

on
Ibid.,

3 19, Ibid., p. 406, I. 6. 7 Ibid , 432, U. 8-10. p

i

432,

1.
I.

13.

Ibid.,

472,

1.

g.

Ibid., p. 484,

u.

26

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

"

true beyond doubt that Sankara

means by may

illusion." nothing but From Sankara's time downward the phraseology of the Vedanta was more and more settled technic-

and even modern writers on the Vedanta use " " " " maya in the same sense of illusion was so clearly brought out by Sankar*. After his time there has not been any desire to change the meaning of the term by a different usSge. Hence it will hardly be of much use to examine the later Sanskrit texts on the Vedanta hi order to find * out the word maya." In the first place, it is' exceedingly difficult to do so, since the later literature is so varied, vast and undefined in extent secondly, the later Vedanta is in many cases mixed with the ideas of the Sankhya, Buddhism, etc and
ally,

the word

iwhich

thirdly,

even

if

we were

to succeed in collecting all

the more important modern works on pure Vedanta " " and wei to collate the passages containing maya
in
since, as

the term

a similar way, it would scarcely be of any profit, we have already said, the modern usage of is in no way different from that of Sankara.

glance through such works as the PancadaSi, the Vedantasdra, the Vedantapanbhdsa, the Atmabodha, the Vwekacuddmani, etc., will amply endorse
this fact.

We may, therefore, safely close our survey of the meanings of the term when we have come
to Sankara's time.

down
is

Apart from its philosophic use, the word maya used in modern classical Sanskrit to convey some

"

"

HISTORY OF THE
other ideas also.
juggler."

WORD "MAYA"
it

27

Sometimes

means

"

a female

" " x or fraud Again it means deception (kapata) or hypocrisy (chadma), e.g., in the MahSbhSrata.
"

sevetSm amayaya gurum

"
(xui
7,595).

"
i*.,

let

both of them serve the teacher without

illusion

in an unphilosophian ordinary way free from the technical shade of the philosophical idea. For
cal

any deception." " If also means

"
sense,
i

"

"

e.,

in

example, in the Raghuvamsa

"

we reSd
"
'si
(11.

mayam mayodbhavya

pariksito

62),

i.e.,

you have been tested by me creating illusion." The word is also used sometimes as a proper name. " " Buddna's mother was called maya (full name
" "

"

"maya
1

is one of Devi"), as mayadevlsuta " Buddha's names mentioned in the Amarafcoia." *

Cf. Amarakosa (Dictionary of the Sansknt Language, by Simha), edited with an English interpretation and T Colebrooke, Serampur, 1808, p. 241, annotations by Sloka ii "syi> maya sambari mayakaras tu pratiha-

Amara

nkah"
*

Gautamas ca-arkabandhus ca mayadevisutas ca sah Cf. also Max Muller's Six Systems of Indian Philosophy, LongSee also "maya" in mans, Green & Co, 1899, p 122 Wilson's Dictionary in Sansknt and English, second enlarged
edition, Calcutta, 1832,

"

Amarakosa, ed

Colebrooke,

Ibid

3,

Sloka 10 "

p 657 also Sansknt Dictionary, by Taranatha Tarkavacaspata, Calcutta, 1882 Padmacandrakosa, by Prof. Ganesh Datta Shasta, Nirnaya-sagara
; ;

28

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

at the present

Even

actually named " or Maya-Kaur."

so
if

"

dayt

Maya-Dew
The

India some " "

or

girls

are

"

Maya-vati

chief reason

why

they are

named is that they are looked upon as auspicious their name means "wealth" or "a bnnger of

wealth," etc , everything bearing on wealth being In India almost all supposed to be auspicious names mean something definite most of them are
after the designations of some gods or goddesses. " " It is supposed that if a girl is named maya she
will

This idea pf meaning of the word, " the goddess of wealth, called Laksmi." LaksmI is the presiding deity of wealth, and her 1 It presence is always desired by the Hindus. " also means sometimes mere wealth.", J'his is especially noticed in modern works in Hindi and "
riches "'leads us to the next
is

ever be abounding in riches. ^

which

Punjabi.

In the Sankhya system

Maya

is

identified with

Press,

Bombay

further see

F Bopp, Glossanum
,

Sanscri-

tum, Berohm, 1847,

p 263

Dictionary, Lond , 1893, p Sanskrit English Dictionary,

1

226

Macdonell, Sanskrit English Theodore Benfrey, A ,

,

Lond

1866,

701, etc

etc.

Every year in the month of Asvina there is a special observed called the Dipamaia. (lit a row of lamps), as on that day every Hindu burns a number of lamps (generlong rows in all parts of his house, ally of clay) arranged A special traditional story of especially on the outside LaksmI is recited, and it is hoped that the goddess of wealth will come to all those who love light (prakasa) and
festival

HISTORY OF THE WORD "MAYA"

29

" matter ") as the source of Prakrti (the primordial the universe, with the distinct difference that the
latter is real.
It is

the equilibrium of the three

1 It is also Rajas and Tamas. It has a real and independent Pradhana existence and brings about the evolution of the In other whple world m company with the Purusa words, the Sankhya system is based on an out-andout dualism This dualism is questioned and finally solved by the Vedanta in so far as the Prakrti is transformed into Maya, and the Purusa into Brahraan, and so the mutual opposition dof the two is

qualities of Sattva,

called

The word
measure
"

"

Maya

"
is

derived from i/ma., to

,

miyate anaya iti," i e by which is measured, meaning thereby, as tradition has it, that illusive* projection of the world by which the
if

" to build," root gives further the sense of " " or illusion. leading to the idea of appearance 2 on i. his V 7, too Sayana, commentary " derives the word from mad mane " (i.e., y'ma, to

immeasurable Brahman appears as

measured.

The same

measure). Further on, while explaining the form " " mayaya in R V. in. 27 7 he derives it from <^ma,
to know, or to measure, and adds mimite janlte karma miyate anayeti va maya karmavisayabmjfianam," i.e., (i) y'Ma, to know by which the ritual,
1

"

Sattva-rajas-tamasam samyavastha prakrtih For the derivations proposed by Sayana see also above,

"

"

p. 8.

30
etc.,

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

are known,
(2) -v/

ritual, etc., are

Ma to measure by which the measured c (i.e understood, or per,

formed) , hence maya of the ritual, etc. 60 Again R V.

the knowledge of the object

"

i also,

adds Sayana,
i

"

miyante
"

jnayante
pi.)

iti

mayah karmam,"

"

mayah
"

means ritual practices because they are knows. In R.V. x 53 9 too Sayana (from ^/ma, to know) " " karma We are incimed takes the word to mean
to say that this derivation of Sayana is a little Another rather fanciful denvation far-fetched.

(nom. "

giving the meaning correctly none the less is " maya = ma ya, i.e that which is not that which truly is not but still appears to be." This is, however, a merely interesting derivation without
,

arty principles of etymology.

mate (svatAnother way to derive it would be " that which shows dars"ayati iti maya," i e., itself that which appears to our view (without having any real existence)." This will be from ^/ma, to show.

"

manam)

power

Hence, the conception of maya as the causal will(iccha-s"akti or prajna) may be derived from
to

Vma,
etc.

know

and, as the effectual state of the

world as

illusion,

from

<tfin.5.,

to measure, to build,

To sum up
meant
(i)

we have seen that the word " maya "

in R.V.

Supernatural power, mysterious will-power, wonderful skill, and that the idea of the

HISTORY OF THE WORD

"

MAYA "

31

underlying mystery being more emphasized later on, it came to mean in A V

(2)

And, further, we saw that Magic, illusion in the Brahmanas and the Upamsads also
.

(3)

illusion,

.*-

meant and that this meaning was more and more fixed subsequently, till m the time of Sankara it was established beyond " " doubt The sense of illusion may easily
it

be found to
it

exist in

usage of the term, e g

form even in the Vedic where in the R V

,

meant

"

The

" " " supernatural or wondrous power and not the ordinary physical power " " idea of mystery or wonder always was
"

power or

skill

"

always meant

present,

and it is this very element that in its devel" " " oped form gives the sense of illusion or appear" The idea of " magic in A V formed a ance link between the old meaning of " supernatural " " " or power and the modern one of appearance " " As we have already pointed out, illusion " " has been viewed principally from two maya
'

(1)

As the
cause

principle

of

creation

maya

as

corresponding to the sense of Sakti

creation
itself

(wondrous power), or
(2)

As the phenomenal
as an "
effect

maya

appearance," etc This short summary, we hope, will suffice as an

illusion,"

"

corresponding to the sense of

32

THE DOQTRINE OF MAYA

maya
in the follow-

introduction to the conception of

ing chapter.
discussed,

The meaning

if the

term having been

we will now attempt

to trace the develop-

ment

of the theory or the idea of

Maya from
its

the

Vedic times down to Sankara's, when

usage was

ourselves to the finally settled, limiting

system of

the Vedanta proper.

If

we were

to attempt to trace the conception |

Maya or its alternative

it

conceptions in other

s;

would lead us out

of our present scope

We h
{

however, to be able sometime in the near future

write a separaterfreatise on this doctrine with special

reference to
its

place in

modern Hindu philosophy

and Western
Reli-

and

its

analogies in other Eastern

Philosophies.

gions

and

For the present we have

to confine ourselves mainly to the historical view of

the conception of

Maya

within the system* tf the

Vedanta.

IT

OF THE

CONCEPTION OF

MM

CHAPTER

II

DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONCEPTION OF MAYA.

AFTER
a brief philological survey of the word mSyS,
to the idea
itself.

we now turn

Tke word and the

idea are not to be confused

is

since such a confusion

productive of various false assumptions as to the

doctrine of

mSyS

in relation to its place in

Indian

thought.

There are not a few who boldly allege

a late origin and

that*tlte doctrine is distinctively of

growth, an after-thought or a subsequent suggestion of

some

of the later

VedSntms

Idealistic

temperament.
is

The

thj purely idea of M5yS, they

of

pretend,

wholly wanting in the earlier philoso,

the Upamsads, Without anticipating any discussion on this point, we may only state that such thinkers seem to
etc.

phical treatises of the Hindus, viz

us to be entirely mistaken.

Hence our main

thesis

in this chapter will be to show, with the aid of suit-

able authoritative quotations from our philosophic

literature,

that the idea of

MSyS
maya.

is

very

oldin

certainly older than the word

its

The word
first

usual sense, of course, occurs for the

time in

36

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

Upamsad
(iv

the Svetalvatara
tion

10),

but the tdea

may be traced to the later stige of the Vedic civiliza-

We

shall

endeavour to show that the con-

ception, though not in a systematic and organic and the Upamsads form, is already found in the

RV

Philosophy, as reflective thought, or the thinking consideration of things, 1 did actually begin with> things , that is to say, the first germs of philosophy

began to appear with an attempt to explain fn|

concrete realities in the environment, i e the UxH A yearning was noticeable in the humaff verse
,

comprehend the source of all existence And as all higher development is from the concrete to the abstract, thought too followed the same course, and after passing through the stages in which the
breast to
different forces of nature, or various other elements,

such as water, air, fire, etc began to be imagined as the chief source of all existences, the point was
,

reached* where the

was found to yield no satisfactory explanation of its being, and a desire was felt to know the mystery, the underlying unity

"

many

"

With the advance in thought, the principle of unity attracted more and more attention, so much so that as early as in R V i 164 (" ekarp sad vipra bahudha " i e the poets speak of the One Being vadanti under various names), the multiplicity was felt to
,

be due to a

mode

of speech only, not real in

itself,

Cf Schwegler Gescht chte der Pktlosopfne Stuttgart Ein'

lertnng

Philosophieren

ist

"

Nacbdenken, (Jenkende Betra-

DEVELOPMENT OF

ITS

CONCEPTION

37

only the One having real existence. The innumerable Vedic gods began thus to be conceived as not
at

One God
its

war with one another, but only manifestations Monotheism conquered Polytheism The last book of the R V. exclusive sense

of in
is

particularly rich in philosophic hymns, many of " which strike a chord of the same sentiment of unity
"

^nderlying

diversity

The bold speculation

of

Be ancient Vedic people is picturesquely portrayed m R V x 129 one of the earliest records known
of an attempt at explaining the cosmogonic

mystery

by grasping the idea of unity It 1" one of the most sublime and exalted hymns in the R.V., both from the philosophic and the literary standpoints, and is
a true index to the early mystic thought of the Hindus To a somewhat prejudiced mind it may
appear as a mere conglomeration of contradictions

and a piece of abstract sophistry But it is one of the finest songs that any literature maybe proud " of. Deussen describes it as the most remarkable

monument
translated

of the oldest
it

into

German

and has philosophy, As the hymn is very

"

important for our purpose, lation as follows

1

we give our

own

trans-

p. 13,
*

Deussen, Outlines of Indian Philosophy. Berlin, 1907, I- 20 Deussen, Geschichte der Philosophic, vol. i , p. 126, and

also in his Geheitnlehre des

most

Veda, zweite Auflage, Leipzig, 1907. P- 3- The hymn has been translated by many, but of the translations seem to be incorrect in places.

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

RV
1

x itg

Then was

neither Being nor

air
all

No
What

realm of

enveloped

Non Being no sky beyond ? Where ? In whose care

the deep abyss
'

'

Were waters
2

there

Twas

No

neither death nor life immortal night was there no day s appearance

The One in its spontaneity did airless breathe Beyond it naught was in existence
3

Darkness was there at first by darkness covered The world ^as ocean without distinction But a pregnant germ lay hidden in shell

The One engendered by

4 Within
it at first

force of heat

arose Desire Which was the primal seed of mind The root of Being in Non Being Sages Searching by wisdom in the heart discovered

When like a What was

ray their being they spread below ? what was above ' Seed bearers were there great powers too Spontaneity beneath and effort above

knows in sooth ? Who here can tell ' Whence it became ' Whence this creation The gods came later than its creation So who can tell whence all this arose ?

Who

From whom

Whether he produced

arose this whole creation it or not he

it

Who

in highest

He knows

well

heaven surveys it, or even not he

DEVELOPMENT OF
This

ITS

CONCEPTION
of

39

marks

the

thought in India. unity of the world afterwards gave rise to Greek Xenophanes philosophy in the Eleatic monism
started his polemic against the anthropomorphism in popular Greek religion and was the first among " " All is one A little Greek thinkers to declare

philosophical The*same conception of the basal

beginnings

Parmemdes too developed, as his chief princithe same idea of the essential oneness of being and thought We point out this fact simply to show that it was quite natural and legitimate that the
later
ple,
'

Vedic poets should begin their philosophical speculation with their yearning to comprehend the under-

That the yearning was lying unity of the world natural is amply shown by almost exactly the same
tendencies being found in other philosophies, especiAs in Greece, so in India, ally*m* that of Greece. " philosophy was born as the child of wonder."

Garbe, who has done a good deal of useful wor^ * n the Sankhya, has unfortunately failed to realize the spmt in which the above hymn was composed

by the Vedic Aryans, and finds in it as well as in other philosophical hymns in the R.V., "unclear
and
fail

self-contradictory trains of thought." J to perceive any such contradictions. The various explanations are in themselves demanded by the

We

very mysterious nature of the problem. It may be remarked in passing that the Being and Non-Being
*

Richard

Garbe,
i.

The

Philosophy of

Anctent India,

Chicago, 1897, p.

40

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

,

spoken of in the hymn do not stand in antithesis on the (as they do in early Greek* philosophy) contrary, they are one, though they are two from our way of looking at them. 1 The undeveloped state, known as kdrandvasthd, is spoken of as NonBeing
it

does

not

mean

while the manifested state

the negation of Being; is called by the name,

said to be born^f and the root of the
is

of Being. This also explains why Being Non-Being in R.V. x. 72 2-3,

discovered in the latter (R V x. 129. 4). There might appear many such contradictions im-

former

is

plied in the use of terms, but they are only seeming contradictions, and vanish as soon as the real reconciliation (vyavastha) is

made

out.

Now, after attaining a consciousness of the oneness of all things, the next step was naturally & quest after the nature of this unity An attempt is made
to determine
it in V x. 121, where, after describing the majesty and wonder of the vast network of creation, the poet at last names Prajapati as the unknown god, the ultimate unity of all creation.

."

Prajapati, than them there is no other. " holds in his embrace the whole creation

Who

This idea of Prajapati is subsequently transformed under the name of Brahman or Atman in the Upanii

On

this idea see Sankara's

commentary on Vedanta-

Sfltras,

4. 15, p. 376,

11.

7-10 (Bibl. Ind. edn.).

DEVELOPMENT OF
sads.
90)

ITS

CONCEPTION
hymn
"

41

However,
see the

in another

Vedic

same p<Jwer attributed to one with Prajapati in general in RV. x 81 and 82 to VisVaand conception), karman. In R.V x 72 the same functions are
(who,

we

(R.V. x. " Puritsa

we

believe, is

referred to
"

Brahmanaspati

Brahmanaspati like a smith Together forged this universe

When

gods existed not as yet,

Then Being from Non-Being did anse

"

Later on, Prajapati is identified with the creating " word * (the Greek Logos ") in R V. x. 125, and " " as principles of with the sacrifice and the year

On

the relation between the Indian conception of Vac

an*

tfte Greek conception of Adyos, see Weber's Indische Cf also Max Hemze, Die Lehre vom Studien, vol ix In Logos in der Gnechischen Philosophic, Oldenberg, 1872 numerous passages Vac also appears as the convrt of Pra-

japati, the creator

x 90, has been translated by Max Muller, Ancient p 569 Muir, O S T iv 16 Ludwig, No Max Muller, Hibbert Lectures Grassmann, 11 398 (1882), p 301 ; Henry W. Walhs, Cosmology of the R.V p 50 Max Muller, Vedic Hymns, S.B E., xxxii I ; DeusSk
Lit (1859),
;
,

RV
,

948

sen, Geschichte,

132

With some

which Dte Hymnen des

variants, this hymn is has been translated by Weber,

found in

A V.

iv

2,

RV

314

VS.

xxxi. 18 (=Svetas.

Up a

111.

xvm 8 ; Oldenberg, Bloomfield, JAOS, xv. 184. 8- Muir v. p 373) refer

to Purusa-

"I

know

above the darkness.

this great Pumsha, resplendent as the sun, It by knowing him that a man

42

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

We
here insert the former
is

the world, R.V. x. 190

in our

own

translation, as if

hymns

of the Rigvedic speculation

one of the typical and is important

for our purpose

Vac
1

wander with the Rudras and the Vasus,

,

With the Adityas and the Visve Devas

I support both, Mitra and Varuna, Indra and Agm, and the Asvins two

I I

Tis

support Sbma, swelling with juice, support Tvastr, Pusan and Bhaga I who give wealth to the zealous
the sacrincer

offerer,

To
3
I

who

presses

Soma

the queen, the showerer of riches, The knowing, first of the worshipped ones , * Me have the gods in many forms displayed,

am

Me, living everywhere and entering

ever passes death xxxii 2

all

things

There

is

VS

no other road to go "

Cf

All winkings of the eye have sprung from Muir, p 374 No one has limited him either Purusa, the resplendent above, or below, or in the middle The first two verses of R V x 90 are given the Svetaivat Up 111 14, 15 Cf A V xix. 4, 5 6 7 Colebrooke's Mtsc Essays, i 167 and note in p 309 1 For translations of the hymn, see Colebrooke, Asiatic vui Researches, vol Calcutta, 1805, or Miscellaneous " Vac and Logos," Essays, i,, p. 28 ; Weber's article on

Id, Stud.'ix
146
f.
;

hymn

is

473, Deussen, Gesckickte, vol. i. i. ; Weber, xvui 117. The whole found with slight variants in A.V iv. 30.
(1865),
i.

Griffith,

171

DEVELOPMENT OF
4.

ITS who

CONCEPTION
sees,
;

43

Through me he

eats food,

Who

breathes,

who

hears what's spoken

Not knowing me they stay by me, Hear thou of fame, I tell thee what's not easy

to know,
belief.

worthy of

(Mw)
to be credited.

(Whitney
.

It is I myself who declare this truth, Agreeable to gods and men alike ,
I

make him

powerful,

whom

I love,

Him a Brahma
|

(Brahmana), a Rsi, a sage

the

It's I

who bend
his

bow

for Rudra,

That
It's I It's I

arrow

may

strike the foe ot

Brahmana,
earth.

who fight for my peoples' sake. who have entered both heaven and
first

7 I create Father (Dyaus),

My

birth-place

is

on the world's summit, the waters, in the ocean

,

Tterf I into all things existing Center, And touch yonder heaven with my body
It's I

who blow
sky,
I

Spreading into being

forth like the wind, all that exist ,

I So great

Beyond the

have

beyond this earth, by my glory become

The unity of existence could not be more simply and emphatically pronounced than in these hymns. When the goddess Vac says in stanza 3,
1

This line

is

difficult

to translate quite accurately.

The extant translations do not throw any light on it

ney too leaves it open to doubt in and Notes, vol. L, p. 201.

Whit*

his Atharva-veda, Trans,

44

"Me

have the gods many forms displayed. Me, living everywhere and entering all things,"

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA m

she repeats the same thought

to,

which again

is

we have already referred expressed by the Rsi Dirgha-

tamas while praising

"

Agm

Of the one

existence, the sages speak in dive

And

the same thought was later on brought out by Yaska (who lived about the fifth century, B c ) " " The One Atman is sung in many ways (Nir vn 5, Roth s ed p n) Some of the other Vedic
,

hymns

in

which
is

this conception of the underlying

unity of being
90, 121, etc
,

x 81, 82, brought out are which we can only refer to, instead of All this clearly shows that this translating here
idea of unity is as old as the Vedic civilization, that the ancient Indian Rsis were quite aware of the oneness of being and gave a poetic expression to the

RV

same thought

in

many

beautiful strains

It is needless to multiply instances

from the other

three Vedas, since the these

RV

is

the chief source of

and is in itself the oldest and most important Most of the hymns of the other Vedas are one bodily transferred from the R V and arranged in different ways to meet the spirit and requirements

We may, however, note in passing that of each the same idea of the unity of being is discovered in the following stanzas from the A V.

DEVELOPMENT OF
"
Aditi
is

ITS

CONCEPTION

45

heaven, Adrh atmosphere, Adifc mother, she f ather, she son ; All the gods are Aditi, the five races, Adita is what is born, Adit, what is to be born."

A.V
"

vii.

6. i i

great being (Yaksa) vour in the midst of the world, on the surface of the waters. In it are set whatever gods there are, as the branches of a " tree around the trunk

Whoever know the Brahman in man, they know the most exalted one ; whoever know the most exalted one, and whoever know Prajapata, whoever know the chief Brahmana, they know also accordingly the Skambha." *" The * is absorbed in austere fer-

AV
"

xj7.
that
"

17,

and

38.

What moves,

flies

and

stands, breathing,
,

not-breathing and winking

that combined becomes

"

One only

AV
4

x 8
;

II.

Prajapati goes about within the " Unseen, yet is manifestly born

womb

A.V
i

x, 8. ^3.

Compare

RV

89. 10

VS

xxv 23

T.A

13 2

and
1

MS

Viraj, see

iv 14 4 ix

For a similar sentiment

10

in reference to

AV

* This is from the well-known A V hymn on the Skambha or the Frame of Creation For translation see Muir'a Sanskrit Texts, vol v Ludwig, p 400 pp 380-384 and WhitDeussen, Geschichte, \ 1. 310 Griffith, 11. 26 ney's A.V. vol. n. p 589. The translation is taken from Whitney For translation of A.V. x. 8. see Muir, v., p, 386 ;
,

V. x 8. 15) (cf also see Geldner, Vedische Stitdien, in. 126 ff ; also Kena Up., ui 14-25 ; Deussen, Secfutg Upamsads, p 204, Emleitung.

" " For a discussion on Yaksa

24

46

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

satisfied with the* essence, 1 respect, one is not afraid of death."

self -existent,

not deficient

any

AV

x. 8. 44.

is

variously

" They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni ; likewise he the heavenly-winged eagle what is one the sages name " , they call him Agni, Yama, Matansvan
,

AV

ix

10.

i#"

These typical passages point to a continuation^ the same idea in the A V The BrShmanas, tfcff exegetical treatises on the Samhitas', being mainly
8 guided by the Sruti, and starting with the object

of making explicit what is implicitly implied in the mantras, may naturally be supposed not to swerve What is alfrom the general spirit of the latter ready explicit in the mantras is sometimes only

emphasized in these treatises. The transition from the earlier thought of the SamhitS to that of the

Brahmanas may be
x. 81,

noticed, for instance, in R.V.

is

where the question

p.

asked
i

Ludwig,
u.

395

Deussen, Gesckichie,

318

Griffith,

34
1

Compare what Deussen remarks on this passage und alteste Stelle, die WIT kennen, in der ruckhaltios der Atman als Weltpnncip proklamiert wird, A V x 8 44," (Geschichte der Phtlosophie, vol i p 334) See Whitney's A V p 561 * The BrShmanas m regard to their subject-matter are " " i e udrtanuvadah supposed by some to be they ex(Cf. plain in detail what is already given in the Veda.
"
die erste
,

YBska, Ntritkta,
sa^bhavati.")

i.

16.

Roth's ed

"

37,

uditanavfldah

DEVELOPMENT OF
' '

ITS

CONCEPTION

47

Which was the tree, which was the wood, of which they hewed the earth and hewren ? "
This question
is

Brahmana, and
' '

repeated in the text of the Taittiriya is followed by the answer

they hewed

the wood from which ~ Brahman was the tree, " earth and heaven

also developed in the Va]asaneyi

conception of PrajSpati and of Purusa is Samhita and the

1 The simple note of unity Taittiriya Brahmana. is also sounded, for instance, in the* Satap Br , iv.

2.

a.

i "
,

"

sarvam hy ayam atma,"

this soul is everything

"

however, mainly concerned with the t Upamsads, which are, as a rule, the final positions
are,

We

of the

BrShmanas.
sit,

The word

is

derived from the

"

root sad, to

with the prepositions upa, aear, and

t=very
which
is

(adverbial),

imparted to

and conveys the sense, that a pupil when he sits very near
"
secret doctrine."

his teacher

"hence,

The Up-

anisads may, therefore, be said to embody the esoteric

doctrines of the Vedas

They mostly contain philosophical expositions, elucidations and discussions on some Vedic passages, and by themselves form a more or less complete and comprehensive philoso* Cf.
i.

V S.
;

23.

viu. 36 ; xxxi. 18-21 ; XXMV 1-6, etc. j T.A. T.B. u. 8 8. 8-10 ; u. 8. 9. 6-7 ; ill. 12. 9.

48

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

is

phical system, which

the kernel of the whole of the

later philosophy. Their idealism is the groundstone of the later Vedanta. They are canonical, and

quotations from

them

are held

complete and

self-sufficient

They are final support trend of their thought is towards a thorough-going

monism, which
the Vedas, as
distich
"

by tradition ever and require no further authorities 1 The general

form existed even in

in its germinal

we have shown above

mental formula

may

Their fundfr be expressed in a well-known

Brahma satyam jagan mithya "

Jivo brahmaiva naparah
the Reality, the universe is false. " Brahman, nothing else

"

Brahman is The Atman

is

In other words, there

is

Brahman

or

Atman what you

only one Reality, call it will, and the world

around as which appears so real is not so This is the central thought which has been so admirably
*

It

may be

form the

interesting to know that the Upamsads chief source of quotations in Sankara's Sariraka-

Bhasya

According to the frequency of their occurrence

arranged in order Chandogya, 809 quotations ; Brhadaranyaka, 565 ; Taittarfya, 142 ; Mundaka, 129 , Katha, 103 ; Kausitaki, 88 ; Svetaivatara, 53 j Agni-Rahasya (Sat Br x ), 40 ; Praina, 38 ; Aitareya (Ait Ar 11 4-6), 22 ; Jabal*, 13 ; NSrftyanlya (Taitt Ar. x.), 9, Isa (Vaj Sam. xl.), 8; Pamgl, 6 j Kena. 5.

DEVELOPMENT OF

ITS

CONCEPTION

49

expanded and developed in various ways in the Upanisads, and what we call the doctrine of MayS is nothing more than an attempt to explain this fact hi detail, to show how it is impossible for the world " " to be anything more than an appearance as dis" tinguished from Reality," which strictly speaking 'is only Brahman. We now come to one of the most important parts

MBKjpresent subject, viz., the development of the theory of Maya through the Upanisads down to
remark at the outset that the (i) That (2) That These two statethe only reality is the Atman ments mean the same thing, so that the passages which emphasize the statement that the Atman is the'only reality mean most transparently that all rike (i e., other than the Atman, viz the world, etc.)
Sankara.
theory may be enunciated in two \fays the world is an illusion or appearance, and
,

We may

not

real.

^The

Upanisads when read through without any guiding principle seem to bristle with startling contradictions The world is described as pervaded by the Atman, and it is said that all this is Brahman, while at the same tune it is asserted that the

world

is

unreal

again,

it is

declared that the

Atman

created the world, while yet it is true that there is no world besides Brahman. All such and other state-

ments would perhaps

tion
if

baffle all

attempts at explana-

only

we looked

at the external aspect,

and

some readers

of the Upanisads

may

consequently

50

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

with great impatience pronounce these books to be nothing but a mass of crudecontradictions. But it is not so. There is to be traced within the Upanisads a certain development (" degeneration," from In the Brh. another point of view) of Pure Idealism

Upanisad
first

are found certain passages, chiefly in the four chapters, which are connected with the dis-, course of Yajnavalkya, and which furnish the oldest
idealistic

conception as far as
is

we know

*fT

Yajnavalkya's standpoint

purely metaphysical.

He was the leader of the sages, and he is said to have

quite reahzed4us identity with the Brahman One seems to be earned away by the simple force

which appear to be poured out from the very depths of his heart after a thorough realization of the truths they contain His dialogues
of his lofty utterances,

with his wife Maitreyl and with the king 'Jai.aka appeal to us as the clearest enunciations of the true
stdhdpo^nt of Idealism, which on account of its extremely monistic conception cannot be surpassed,

a more thorough-going monism being pnma facie impossible. The burden of the whole throughout
is

that
"

the

Atman

is

the only reality,"

is

which at once implies that the world

1

not

real.

We

The Brhad Up and the Chan Up seem to be the oldest among the collection It is rather difficult to say which oi these two is the older Judging from style and other evidences, especially the parallel texts, etc
,

it

appears thai

the Brh. was the older.

DEVELOPMENT OF
shall

ITS

CONCEPTION

51

now examine some

more

to give a

maintained by

of these passages, in order concrete* idea of the general position the old idealist

" Atm. va are drastavyah srotavyo mantavyo mdidhyasitavyo Maitreyi Atmano va are darsanena sravanena " matyS vijnanenaidam sarvam viditam (Brh Up u 4 5)

The Atman
fcMaltreyi
,

is

to be seen, heard, understood, meditated

seeing, hearing, understanding

by

and

realiz-

ing the Atman,

all this

world

is

known
6.

This

is

repeated again in iv 5
is

expressed by means of three drum (dundubhih), the conchthe As and shell, lyre by holding fast the drum, the conch-shell, the lyre, when they are being
similes, viz., of the

The same idea

beaten,

all their

sounds are as it were caught together,

,

so b*y knowing the Atman all is known, i e all worth When these knowing becomes already known are being sounded one cannot hear anyInstruments ihmg else and is confused in the multiplicity of the sounds, but on taking possession of the instruments the source of all the sounds one seems to have mastered the discord and to have found the key to So is the Atman the key to the all, viz to it all
,

the universe

when the Atman is known then there is

,

nothing else that is worth knowing the multiplicity perishes and the unity asserts its sway. The following
is

the passage containing these three similes

" sa yathft dundubher hanyamanasya na bahyan sabdan

52

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

iaknuyad grahanaya, dundubhes tu grahanena dundubhy" rh Up 11 4 7 l aghatasya va sabdo grhltah

As in the midst of drum-beatmg one is unable to grasp the outer sounds, but on grasping the drum itself the sound produced by the drum-beating i^ also grasped

most remarkable passage, which

in the

phraseology endorses the conception of It runs thus found in Bjh 11. 4 14

" Yatra hi dvaitam iva bhavati tad itara itaram jighrati tad itara itaram pasyati tad itara itaram srnoti tad itara
itaraan abhivadeffi tad itara itaram

manute tad

itara itaram''

vijanati, yatra va asya sarvam atmaivabhut tat kena kam jighret tat kena kam pasyet tat kena kam srnuyat tat kena kam abhivadet tat kena kam man vita tat kena kam vijaniyad

yenedam sarvam

vijanati tarn
iti."

kena vijaniyad vijnataram

are kena vijaniyad

Brh Up
(Trans
)

11

'
41.1

^or where there is duality, as it were, there sees another another thmg, there smells another another thing, there
hears another another thing, there speaks another of another" thing, there thinks another of another thing, there knows another another thing , but where all has become nothing but the Atman, there how can one smell anything, how see anything, how hear anything, how speak of anything, how think of anything, how know anything By what shall one

know

htm, by

whom knows
?

one this

all

'

By what

shall

one know the knower

Cf also Ibid
.

11

4 8

The same passage is again found

iv. 5. 15,

in

iv. 5.

8-10.

This famous passage reappears in Brh. Up. with slight alterations.

DEVELOPMENT OF
"

ITS

CONCEPTION

53

The word iva. (= as it were) is important here. " Where there is duality, as it were shows that

duality, which refers to the multiplicity (nanatva) in the world, is unreal , in other words, it is only an

appearance
is

only possible

ihable

The conception of subject and object when each of them has at least existence But when all this is found to be false, that which was " disappears and only the one bject s as the knower In that sense even
"
(in

the word

"
subject

the current sensd

'be inadmissible, since it is

only a relJhve

when the

which which found to be a nullity The Atman being itself the Knower, the self-luminous, the Universal Spirit, does not require any medium to be known. That is the idea which YajiavaBcya "so simply and yet so forcibly conveys when he says
never did actually
exist, is
"

object perishes, the idea of t also goes with it The distinction is lost, that was real remains as the one, and the unreal,

vijfiataram are kena vijaniyat

\\

'

"

By

hat shall the knower be

known

'

Further on Yajnavalkya, while instructing the sage Usasta on the nature of the Atman, says
"

na dfster drastaram pasyer na sruter srotiram srnuvijflater vrjfiataram 'to

yan na mater mantaram manvitha na

vijanlyah esa ta Stana sarvantaro

'nyad arttam

"

Brh Up
(Trans)" Thou couldst not

111

4. 2.

see the seer of sight, thou couldst

54

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

not hear the hearer of bearing, thou couldst not think the thinker of thought, thou couldst not know the knower of knowing This thy Atman is within every being, all else is full of sorrow (artta)

Here

it is

shown how the Atman

is

so near within

one's self that one does not need to go a long way to search for it. If the idea of distance is to be used' at all (which is really inadmissible) it may be said to be the nearest Those who go out to seelt

anywhere
all

else

by

external

means never

find

it.

The attempts
Mile.
tale so well

at a rigid definition of Brahman are Tiffs thought is like that of the popular'

known

India

A man
strolling

had

his little

child on his shoulder

street.

and was

about in the

All of a sudden, forgetting that he had the child with him, he began to proclaim in a loud " voice throughout the city I have lost cHild , "

my

At last a it, kindly let me know passer-ly, observing his gross error, gave him a smart slap in the face and turned his eyes upward, " he that the

who has

seen

when
child

to his utter surprise " 1

was
"

still

on him

found So exactly

lost

is

the

Atman

always not
are

in us in us

In fact
"

we

are never justified in

saying "

it is

in us

different

the latter would imply that we from the Atman The sage here
;

as truly speaking "it is ourself," "

declares, therefore, that this

Atman

is

the subject of
"

The proverb

is

technically

known

in Punjabi as

kuc-

chad kudi Sahara dhandora."

DEVELOPMENT OF
all

ITS

CONCEPTION

55

knowledge, hence unknowable. The categories of all knowledge breaK down when stretched with

a view to their application to the Atman. And as " the other," the sage says to all else, which is
"

ato anyat artam,"

is

all else is full of

sorrow.

This phrase

With Kahola
!R.

5 i, in a dialogue repeated again in " This other than the Self," i.e.,
is

m
is

the so-called world,

again denied

its

reality in

ii,

where Yajnavalkya

instructing Gargi

of a highly philosophic temperament) in the mysterious love of the Brahman.

(who was
In Brh

Up

iv 4

4,

again, the simil^of a

is
it

employed

into various newer

As he by taking a bit of goj and more beautiful forms,

supposed to create through Avidyd

so the

Atman

is

various forms, such as the Pitns, the Gandharvas,

Here all the gods, Prajapati, Brahma, etc variety of forms is spoken of as amdya, hence unreal.
th<

It may, however, be pointed out that simjles iflustrate only a special aspect of truth and should not be earned beyond their legitimate sphere

The phrase
this

occurs in avidyam gamayitva mantra as well as in the preceding one, where

"

"

an example of the caterpillar is given. Another remarkable passage that lends a decisive
support to this pure idealism occurs in Brh. *9
"
iv. 4.

manasaiva anudrastavyam

mftyoh sa mftyum apnofat ya iha naneva pasyafa."

58

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

it

synthesis of the subject and object, or when supposed that speech is able to describe the

Self.

The knower, the

objects, but

self,

can know the known or the

the knower be

how can
is

known

'

The

truth of the idea

not very

difficult to grasp, if

one just

reflects seriously for a moment If all " I," by things are known only through the " " can the I itself be known ? The fact o^ thir

wht
in

self-consaousness
this sense the

is

ultimate in

itself

Hence

knawer cannot be known, while at knowledge could be more sure " Here knowlower, the self * higher and different sense, viz
,

ition or experience (anubhava). Even the greatest sceptic could not reasonably deny the existence of the "I," and a higher knowledge of this self means the realization of the falsity of the
not-self

and

of the oneness of the

Atman

The
little

seeming* paradox therefore disappears on a

deeper understanding.

Now this oldest, simplest and most thoroughgoing idealism is found chiefly in the Brh. Up., as shown above, but it is not totally ousted by the
later doctrines

revolt,

and so appears scattered

here and there sads as well.

among the others m the chief UpamThe doctrine of the sole reality of

1 Similar analogies may be noticed in European philosoDescartes, e g , started with this very fact, Cogito, Almost all idealists start with self-consciousness Ufgo sum.

phy.

as the ultimate fact.

DEVELOPMENT OF
Atman hence of the " has never been Many
the

ITS CONCEPTION 59
" the

falsity of the world,

totally given

up

later on.

Certainly it has been gradually obscured though at the same time shining through by its inherent
light

by

the huge mass of

idealistic notions.

more realistic or antiSuch conceptions we may have

on

refer to briefly later

We

hasten

Eto

how this supreme monistic conception rough the other Upamsads like a string through the beads of a garland Turning to the Chandogya U{| with the famous dialogue betvj The son havf son, Svetaketu
;how
,

for twelve years with Vedas, etc returned to his father a swollen-headed young

The father tested his knowledge by asking him if he knew anything about that by which all that is unheard becomes heard and the unknown becomes the known, etc The son, failing tt> answer, requests his father to explain to him that knowledge, and the sage Arum teaches Svetaketu by
scholar

the following concrete examples

" yatha somya ekena mrtpmdena sarvam mrnmayam vijfiatam syad vacarambhanam vikaro namadheyam mrtttkety eva satyam

Chan Up.

vi.

4.*

1 Cf the same idea in two mantras, Chan. Up.

different similes in the following

vi.
i.

5-6.

60

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

(7VWM)-

As O good one by (the knowledge of) one ball of earth everything of the nature of earth is known , the change (or modification) is an extension of words a mere name, only the earth is true 1

Here
is

it is

said that

by knowing the one the

all

known
1

As

all

the forms into which ;h clay

K
i

s passacH the Vedanta discove corroboration of the theory of Pannam tend that as the vanous things of earth (jar pot etc ) are not being creations of the s of the earth "* aut of Sat only) so is the world as subtle sat Some of the modern i also urge that the world is simply a

Some

critics of

TheyWI

,,

you may

>n of the one principle by whatever name call it matter sptnt thought or the Atman According to these views the Self transforms itself into Natura Naturata and as a real cause has a real effect the world must be a reality The Sankhya system is also based' on

such a theory which makes the world a reality being an actual modification or de\elopment of real matter This view appears to be based on an exclusively one^ sided interpretation of the passage The whole rests on are actual the assumption that things like the jar etc transformations of earth But the passage seems to us to endorse the purely idealistic standpoint making the world, to use later phraseology a vtvarta instead of a vikara The vtvarta of a substance is simply its appearance which
in

no way implies any alteration in the thing itself while a vtkara is the transformation of the substance itself
,

vikara atattvato 'nyatha pratha satat (" Vivarta To take a well known technical tvato 'nyatha pratha example milk is substantially transformed into curd or junket these are two wholly different states one cannot discover any m when it is changed into curd But a jar of earth, even after individuating itself as a jar, does
,
'

DEVELOPMENT OF

ITS

CONCEPTION

61

" " merely the beginning of speech (vacarambhanam), only a mere name (namadheyam) without reality. 1 .The plurality is all a mere name, hence unreal.

moulded are known by knowing clay, so the manifold world is known by knowing the one Atman, since all reality is the Atman and the non-Atman " " The does not really exist many forms are

l.^n Ch

vi. 2. 1-2, where the process of creation from the empirical standpoint, the Ipf described " words ekam-eva-advitiyam "_'. the only one

without a second ") occur, essential oneness of the Atr

Again, in
"

'

Chan.

Up

vn 23*

yo vai bhiima tat sukham, nalpe sukham asti bhumaiva sukham bhunia tv eva vijijftasitavya iti "
(Trans

)is

That which

the Bhutna (the Great)

is

happiness, there

*>t cease to be earth

it is earth inside and out, the , idea of jar is simply due to the limitations of .name and form, which are decidedly mind-dependent The evidence of the jar qua jar is not at all independent

So also when a rope is mistaken for a snake, it is not It is the mind imposing the transformed into the latter The former has no conception of the snake on the rope This example of the rope, etc 19 independent existence a typical one for the vivarta-theory, but it is evident how the implications of the analogy of the earth correspond with those of this one Hence the passage, judged both from its contextual spirit and analogies, supports the idea of vivaria, not of vtkdra.
,

1 The words "vacarambhanam vikaro namadheyam" team occur in Chan. UP. vi. *. i-^.

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

a
is

therefore to^5e searched after

In this passage Brahman

(the Great)

is

spoken of as

BhumS

all and only He is said to be bkss that is not Brahman (= the Atman) is alpam and misery Only that Bhuma is worthy (little) The words tu eva are important! of being known since they emphasize the exclusive knowledge oi In the following khanda (Chan ! the Atman alone
i is

denned as
anyat srnoti na anyat vijan

And
pam
is

the Alpa

is

denned as
any ad v janatitadal

*yatr(< anyat pasyat anyat brnot

(Trans ) Where another sees another hears another knows that

Alpa
latter
)

The

is

tyam
exist

When

declared to be perishable ( tat mar the nature of multiplicity is real

ized to be false

the other

(anya) will cease to

will shine in his ever

and only the Bhuma

Taitt

lasting luminosity

The
subject

realistic

does not contain much on the mainly concerned with the more conception of the creation of the world

Up

It is

DEVELOPMENT OF

ITS'

CONCEPTION

63

from the Atman. 1 There is of course a famous passage on the unknowableness of the Atman.

11

and

11

9.

t
io,

(Trans )vords return with the mind without having reached mg the bliss of that Brahman, one never fears

too, the Ait

Up

has

In one place to the subject as denned as consciousness

ves^fl^e^o I

contribute

elephants, cows, men, trees, animal the names (namadheyam) of consciousness, which
is

identified with

Brahman (prajnanam Brahma).

This means that

ara

things exist only so far as they my consciousness, which is a umty ; hence the multiplicity which seems to exist independent of my consciousness is not real, but only a me*e name
all

"The

Katha Up., one

of the comparatively late

Upamsads, is one of the finest productions oil the subject, and contains many passages that are frequently quoted by the modern Indian Vedantists. It is attractive moreover owing to the peculiarly fascinating and interesting legend of Naciketa, meant to expound the lore of the Atman so as to be acceptable even to those who are tired too soon of abstract conceptions and want something to
1

Cf. Taitt

Up.

u. i, u. 6, in.

i, etc.

64

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

In
i.

colour such notions.

2. 5,

the god of Death

points out to Naciketa how the ignorant in their avidya follow one another like the blind.

avidyayam antare vartamanah svayamdhirah panditammanyamanah, mudhah andhenaiva dandramyamanah panyanti "
1

"

mana yathandhah

(Cf

Mund Up

(Trans.) " wise Dwelling in the midst of darkness,

their a

and taking themselves to be very learned, the and round, staggering to and fro, like, bSS3 men led by the blind
conceit,"

SiMWlMP'4P nd

Such are the people who always look to the external and the immediate aspect of things and never look beyond Imitating others blindly, they also
imagine the not-self to be the self. And such people in their own ignorance regard themselves very learned* (panditam-manyamanah), because sejfconceit is the index to shallowness of knowledge
or ignorance one becomes.
later in

The more one knows, the humbler

The most satisfactory passages, however, come Katha li. The one is almost identical with
iv.

Brh.

4.

19,

which has already been quoted

above.

i Cf.

Mund. Up

2.

Katha Up.

n. 5

also

Mate,

vii 9.
*

(where we have o See S.B.E. xv., p.

8.

DEVELOPMENT OF
"

ITS

CONCEPTION

65

yad eveha tad amutra yad amutra tad anv iha mrtyoh sa mrtyum apnoti ya iha naneva paSyata." Katha Up 11. 4. 10.
(Trans
)

What
is

is

here, the

same

is

in the next world

and what

it

in the next world, the same is here , he who sees here, as " " " the many ") goes from death differences were, (or

to death.

fcere, as

we have
false

already seen, the multiplicity

,

unced
thought
is

he who even imagines

i

it

true does not attain liberation

The same,

stated in the next

" mrtyoh sa mrtyum apnoti ya iha naneva pasyati Katha Up n 4 n

(Trans
ly

)the

by
:ity

mind

this

is
,

to be obtained

there

is

no

here whatsoever

he goes from death to death

[sees

any multiplicity here

fact that there
is

^Here again the

whatever

no

multiplicity

is particularly emphasized, hence the universe, which is the embodiment of this ide"a of

multiplicity,

is

false

The conception
in n. 5. 13
"

of the

Atman

is

further explained

mtyo anityanam cetanai cetananam eko bahunam yo vidadhati kaman

tarn atmastharn ye 'nupasyanti dhlras tesam santih Sasvati netaresam."

Cf.

Svet Up.

vi.

13

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

Eternal of the transient, SouJ. of the souls, who though one, fulfills the desires of many ; the wise who perceive Hun residing in the Self, to them belongs eternal peace, not
to others

The passage

distinguishes the eternal

and changeless

nature of the ,Atman from the transient nature of the world, adding that only those are saved

rfOft

know
ledge.

"

the Atman, since that is the only true knqw| All others who will hold fast to the setpj

pf

JMl

realities, will

the fleeting shadows for eterplurality/' taking never find rest and peace but will

wpH

"blnRSBhg to and fro, confused and puzzled! The SvetasVatara Up composed still later and
,

tinged with rather sectarian ideas, speaks of the whole cosmic illusion as capable of being removed (visVa-m5ya-nivrttih) by a true knowledge of IM*
oner

that there

(i. 10). Again in in 8 it is &nh no other way of conquering death the ever-luminous Atman. ^If except *by knowing the world were real or true, its knowledge could In ui. 10 savl people from the clutches of death

God Hara
is

it is

is

said that only they who know the Atman, who beyond the Purusa, formless and pure, attain

'immortality, all others for ever plunge into misery. That the Atman in us is the subject of knowledge

and
"

itself is consequently unknowable brought out in

is

clearly

sa vetti

vedyam na ca

tasyasta vetta tarn ahar agiyam

Svet

Up

lii

19.

DEVELOPMENT OF
(Trans)He knows what they call him the
In vi 8-12
is
is

ITS

CONCEPTION

67

to

beknown, but no one knows him

the great Purusa

first,

a beautiful description of the nature

of the Atman
"

na tasya karyam karanam na vidyate

(Trans)

netaresam.'

'

There is no effect and no cause of him, no one is seen like unto him or better his high power is revealed as manifold, as inherent, acting as power and know ledge There is no master of him m the world, no ruler of him, not even a sign of him he is the cause, lords
, ,

of the organs,

and there is of him neithei^^^Hor lerd, That only god who spontaneously covewHHBelf, like spider, with threads drawn from Nature (Pradhana),

thttMHffhe

grant us the imperishable Brahman all beings, all-pervading, He is the one God, hidden all beings, watching over all works, dwelling itness, the perceiver, the only one, free

who are free from actions,

,

cerVe

him within

their self, to

mf old the wise m ho perthem belongs eternal happi,

ness, not to others

Svet

Up. vi

8-iz

examination of the other Upanisads also will bear out that the conception of the sole Reality of

An

Brahman is not missing in them In some it is more strongly emphasized, in others it is clouded over by more realistic tendencies This extreme
idealism which refused to grant reality to the world seemed to be rather too advanced for the ordinary

understanding, which could not reconcile the fact

68

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

sqmehow
or other and
it

that the world was there

could therefore not be explained "

called

away by being

unreal."

The inherent empirical tendencies

of our nature are too strong to be wholly conquered ; howsoever they may be subdued, they still nse up at some time and refuse to harmonize with the

Moreover, to the majormetaphysical standpoint ity who are not given to step beyond the boundaries of empirical understanding such metaphysical
of

Yet

the old sages, they must then make room for some concession to the empirical consciousness which refuses to part with the idea of the of the
reality
t]

Y^^^^Ha seem hardly to convey any meaning]! imHy^ds are not totally to be ignored by

world.

This could be done by granting

of the world

and yet maintaining

is

at t

that the sole reality

of
its

the

Atman
T

degeneration of Idealism into Pantheism,

"
.doctrine
It

All

this

is

Brahman

"

(Chan

111

14. i)

may

be observed that even in one and the same

passage both these tendencies are sometimes found mixed up together The difference between the

two views

is

rather subtle.

The one
is

Idealism

maintains that

Atman
it
;

alone

real

and nothing
Pantheism

else exists besides

while the other

holds that the world does exist and yet it does not affect the principle of the sole reality of the Atman,
Since
it itself is

nothing different from the

Atman

DEVELOPMENT OF
called

ITS

CONCEPTION
"

69
is

both are identical, one with the other

"
in

The Atman

the reality of 'this reality

(Satyasya sat-

Brh Up 11 i 20 It is immanent in the world and pervades even the minutest particle.
yam)
THis view
is

strictly

speaking untenable, yet to

satisfy the gross and empirical instincts of human beings, this is the very idea that finds expression

Upamsads as a whole idea is chiefly represented by the Chand. Up The well-known condensed word tajjaldn is signifiin the greater part of the
jjThe

cant in the following passages from^hHfendilyaFrom Brahman I^^H[S born Vidya, and means

(tasmat ]Syate), into Brahman

liyate),
aniti),

(tasmm (tasmm

all this^^BBsorbed and in Brahman all this breathes meaning thereby that all-in-all is

"

Sarvam khalu idam Brahma

Tajjalan
iti

santa upisita

"
111*14
*.

Chand Up
Let a

(Trans)All this is Brahman

man

meditate on

tljat

as

beginning, ending and breathing in It

Further on Brahman
hi.

is

called

"

the all-effecting,

all-wishing, all-smelling, all-tasting,

(Ibid.,

and

all

this

"

14 4). Again, in the very interesting narration in Prapathaka vi., where Uddalaka teaches his son by means
of the parables of

2 and

a large tree
salt (vi.

(vi.

13),

honey (vi. 9), streams (vi. 10), n), the nyagrodha tree (vi. 12), a blind man travelling towards the

70

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

(vi

Gandhara

14), etc

of as penetrating
"

"

the

etc v the "

all

Atman

is

spoken

sa ya eso anima

idam sarvam
tat

tat

etadatmyam satyam sa atma

iti

y,

tvam
is

asi

Svetaketo

"

(Trans
its self

That w hich
It
is it

the subtle essence, in it all that exists the True It is the Self, and thou, O

taketu, art

The following passages speak as eloquently in the same'TPam of thought

"

Athata Atmadesa Atma eva adhastat

Atma upanstat Atma

purastat

pascat Atma AtmS, eva idam

Chand
(Trans

Up

vii

25

4Mfc

)Self is

SeK

is

bflow, above, behind, before, right and left

all this

" esa vai visvarupa

atma vaisvanarah " Chand Up v

is

13

The

Self

which you meditate on

the Vaisvanara Self,

called Visvarupa

ya atma apahatapapmS vijaro vimrtyur visoko vijighatsopipasah satyakamah satyasamkalpah so 'nvestavyah sa sa sarvans ca lokan apnoti sarvansca kaman yastam atmanam anuvidya vyanatiti ha prajapatir uvaca."
vijijflisitavyah

"

Chand Up

vui. 7. I.
7-

Also vm.

3-

DEVELOPMENT OF
(Trans ) Prajapata said
"

ITS

CONCEPTION

71

The Self which is free from sin, freed from old age, from death and gnef, from hunger and thirst, which desires nothing but what is to be desired, imagines what is to be imagined, that it is which we but nothing mffst search out, that it is which we must try to understand He whq>as searched out that Self and has understood it " all worlds and all desires

evedam avam bhagava atmanam pasyava aloma" anakhebhyah pratarupam iti Chand Up viu 8 i

(Trans )We both see the Self thus All, a representation even to the very hairs and nails ,.,

We only say that the Chan. Up. may be taken to be the chief representative of this stage of thought.
It of course
is

found

almost

all

the other

Upam-

sads as well, and contributes the largest bulk of the M&&I Aupamsadic literature Even the Brh. Up.,

whidS we have taken to be the

pure idealism, contains
"

chief

exponent ,0!

many

passages agreeing with

the pantheistic conception.

Brahma
.
.

veda

tarn paradat yo anyatra atmano Brahma sarvam yad ayam atma " B rh Up 11 4 6 Cf Ibid. iv. 5. 7*

"

Brahmaitat sarvam."
1.6.,

Ibid,

3.

i.

AU
"

Brahman Ayam va atma sarvesam bhutanam

this
is

lokah."
I,

Brk Up.
Le..

4. 16.

This

Atman is the support of all creatures.

72

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

tad yatha rathan&bhau ca
(Trans
)

samarpitah
Bj-h
11

15

spokes are conta ned in the axle and in ttie felly of a w heel all beings and all those selves are contained
as
all

And

in that Self

Yah
7

sarvesu bhutesu tisthan

amrtah

Ibid Hi

15

He who
all

rules all beings

dwells in all be ngs and with n all beings whottf beings do not know whose body all beings are and who w thin he is thy Self the ruler w thin the

Immortal

Atmaflr^eva
pasyati

atmanam

pasyati

sarvam

atmanarfl
4

Brh
Taittir

iv

23

The

Up

too says

Om

iti

Brahma

Om

iti

idam sarvam

tasminl lokah sr tah sarve

Katha
T\iat the one

158

Cf

11

Atman

like the fire

the air and

the sun assumes manifold forms forms the subject rnptter of Katha 11 5 8-12

Even

the SvetasVatara

Up

which

is

fundamen

tally theistic contains passages like the following

sarvavyapmam atmanam
sarvananaairognvah
sarvatah

etc

Svet
sivah

16

Ibid

11

u
16

pampadam

tisthata

Ibid.

11.

DEVELOPMENT OF

ITS

CONCEPTION

73

A
is

mantra from the Purusa-sukta

n. 15

of the R.V.

quoted as

" Purusa evedam sarvam," etc " " eta visvasya ekam panvest.itaram iv 14 (Cf. iv 16 and v 13 ) " eko devah sarvabhutesu gudhah atma " "
"

Isavasyam idam sarvam

"
jagat
Isa.
i

Yas tu sarvaru

vijugupsate"
Isa
Isa.

6
7.

"

Brahmaivedam
Sarvam

vanstham
"

Mw4 "

n
2

Mund n
"

n
2
.

catuspat '

Mand

^m
no

is

j^Bages

not our object, however, to collect all such here. To multiply such instances is in

way difficult One has only to turnovef the pages of the Upamsads and passages tinged with For want of a better this idea are sure to be found. " Pantheword we have named this conception ism." The reason why the largest portion of the
Upamsads
In the
is

pantheistic

this

first place, it zs

not too a

understanding of those who inquire into the knowledge of t

denying the existtnce of the arouse the hostility or oppositi

'

thinker.

Secondly,

it is

not far

74

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

" pure idealism," e.g., that of Yajna" a world," it boldly valkya. Granting as it does " All is the Atman," that the only reality says that as given in the
is

to possess

the Atman, even though the world some kind of existence

may be

taken S

In this way for accommodating the real truth of the sole reality of the Atman (and consequently
the falsity of the world) to the empirical consciousness which refuses to part with the grosser conception of the world

an idea with which

it

has long

been familiar

the idealist has to

come down from

his high pedestal and speak in words intelligible to people in general He will, for the time being, " grant that there is a world, but will add that what" ever is is the Atman If we analyse this form of

Pantheism we find that

it is

not far removed from

the original Idealism, since the oneness of the Atmaff is still maintained and all this diversity in the world
is sa*id to.

for its existence

be only a name depending on the Atman, and as the name is unreal, it fol,

lows that even this doctrine indirectly comes to the same truth. But a further abuse of the doctrine
reduces
ism,"
terial
it

to

what we may

call

"

according to which each and every " thing is also the Atman, the horse Atman, the rider is the Atman, the table
etc., so that

the lower Panthe"

is

mathe
the

is

Atman,

Atman way of

has killed the

when a man kills a snake the Atman " would be the vulgar

"

expression , and losing sight of the original idea on -which this conception is based, it is liable

DEVELOPMENT OF
to be laughed at

ITS

CONCEPTION

75

and pooh-poohed by the man in the street But we must carefully note that this sort of Pantheism is not the essential doctrine of the Upamsads It rests on a mere misunderstanding of the position, which implies that all
is

the

since nothing can exist (or have a satta) When one has realized independent of the Atman the true nature of the Atman, e g a man who is

Atman,

fwanmukta, he does not see anything besides So long as he has his body, he is within the world of imperfections and he, too, has to make
called

the

Atman.

some concession
besides

in saying that this world

(which

really does not exist in his view) too is not anything

the

Atman
meet

intoxicated with the true bliss

Atman,
Jian
"

will

all

Others

who

quite (ananda) of the " Atquestions by the word are still ignorant of their blind-

Such

man, being

ness deny that they are blind and consequently laugh at the spontaneous uttenngs of * sucfl a

Vedantist

As

in such a

a matter of fact, there knowledge of the

is

a strange anomaly

Atman
l

The human

intellect is

not

made to

grasp the reality

of reason

and by use
it

of

words

by its power There are limitain

it.

tions

and imperfections inherent

It

breaks

down the moment

attempts to go beyond a certain

The ultimate reality point, its legitimate boundary. refuses to be chopped up into bits in order to
Cf " naisi tarkena matar apaneya " cannot be reached by mere reasoning."
"
this

knowledge

KathaUp. i. 2,9.

76
fit

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

in

with the import of language.

It

is

self-

ilkumnating, and to yield its meaning it demands our self-consciousness, our living will, our whole self,

our whole
all

life, but not our speech, which is after * inadequate. In order fully to realize such truths the intellect

must transcend
it

itself,

which
its

it

cannot do

Hence

has to be content with

*

blurred and indistinct

But, on the other hand, words have to be used for communicating truth, though the moment
vision

we

use

them we land
say,

ourselves
is

When we
and
in so

eg,"

the world

on quicksands nothing but an'

"

appearance," even so

we

use the term

world,"

Hence, in doing do suppose it to exist the interpretation of the passages of the Upamsads
confine our attention to the spirit

we must always

underlying the text and to the motives which led the sages to unite various standpoints in one text,

which

may seem

to be conflicting
of

if

looked at merely
the kernel

in the external

Th% degeneration

Pure Idealism

It went so of the Upanisads did not stop here far as to turn into ultra-Realism and further on

even into Atheism, Deism, etc. The natural course for Pantheism was to turn into what we may call Creatiomsm (Cosmogomsm) The identity of the Atman and "the world, though granted, was yet far

On the function of the intellect compare the brilliant remarks of Prof. Bergson in his Evolution Creatnce.

DEVELOPMENT OF

ITS

CONCEPTION

77

from being transparent to many who had a c " for the concrete. They would argue thus Atman is One, and the world is the Many then could the Atman be one with the
:
'

'

The notion

of identity, therefore,

force, parent, suppj4 *nore empirical conception, viz according to which the Atman
,

lost its

and was

i:

from [world proceeds

it

as an

thought prominently appears inuCam Up.-;n

the chief passages are
"
*

eff|fcq>1jhB-5

&*" \&<> V/fJ

.

Tasmat etasmad va atmanah

"
"

So 'kamayata bahu syam

pravisat"

tat

Ibid

Yato va imam bhutam

tad Brahmeti,
Ibid
"

"

m
i

Sa unan lokan asrjata

Ait

Up.

Such ideas are also found scattered over almost l all the other Upamsads The most eloqm sage on the subject is the analogy of t
the sparks.

Just as the spider goes

of its threads, as

iojt

by means

from

sparks fly out, so

i

from
Brh
i

this

Atman I

Cf. for example,

i

asrjata"),
vi.

4. i, i

4.

5, i

i,

vi
;

2,

vi
i

3
i 7,

2 5 (tenaAl 4 10,11. vii 26 i ("a1

i. i,

sarvam

")

Mund

u.

78
life

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

spring forth,
ii.

all

worlds, all gods, all living beings

(Brh

20)

set out at length in

The same illustrations are further Mund. Up i. i. 7 and 11. i i.

in this

The one notable point

connexion

is

that

at this stage the Atman who creates the worldfSs identical with that who lives in it. 1 Brahman is

the

Atman
is

The

universal Self, the creator of the

is thus the psychic principle. divided into so many Atmans,

world,
It is

not different from the individual Self within

each of us

Brahman

not in any
is

way

but

present as a whole within each of us

It is

not an aggregate of the Atmans but the whole of the' " Atman The well-known Vedantic formulas tat " " That art thou tvam asi," (Chand Up. vi 8 7),

and
4

"

10),

aham brahmdsrm," amply corroborate

the

"

am Brahman "
4,

(Brh

the idea

referred to a passage (Brh " as to

We have already
lii

and

5),

where the
all

inquiry "
soill

Brahman
"
It is

that

is

within
is

as

is

answered as

thy soul that

is itself

within

all,"

which as the knowing subject

in

unknow-

able*

view the remoteness of the age when the authors of the Upamsads breathed on this earth,

Keeping

it

strikes us as

this relation of identity

something really wonderful to grasp between God and man so

This is a thought that will ever dearly as they did be one of the. fundamental postulates of all future metaphysics. The same has been discovered in
1 Cf.

Taitt.

Ufr

fbove, e.g ii. 6.*

"
,

Tat srstva tad eva anupravisat."

DEVELOPMENT OF
as well, and

ITS

CONCEPTION

79

rather a circuitous way long after by Western thinkers

we

believe that in spite of all the threats

and pragmatistic movements the present century witnesses here and there,
of materialistic, atheistic

oiaother destructive tendencies that the future

may

witness, this one principle of the identity of the At-

man

with the Absolute

will ever

remain unshaken.
all

Take away this principle and you destroy physics worth the name

meta-

Now, the adaptation

empirical

of the higher truth to the

still

understanding went

further

This

identity of the creative principle with our inner self was not so attractive to the hard-headed men accus-

tomed to look always to the external They failed to understand how the great and infinite Brahman who created the world could be the same as the little Atman within us of the size of a thumb (angustha" "Oh," they would say, the proclaimed matrah)
identity
it

is

not true,

it is

meaningless to us

,,,evefl if

"be true, it is

beyond us to understand

it."

This

necessitated a further concession to suit the innate

empirical tendencies of such people in fact, all of us as men do have such tendencies, and our inefficient
intellect fails to

held that the

Atman who

grasp this higher truth and it was creates the world may be

distinguished from that who is within us. was called the Paramatman (the Great

The former Atman) or

latter,

the

Kvara

(the

Governor),

and the

the

Jwatman

(the

individual

Atman)

thus paved the

way

to Theism.

Cosmogonism The distinction

8o

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

between the two Atmans begins to appear in the Kathaka Up., and continues in some of the later

Even as early as in the Brh. Up. some tendencies towards this position are noticeable
Upamsads
.

te

the bidding of this imperishable sun and moon are held asunder," etc

"At

one,

Gargi,

Brh. ui 8 9. " Here within the heart is a cavity, therein he dwells! the lord of the Universe, the governor of the Universe! the chief of the Universe , he is the bridge that hold| asunder these worlds, and prevents them from clashing " together Brh iv 4 22. .

This is not yet Theism, but a preparation to it. Real Theism begins with a contrast between Brah-

man and

the individual

Self.

This

first

appears in

the Katha

Up

two Atmans
shadow
"
'

is

where the distinction between these likened to that between light and

Rtam pibantau sukrtasya loke pravistau parame parardhe chayatapau brahmavido vadanta " paflcagnayo ye ca trmaciketah
guham
Katha
i

3.

i.

(Trans ) two, enjoying the fruits of their good deeds, being lodged in the cavity of the seat of the Supreme, the knowers of Brahman call shadow and light, as also do those who maintain five fires and have thnce propitiated the Naciketa

The

fire"

Katha
chief

exponent at this level of thought is the Svet&Svatara Up., in which though the original

The

DEVELOPMENT UF
identity of
e.g., in

ll"b

COJNUSFU1UJN

81
is

Brahman and

the individual
is

Atman

not denied, yet a distinction

clearly

drawn

out,

the following chief passage

"

Ajam ekam

lohitaSuklakysnam

bahvih prajah sr;amandm sarupah, ajo hy eko jusamano 'nusete

jahaty enam bhuktabhogam ajo 'ayah

I"
"

dva suparna sayuja sakhaya

samanam vrksam

pansasvajate, tayor anyah pippalam svadv atti

"

samane vvkse puruso mmagnah anKaya socati muhyamanah,

justam yada pasyaty anyam isam " asya mahamanam iti vltasokah Svet Up iv 5,6,7

Passages exhibiting a Pantheistic and Idealistic

trend of thought are not wanting in this Up also. These stages are set down side by side to sjiit the

human understanding 1 The type of we have indicated here, viz., that which makes Brahman a personal god and distinguishes
vartety of

theism

Him from the individual soul, is perhaps most acceptwe do not hesitate to call Theism a lower conception than the Pure Idealism sketched above, we call it a mere pictorial way of
able to the masses, but
1

In Svet

Up

6,

the distinction spoken of above

is

when it explained as illusory. The theistic tinge comes is said that the removal of this illusion depends on the grace of the Lord.

82

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

a more concrete and simple representing a truth way to let it harmonize with the common understand" " truths abstract These people ing, repulsed by

want some

concrete idea, which will give a colouring to their imagination whenever they venture to think about the origin of the world in which they live and

move, and

it

is

Theism which they

will

welcome

instinctively

But how long and how far could such a separation between the Lord (Isvara) and the soul exist ? The natural consequence was a further degeneration, which in a clever way solved the dualism by striking" out one of its components, viz the former. One had to give way, and the empirical instinct in man would
,

rather believe in the existence of the soul than of

the Isvara, which seemed more remote and was not In this struggle therefore witnessed by the soul the conception of the Paramatman was ousted There remained only the individual soul (named " " now the Purusa) and the external real wbrld

This is known as the Sankhya (calkd the Prakrti) standpoint, and may be called Atheism for want of a It better word. may also be added very briefly
that the progressive realism further manifested
in
itself

two more aspects. The first was the denial even of the individual soul. The existence of the world could not be denied,
since
it is

of the soul.
tsts."

perceived , but one could doubt the reality " Let us call those who did so ApsychThis denial of the soul and the belief in an

DEVELOPMENT OF

ITS

CONCEPTION

83

external world only, which was more or less a stream of perceptions, changing and momentary, found its
place in

Buddhism
ld

The second aspect was the degeneration into gross materialism, even rob Buddhism of all idealistic
tendency) Only matter exists, and mind is a mere product of it Percep-

leanings

(or

what

is

called

tion is the only way to knowledge, and all else is Such thoughts constituted the School of Carvaka Here we may stop so far as the degeneration of the P*ure Idealism is concerned it was impossible for this degeneration to go further than the f arvakas,

unreal

who

are regarded as the extreme realists of Indian

this

philosophy

The short account we have sketched above on

subject

may perhaps seem to be a digression from our subject proper, but even if so, it is quite insince

tentional,

we

believe that
its

it

may

h^lp to

present our Idealism in

thought, most of

whiffli

relation to other stages of are themselves found in'the

Upamsads
mutual

relation

dered that one

in

So long as these arc not \ lewed in their and coherence, it is not to be wonmay accuse the Upamsads of mani-

But a general view of the way which the basic truth of the Upamsads, the docof the sole trine reality of Brahman, degenerated, " " from another standpoint, into the or developed
fest contradictions

more
itself

realistic stages of

thought in order to adapt

all

to the empirical tendencies innate in

of

84
us

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

may

bring home to us a better idea of the teachings of these treatises in general, and of the place of the pure Idealism (which may otherwise be named
as the conception of

Maya)

in Indian

thoughts

whole.

a.

We

shall presently see

all

synthesises

how the great Sankara these forms of thought into a single

whole, in which each has a proper place beside the other, and how he saves the Pure Idealism by the

But we must not help of the Sruti as well as reason Before we discuss his Advaitism anticipate him and what he has to say on the theory of Maya, we have to refer to the philosophy of another great This name is in no way to be Advaitist, Gaudapdda identified with the author of a commentary on Isvara Krsna's Sankhya Karika 1 The Advaitist Gaudapada was the teacher of Govinda, the teacher He has left to us one of the most wonSankara o|
derf ul'expositions of the fundamentals of Advaitism,
called

"

Kankas on

the

Mandukya Upamsad."

Weber,
of the

of Deussen, System 26 , Garbe, Sankhya-Philosophie, p 61 ; Zweite Auflage, pp 178, 254, 260 , Hall, Contributions towards an Index, p 86 ; Gough, Philosophy
this point

On

compare the views

des Vedanta,

Ak

Vorl

240 , Max Muller, Si* Systems of Philosophy, p 292 , Colebrooke, Miscellaneous Essays. 1837, vol i p 95, 104, 233 , Wilson, Text and English Translation of the Sankhya-Kanka, p. 257 , Windi-* schmann, Sankara, Bonn, 1830, p 85, etc. I am indebted for these references to Max Walleser's
Upantsads. p

Indian

Oitere

VedAnta. Heidelberg, 1910, p.

i.

DEVELOPMENT OF
The nature this work
.of

ITS

CONCEPTION

85

of our subject requires us to some detail, instead of

examine
simply

m
1

it

rts,

The KankS is divided and as already observed, each of upon as having the authority of an
as such.

The four parts are named Agama, The first, which Vattaihya, Advaita and Alatasanti. in its subject-matter is chiefly based on the Mandukya Up
,

secret syllable Sruti or the

discusses the nature and significance of the " Om," and as it hangs mainly on the

Agama

(i

the Veda)

it

is

called

Agama.

how
false

The second explains by the world, characterized as

means
it is

of

argument
duality,
is

by

(vaitathya), hence it is named Vaitathya In the third are refuted the accusations against the Advaita view and then the real standpoint is main-

tained

by reason

hence
all

it is

called Advaita.

In

the fourth are refuted

the arguments which, while

attacking Advaitism, themselves prove contradicand then a calm is restored and the final tory
,

word

is

spoken on the
all else

sole reality of the

Atman'and

the falsity of

This part

is

therefore aptly

termed Alata-sdnti, which means the extinction of a firebrand. As a stick burning at one end is waved

round quickly in the air, it seems to create a circle which does not really exist, so it is with the multiplicity only appearing but not existing really. The example may sound rather unfamiliar to Western ears, but it must not be forgotten that it appeals most vividly to the Indian. The sport
of fire (alata-cakra),

86

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

as Aldta-cakra

known

is a very common sight in the streets, where little boys play m the evening after having finished their daily school-task The first part, as already remarked, on the Upamsad, Gaudapada could give an u

thoughts only in the other three*parts These are therefore more important for our purpose.
flight to his

We

here give a brief

"

summary
is

this great teacher,

which
"

of the Advaitism of permeated with the con-

ception of

Maya

Boldly and truly Gaudapada asserts the world does hence this Maya cannot be not exist in reality
,

literally

removed or destroyed even All this is " " mere appearance, in sooth it is Advaita In other
words, the metaphysical truth is that the world does not exist, the multiplicity is false, hence being not a
reality
it

does not stand in need of removal

" "
,

(i

17)

Nobody ever MADE

hence 1 it
is

moved

"

it is not a may a reality, " to be remeaningless to speak of it as When the highest truth is realized the

illusion itself is

destroyed (i 18) In the second part Gaudapada explains the un-

reality (vaitathya) of all multiplicity

by showing

that the world which people call real is no more real The two worlds are alike in than a dream-world
this respect, the only difference is that the

wakinginternal.

world

is

external, while the

dream-world

is

by the same self they are the same* both being within the body in a subtle form (u. i). Sankara explains this stanza logically thus

But

as witnessed

DEVELOPMENT OF

ITS

CONCEPTION

8j

Proposition (pratijnd) Objects seen in the waking world are unreal

bhavanam vaitathyam
i

(hetu)

e they are capable of being seen.

anatvat

n (drstdnta)

Like the objects seen (svapnadrSyabhavavat

in

a dream

Argument (hetupanaya} As in a dream the

objects seen are false, so too in \\ akmg, their capability of being seen is the same (Yatha tatra svapne drsyanam bhavanam vai-

'

tathyam tatha jagante 'pi drsyatvam avisistam iti ) Conclusion (mgamana) Therefore in the uaking condition too they (the objects seen) are false (tasmaj jagante 'pi vaitath-

yam smrtam

iti)

Though, on account
subtle condition, the

of being internal
of

phenomena

and in a dream are differ-

ent from those of waking, yet (the fact remains) that their being seen (drsyamdnatva) and their consequent
futility (or falsity,

vaitathya)

of presentation, are
is finally

common
ciated

to both.

In

11

5 the same

Enun-

From an
what
is

analysis of our experience we find that naught at the beginning and end is necesat

sarily so

the middle too

For instance, the

mirage is nothing in the beginning, since it never was a mirage, so too it is nothing at the end, since hence it could not have any it never existed,

The objects of our waking extertiary existence. perience are finally of the same class as the mirage,

88

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

hence possess no independent existence whatever. It is only the ignorant, says Sankara, who regard But it | the image in the glass as real (11 6)
objected that the two phenomena

quest!

not quite similar, consequently to deduce thi of either from its similarity to the other is not v

The

objects seen in dreams are not copies of those seen in the waking condition. In dreams one is not

always having experience in harmony with the objects of sense, but sees objects transcending the limits of experience. For instance, one sees objects which are_
never found in the waking condition and has strange
experiences, such as finding oneself with eight hands sitting on an elephant with four heads, and so forth

All these are not copies of anything unreal, hence But it may be replied they are real in themselves that all this rests on a misunderstanding That is supposed to transcend the limits of experiwlych

ence

m ftreams

is

not an absolute reality in

itself

but

only a condition of the cogmser conditioned by that As those living state. heaven, such as Indra

and

others,

have a thousand eyes, etc

by the very

conditions of their existence, so the transcending of the limits of expenence is the very condition of the

cogmser

in

dreams.

Hence, as the rope, the serpent,

the mirage, etc , being merely the conditions of the cogniser, are unreal, so the transcendent phenomena
of

dreams are only a result of the condition of the 1 Further, (11. 8). cogmser, and, therefore, unreal
See Dvivedi, MSniJflkya Upamsad,
etc., trans, p. 42.

DEVELOPMENT OF
it

ITS

CONCEPTION

89

only from a relative standpoint that dreams are spoken of as unreal and the
it is

must be noted that

tion as real.

Truly speaking, both are

as to the phenomena in dreams, though them are known to be unreal, none the the facts arrange themselves under reality and
f

unreality (u 9 10) Now, if the whole of our experience in both the waking and the dreaming conditions is pronounced

ward

experience

to be an illusion, well might an objector come for" to say Who is then the knower or creator of " " " ' If you say none (u. u) you at

once destroy the reality of the Atman, which would be laying an axe at the very foot of all Vedanta, since
the conception of the reality of the
life

Atman is the very

of

it.

the cogmser of experience. He is himself the cogmser and the cognised. He imagines himself by himself, i.e brings aUxmt the
reply,
is
,

The Atman, we

variety of experience
ilso in himself
s

by himself

It all subsists

the last
)

through the power of Maya. This word of the Vedanta on this subject (u.
are as

Our waking expenences

those of dreams.

much an
of

illusion as

For the phenomena

dreams are

or the time as real as those of waking The differmce is not in the nature of any of these expenences s such
;

it
(ii.

is

caused only by the instruments of

ognition

15).

The Atman is the only reality.

As the rope, whose

go
nature
is

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

not

known

as such at that time,

is

imagined

in the dark to be a snake, a line of water, a stick, or

any one

similar things, so is the Ati imagined to be the variety of experience,*^ All illusion vanishes when Prdna, etc (n 17)
of

numerous

complete knowledge of the rope is attained, such So too is conknowledge persisting for all time firmed the right knowledge that all is one, viz the Atman (11 12) It is only the power of illusion which makes us imagine the Atman as the variety of numberless visible objects (n 19)
,

As dream and

illusion are entirely unreal,

is

though

actually perceived, so

the cosmos an illusion, an

unreality, though experienced as real ignorant regard such illusions as real tural texts

Only the The Scrip-

master of fact,

amply set forth the unreality of the cosThe absolute truth is that there is, as a no dissolution, no creation, none in bondag?, no pupilage, none desirous of liberation,

mos

(n 31)

none liberated
lished that the

In other words, when

it

is

estab-

Atman

alone

is

an

illusion, it follows

that

all

real and all duality isj that forms the subject,"

of experience, whether derived from ordinary mter-^ course or from sacred texts, is mere illusion In the*

is

" absolute sense of the word, therefore, Destruction So too creation, etc. (11 32). impossible

'"-

The|

Atman

is

ever free from

all

imaginations and

is

neve&

any conditions He is the negation ol the phenomenal, because of his essential nature OK unity. But only the sages, free from attachment^
in relation to

DEVELOPMENT OF
fear, anger,
je

ITS

CONCEPTION

91

and

well versed in the Scriptures, are

[avmg

to perceive this truth (n 35) realized the Atman, the wise

man

should
,

I the world like a block of inert matter, i.e being perfectly unmoved and unattached to the In this way, though still being within the duality from the point of view world, he will transcend it
,

of this

world therefore, he
(n

will

be a sort of block of
cease

dead matter

36)

This consciousness of the self(11.

realization of the

Atman should never

38).

The third part (" Advaita ") begins with the idea that the Atman, though appearing to give birth to the multiplicity of things all about us, is not in the
least affected
is

by any such thing (m

2)

Multiplicity

The individuation

only due to self-imposed and imagined limitations. of the Atman into the Jivas is

The division appears as real For instance, the Atman, being indivisible and all-pervading, may be compared to ethe\ (akas"a)
not a process of division
It is

the enclosure being destroyed, the limited

fcnerges into
l

not different from the ether enclosed in a jar dkdsa

,

Jlva merged in the fStman on the dissolution of the self-imposed adis

mahdkasa
3. 4)
,

So

juncts

(m

Differences are only

form,

capacity, name, etc but that does not imply any real difference in dkdsa itself This illustration may

As, again, dkasa interapply to Jiva (m. 6) " " is neither a part nor an evolved cepted by a jar
fully
i

On

this

compare Sankara on

11.

i.

14 below.

92

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

a part nor an evolved

effect of dkasa, so is Jiva neither

effect of the

Atman

The Sastras praise

strated

(m. 7). the unity of the Atmai

!

by reason and borne out by

while they censure mamfoldness or sep: The separation between Jiva and the Atman

is

only

assumed and need only be taken in a metaphysical sense (m 13. 14) Again, the distmctionless Atman, eternal and unborn, appears with distinctness under so many finite and mortal forms simply through
for, if the distinctions were real, the immortal would in that case necessarily become mortal, which on the very face of it is impossible, since a thing cannot be changed into anything of quite an opposite

maya

nature (m
convert

19. 21).
is

The Atman

ever unborn and one

It does not

the world of experience If it did, t it would go on taking birth after birth ad infinitunf', thus precluding all possibility of hbera,itself into

tion.

The

birth of worlds

is

possible only through

maya Nothing can be actually born of the Atman It may only be supposed to give birth to things,
like the rope to the snake, etc
(Hi.
,

but not

in reality

87).

Again, Asat (non-existence), cannot be taken as the cause or source of everything. The son of a

women is a concept without meaning, never to be realized in reality or even in illusion (ih. 28). All duality is nothing but a creation of the mind,
barren
since
it

stands or

falls

with the mind

(hi. <u).

DEVELOPMENT OF
The
j.the

ITS

CONCEPTION
"

93

fourth part, called Aldta-Sdnti, i.e., QuenchFire-brand," is the final pronouncement of

,,

which
"

is

intended to destroy the

"

illu-

fire-brand

The

relation
it is

i effect is

examined, and

between shown how it

(iv.

I
*

down

while applying to the

is

Atman
or

n-

Nothing
it

produced either of

itself

by somewhether

thing else, nor, in fact, is anything produced,

be being, non-being, or both (iv 22) The various theones held by the Vijnanavadms, the Nihilists,
etc.,

are false (iv

reality of the

Those who maintain the 28) world must not forget to realize that

the world, being without a beginning, cannot, reason, be shown to have an end. Nothing which
is

ble to

So also is it impossibegmningless is non-eternal prove the eternity of salvation, realized only

at the

moment

of its knowledge,

and

therefore havis

That which ing a beginning (iv 30) the beginning and at the end, cannot
present objects igh regarded as real
,

naught at exat in the

*

are

all

like

ordinary illusions,
ever-unborn,

(iv

31).

fht

all-peace

and

one, the

'tive

tc.
j

fable and immaterial, appears as admitting of motion and material existence Sat is n and eternal, still it appears to pass into birth, Thus neither is the mmd produced nor (iv. 45).
;

the objects

those

who know

this are never

.

d into a false consciousness (iv. 46) As motion

s a 'fire-brand appear straight, crooked, etc. so #

n makes thought appear as perceiver, perceived

94

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

like (iv

and the
affected

47).

The

fire-brand

is

not

itself

by its appearance and is ever unborn, its so is thought unaffected by motion being unreal appearance, and is ever unborn, its apparent ti The appearances of H being an illusion (iv 48)
,

fire-brand in motion are not brought into it from witW; out and they do not appear in any other plafee
,

when
it

it is

at rest,

though they do not appear to enter

The same applies to thought When (iv. 49) thought is in motion like the fire-brand, appearances also they do not go do not come from without out anywhere beyond the motion, neither do they
,

enter

thought They are always indescribable because of their defiance to the relation of cause and

effect (iv 51-52)

ity,

So long as one has faith

,

in causalthis faith
(iv

being destroyed, the world

one sees the world eternally present is nowhere

56)

Duality consisting of subject and object is a creation of ihe external senses (iv Those who 87) " " never perceive the duality always hold fast to
truth

a salutation ^v 94) The treatise ends to the Absolute after having realized it, such j&j attitude being justified from the standpoint with
4pf
i relativity and experience (iv 100) In this brief survey we have attempted to show^

how

the sage Gaudapada establishes a thorough-l going momst's position, calling the whole world o| experience as false as the dream-world, analysing
the^

notions of existence and reality, refuting th^

idea of causality,

and even giving a psychological

DEVELOPMENT OF

ITS

CONCEPTION

95

genesis of appearances. The conception of Maya was by hrakdeveloped into a more or less systematic

whole, which was afterwards still further elaborated by Sa)(Eara. The general sketch we have here given
of Qoudapada's idealism will suffice for our purpose, and without dwelling on it any more we now pass on to the final synthesis of the doctrine m Sankara. In passing, it may be observed that there is hardly any teacher of note, between the times of Gaudapada and Sankara, who contributed anything worth

the

name

to the

There

may

ately their

development of the idea of Maya. perhaps have been some, but unfortunnames have not come down to us We

purposely omit in this chapter the discussion of Badarayana's Sutras for reasons which are not without justification The Sutras, as they stand apart from Sankara's commentary or any other exposimay hardly be said to yield one definite,

tion of them,

fixed

and indisputable

interpretation,

ertfier 'in

faVour of or against any doctrine of the Vedanta Sankara, Ramanuja, and many other expositors, including some of the very modern ones, have resNpiively attempted to wield the Sutras as weapons lor the defence and support of their own interpretations

problems
it

and conceptions of the chief metaphysical None of them is pnma facte open to
In face of such facts

reconciliation with the others

into the problem, viz such be made to give

would indeed be worth the trouble to go deeply how far can the Sutras as
,

any

definite interpretation

9*>

THE
'

LKJHK1JNU, U*

MAYA
nobody has

and meaning

As

far as

we

are aware,

yet gone into these details, and it would osstainly be no mean subject for further research. Our present
purpose, however, precludes us from uiT this additional task here, and even if any!

were brought forward, they would not materially affect the position of the question at issue. Personally, we are inclined to take Sankara
gestions

as the best and the most satisfactory exponent of We BSdarayana's views on the Vedanta problems do endorse the view that to Sankara was handed down the tradition in its genuineness But dogmatizing on such points is of no use, and one is at liberty to hold whatever view one likes on matters Hence we now pass incapable of any direct proof on to a discussion of Sankara's contributions on the

question of

Maya

As an interpreter of the Vedic tradition and the Vedanta of the Upamsads, Sankara found himself in a difficult and peculiar situation He observed, on tfte one hand, the different ways of e
the problem
treatises
all

of of

Reality in

these

them

as such could not be t

Their seeming contradictions, I ultimately true as such, could not be merely ignored Yet on the
other hand, all these were to him Vaidic (i.e., based on the Sruti), and hence revelations of the Divine

Truth, which by the force of his tradition he had to He noticed, e.g., that the purely metaaccept.
physical standpoint
of

Yajnavalkya was

at

any

DEVELOPMENT OF

ITS

CONCEPTION

97

rate quite incompatible with the less advanced views

ism,

the latSrVtages in the degeneration of pure Idealwhich we have briefly described above and

yet qjjKoi these phases of thought claimed validity He was thus in a on fite -basis of a certain Sruti

on the horns of a dilemma, from which he found an escape with caution and wisdom, acting quite in " " the spirit of all great of thought synthesisers In attaining such syntheses, sometimes a clean sweep has to be made, and Sankara was not wanting in the He asserted that knowledge is of courage for this t'wo kinds para (higher) and apara (lower), the former referring to the unqualified Brahman, and
liiay

the latter including all else that is to say, para vidyd only the highest metaphysical Vedanta such as is given in the pure idealism of YS]fiaval;

means
kya,

Gaudapada,

etc

The other parts

of

the

cal views, as well as the

Upanisads, which deal with more realistic or empiriwhole ntual canon of the
its

commanded and forbidden reward and punishment in another are all labelled as apara lidff. To include the Vedas under this latter head Vas certain to offend the masses, yet Sankara took ,this course, which was indeed essential for his The thought that the empirical view of synthesis nature is unable to lead us to a final solution of the
Vedas, with
the

things

^ider promise
world,

of

Smrtis, etc

Seing of things, was occupying the central position " More closely examined," as Deussen l in his mind.'
System des Vedanta, chap.
11

98

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

" this thought is has so eloquently pointed out, even the root of all metaphysics, so far aiTwithout it no metaphysics can come into hemg or existik This
thought
is

and

it is

this that led

the great dynamic force in 4 him to base the wh<

l

system as reflected in the Sarirakabhasya fundamental concept of the illusory nature of

all

our empirical and physical knowledge and the true That is the nature of the higher metaphysics
reason

why he

starts

with an examination into the

erroneous transference of the things and relations of the objective world to the inner soul, the Self,

This thought, which leads to the idea of amdya which forms the introduction to his epoch-making book, in a way gives an idea of his whole system, and we could not do better than state the whole
position in his own words, which, if well understood, are sure to furnish a key to Sankara's whole Advaitism.
says, at

"

Object (visaya) and Subject (visaym), he the beginning of his work, indicated by the " " Thou (the not-I) and the I," are of a nature

If it is certain as opposed as are darkness and light that the being of the one is incompatible witlMhe of it the follows so much the more that other, being

the qualities of the one also do not exist in the other. Hence it follows that the transfer (superunposition,
1

buddhih,"
actually.

In his Introduction he defines it as "atasmin tad" i.e , supposing a thing to be what it is not

DEVELOPMENT OF
quahti^
r

ITS

CONCEPTION

99

" " and adhydsa) of the object denoted by the Thou to the pure spiritual object indicated by its
1

conversely, the transfer of the sub-

false

Its qualities to the object, are logically Yet in mankind this procedure, resting on knowledge pairing together the true and the
is

untrue,

inborn or natural (naisargika), so that they

and qualities of the one to the other, not separating object and subject, although they are absolutely different, and so saying, for " "
transfer the being

example,

This

am

I,"

That
the

is

mine,"

etc.

This

transference

thus

made

(ignorance), and, the accurate determination of the true nature of

term Avidyd contradistinction to it, they call

wise
" of things, vastusvaruthis

things (" the bemg-m-itself

If pam) Vidyd (knowledge) that that to which a similar

is

be

so, it follows

false transfer is

thus

not in the slightest degree affected by any made, want or excess caused thereby
this goes to show that the final reason of the false empirical concept is to be sought in the nature ol our cognitive faculty, as this passage clearly out the unalterableness of the Self. From 3Mfmp " tMFit may rightly be inferred that the ground of

\H

the erroneous empirical concept is to be sought for solely in the knowing subject ; in this subject the
avidyd,

as repeatedly

asserted,

is

innate

(nai-

Cf. Sankara's Sarirakabbajya, Bibl. P. 21. 7, 807. I*.

>.

lod

p. 10,

1.

i,

loo
sargtka)
is
;

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

its

cause

is

a wrong perception

*
;

its

being

a wrong conception * / Now we proceed to an examination of some of the typical passages 3 in Sankara which suni whole position with respect to Maya One of the most important passages, which sums*,
viz
,

up Sankara's view,
("
is

Brahman alone is

the reality
"
4

and ) Brahmavyatirekena karya]atasyabhavah found in his commentary on n i 14 (" tadanan-

yatvam arambhanasabdadibhyah ") runs thus " The effect is this manifold world consisting of ether and so on the cause is the highest Brahman
,

Of the

effect it is

non-different from the cause,

'

understood that in reality it is i e has no existence

, '

How so ? "On account of apart from the cause the scriptural word (arambhana ") and origin " " others." The word arambhana is used in connexjon
with a simile, in a passage undertaking to

show hoto through the knowledge of one thing every" As/O thing is known, viz Chand Up vi I 4
,

good one by one clod of clay all that is made of clay is known, the modification being^a name n
!

" 1 Cf Ibid It is mithya-jnana-nimitta 'I p 9 3 " 21. See Deussen, mithyS-pratyaya-rupa," p 7 System, ch u In going through the whole book, the passages which appeared to be typical on this point are found in the commentary on i i 9, i i 20, i 3 19, i 4 3, i 4 6, u. i 14,
Ved&ntasutr'as with 'Sankara's

I
.

Commentary. Bibl. Ind

Calcutta, 1863, vol.

444.

u-u.

DEVELOPMENT OF
which has
it

ITS

CONCEPTION

101

speech, while the truth is that etc The meaning of this is^Atf "merely, thus," that if there is known a lump of clay i
its origin in

y and truly
'as jars, dishes, pails,

is

known thereby likewise

all

nothing but clay, there are things made of clay, such

and so on, all of which agree in For these modiand effects are names only, exist through or from while in reality there speech only, originate exists no such thing as a modification In so far as are names effects (individual they distinguished by
having clay for their true nature
fications

reference to "

in so far as they are clay names) they are untrue This parallel instance is given with they are true Brahman applying the phrase " vacar, ,

ambhana
quoted,
effects

to the case illustrated

we understand

that the entire

by the instance body of

has no existence

apart

from

Brahman

Later on again the text, after having declared that fife, water and earth are the effects of Brahman,
maintains that the effects of these three elements

have no existence apart from them (Chand. Up vi. Other sacred texts J also, whose purpose is to 4. i) mtimate the unity of the Self, are to be quoted here
in accordance with
"

the others

"

of the Sutra.

On

any other assumption it would not be possible to maintain that by the knowledge of one thing everything becomes known. We therefore must adopt
i

Cf.

Chind.

vi. 8.

vii.

25 2

Bfhad. 11.4.6; iv.

4.

23

102

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

In the same way as those parts of ethereal space which are limited by jars&aiwaterpots are not really different from the uwfersa]
the following view
ethereal space, and as the water of a mirage Is not for really different from the surface of the desert the nature of that water is that it is seen in on

moment and has vanished in the next, and, moreover, it is not to be perceived by its own nature (i e
apart from the surface of the desert)
etc

so this mani-

" has no existence apart from Brahman 1 further replying to the plurahsts objec" that if we acquiesce in the doctrine of absotions
,

fold world with its objects of enjoyment, enjoyers,

little

lute unity
(1)

The ordinary means of nght knowledge, perception, etc become invalid, because the absence of mamfoldness deprives them of
,

(2)

Jheir objects AU the texts embodying injunctions and prpi hibitions will lose their purport if the dis,

tinction

on which

their validity
,

<

does not really exist

(3)

The

entire

body

of doctrines

which referl
it

final release will collapse, if the distu

of teacher
is

and pupil on which

dep<

not real,"

5ankara says
Sankara on 11 i 14 toaufs Translation, Sutras des Vedanta,
1

DM

SEE,

Bibl Ind p 444-445 See Thii p 320-321 Cf Deussen, p 281

, ,

DEVELOPMENT OF
"

ITS

CONCEPTION

103

These objections, we reply, do not damage our position, because the entire complex of phenomenal existence is
considHHB* *s true as long as the knowledge of Brahman being jjfee Self of all has not arisen , just as the phantoms of

%t
man

a dsiK are considered to be true until the sleeper awakes It* as long as a person has not reached the true knowledge f tine unity of the Self, so long it does not enter his mind
knowledge and
the world of effects with its means and objects of right its results of actions is untrue , he rather, in consequence of his ignorance, looks on mere effects as forming part of and belonging to his Self, forgetful of Brah-

Hence as long as true being in reality the Self of all itself, there is no reason why the ordinary course of secular and religious activity should not hold on undisturbed The case is analogous to that of a dreaming man, who in his dream sees manifold things, and up to the moment of waking is convinced that his ideas are produced by real perception without suspecting the " perception to be a merely apparent one
knowledge does not present

These eloquent passages speak for themselves,

and hardly call for any further discussion Here Sankara by making use of appropriate anakgies endorses and develops the same metaphysical truth as was held by Yajnavalkya, Gaudapadg, etc. The unity of the Self is the maxim, and it is defended
[against

the charge of

its
,

stopping

all possibilities of

activity, exertion, etc

in the world.

There are two

describing

other similes used

by Sankara

in

the

nature of Brahman, and before we refer to h passages let us see what he says in his G
ii.

i.

9
"

"

With regard to the case referred to

we

refute the assertion of the ca

io 4
effects

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

its qualities by showing that the latter are the fallacious super-impositions of

and

mere

nescience^

very same argument holds good with r We can quote other e sorption also As the magician i our doctrine by the magical illusion produced by himself, b
unreal, so the highest Self is not affected by the!! visions of his dream because they do not accoi

the waking state and the state of dreamless sleep^l so the one permanent witness of the three states (the highest Self) is not touched by the mutually exclusive For that the highest Self appears in those three states

snake for which the rope

'

is

mistaken in the darkness

On

1 this'point teachers'knowing the true tradition of the Vedanta

have declared When the individual soul which is held in the bonds of slumber by the begmrungless Maya awakes, then it knows the eternal, sleepless, dreamless non'

duahty

"

We see

then that Sankara

is

very anxious to con-

vince us of the truth of his doctrine, and to explain it ifi a picturesque way for the sake of the uninitiated,

makes use
whichr are
(1) (2)

of

some very appropriate

the snake
3

similes,

among

The rope and The magician

jugglery

or juggler (mayavin)

andju^

The desert and the mirage. (4) The dreamer and the dream. The last of these has been already made use
(3)

of

'
;

Ref GaudapSda. Gaudapada, K&nfta. See also Sankara on

i. i.

16.
3.

19.

ITS

CONCEPTION

105

It has been shown exhaustively um^papada that expeqences of the waking condition are no less

unreal than those of

dream

Both are illusions alike.

same idea in the passage quoted above, and only touching upon it briefly is not affected in any to that Atman leads us see the
?.aikara works out the

way by

the assumed existence of the world

If

we

just think for a moment about the subject of dreams,, we perceive that we can hold without any fear of

contradiction that
(1)

The dream-state

is

as real as the waking state

,

so long as the dream lasts i e so long as the consciousness to distinguish the dream as such from the waking condition has not
arisen
(2)
l

But as the illusory nature of a dream is mined only on waking up from the
,

detersleep,

which prepared the way for it so toq, on acquiring a knowledge of the Atnfan the sole reality waking up from the slum^ber of ignorance, the truth that the world is an

j)

It 1S

illusion is clearly perceived. " "

"

only

relatively
is

speaking that
unreal
;

the dream-world

"

we say
"
the

and

waking world

is real

"
strictly

speaking

1 Mr F Bradley, the well-known author of Appear,ance and Reaitfy, once told us that there could be no difficulty whatever on speculative grounds in holding this position. Socrates (in Plato) discussed the same view, and " Dreams are true while they last " Tennyson said,

106

THE DOCTRINEfflPkAYA
The difference does not both are unreal he in the very nature of things, smce the fact stated above under the first head is indubit% true.
is

If

ably the ultimate reality

nothing but the

One

Atman, how is it that we perceive multiplicity here*. How do we find so many Jlvas ' Are they different from the Absolute, or are they parts of it, or what ?

What

is

this differentiation
?

due to

'

What

is

the

principle of individuation

To

all

such questions

Sankara answers with the aid

All *hese differences are only
of

of the theory of

Maya

name (nama) and form

"

(rupa)

due to the imposition Here he says in

11.

the course of his exposition on

14

Belonging to the Self, as it were, of the omniscient Lord, there are name and form, the creations of Avidya, not to be denned either as being Brahman nor different from it, the germs of the entire expanse of the phenomenal world, cSlled in Sruti and Smrti the power of Illusion Thus the Lord deperWs (mayaSaktih) or Prakrti as Lori upon the limiting adjuncts of name andiorm, the while products of Avidya reality none of these qualities belong to the Self whose true nature is cleared, b In^hJ right knowledge, from all adjuncts whatever manner the Vedanta-texts declare that for him who hal reached the state of truth and reality the whole apparent! " world does not exist
;

19, refuting the view that the individual soul is not identical with the Universal,,
i.

Again, on

3.

Sankara remarks
'

" Some are of opinion that the individual

soul, as such.

DEVELOPMENT OF
is real

ITS

CONCEPTION

107

To

to the Complete Sariraka-Sastra has been set forth, whose aim it is to show that tbJre is only one highest Lord ever unchanging, who

way

refute all these speculators who obstruct the intuition of the unity of the Self this

is

cognition,

and who by means

of nescience (avidya)

mani-

fests himself in various

different shapes

by means

ways, just as a juggler appears in " of his magical powers

set

The

difference of Jiva

forth in the
"

and Brahman is again same place as being only due to avidya

"

avidyakalpitam lokaprasiddham jivabhedam Btbt Ind p

,

269

Sarikara's greatness as a synthesiser of Advaitism lay, as we have already remarked, in two things:
first, in the important and useful distinction he drew " " " between para and apara" vidyd, which gave a rational explanation of all the so-called conflicting

statements

the Vedas, etc secondly, in his emphasis on the distinction between the empincal
,

(vyavahanki) and metaphysical (paramarthiki) existence,

which was
in

upon Gaudapada.
obsgrved
the

HnkS.s
1

too,

some way an improvement The distinction is implicitly Upamsads and in Gaudapada's but nowhere is it more clearly and emin

the same subject compare pp. 267, 342, 353, 454, In general for the doctrine of Avidya 455. 488, 49 1 507, 5 1 8 compare p 98,! 8, 112. 3, 182 12, 185. 12, 199 5, 205. 10,
,

On

fc}43

4,

'660

360 2, 433 13, 452. 2, 455 4, 473. 17, 483. 6, 507. r, 80 12, 682. 3, 689 i, 690 5, 692. 14, 787. 13, 10,
807. ii. 837. 2, 860. 15, 1,056. i, 1,132. 10,
1,133.

804.

i,

12, 1,133. 15.

108

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

For
in-

phatically brought out than in Sankara

stance, he remarks on page 488

the Self

All empinc action is true, so long as the knowledge of is not reached, just as the action in dreams before As long in fact as the knowledge of awaking takes place unity with the true Self is not reached, one does not havea

"

consciousness of the unreality of the procedure connected with standards and objects of knowledge and fruits of works, but every creature, under a designation of I and mine, mistakes mere transformations for the Self and for characteristics of the Self, and on the other hand leaves out of consideration their original Brahman-Selfhood therefore before the consciousness of identity with Brahman awakens," " * all worldly and Vaidic actions are justified
' '
'

Vedarata

is often ignored, and consequently the charged with fostering inaction, pessiSuch mism, leading finally to a zero-point, etc objections are simply due to a misunderstanding or

This fact
is

ignorance of passages like these *Witl Sankara closes our survey of the doctrine of Maya. The theory as held to-day is in no way cbnflictirlg

with the views of Sankara After having been made the object of polemics from different
quarters, this theory was again revived withfuU force and vigour though it has never been dead iJ
its

influence

The same

ideas of

by modern writers on the Vedant GaudapSda and Sankara were stfll

further elaborated, though the style of expression

1 The spirit of such passages is exactly analogous to* Kant's axiom that the transcendental ideality of the world does not exclude its empinc reality.

DEVELOPMEJW^^ITS CONCEPTION

109

became more and more laboured and technical. It is not the aim of this chapter to enter into the forms in
which
it

is

exhibited in the present day

still

In

all

parts of*india are

found in large numbers people

who, after having thoroughly studied the various schools of Indian philosophy, acquire a peculiar

attachment to the Vedanta, especially to the Advaita The doctrine of Maya is the school of Sankara foundation-stone on which they rear the whole superstructure of their philosophy of life The religion of the cultured Indians in modern times is identical

with

their

philosophy,
it is

exotencally,

which has two aspects monotheistic, with the belief that

.

the one Atman manifests

are taken as
"

itself in various forms,

which
"

means

"

(sadhanas) or

"

symbols

of attaining the

Atman
not the

this is the lower aspect of

the two

esotencatty,
it is

hold, since

monotheism has no place to final truth the only meta,

physical reality of the Absolute, Sat, Cit and &nanda, is h'eld to be no other than the Self, and all exertions

are directed towards realizing this very fact The conception of Maya has comforted many a perplexed

"

Ekasyanekamfirtrtvam yugapat paramatmanah,

sidhyen

mayam

rte

katham

"

* From an unpublished MS. (Mayavddadarpana) added to the Bodleian Library, Oxford.

lately

oil manifestations of

the

Abliite-twjflotkf

bit

lavmj

recourse to

lays'

CHAPTER

III

OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE WITHIN THE VED&NTA

AMONG

the

many

objections that have been, from

time to time, urged against the doctrine of Maya, by Indian thinkers not belonging to Sankara's school

and by various other writers

of the

East and the

West, most are based on a mere misunderstanding of the real significance and the correct attitude of the
doctrine, as

we propose

to

show presently
all

It is

not our purpose here to take into account

objections,
clujdish
first,

such

because some of them are^nerily

and destroy themselves in their very enuncisecondly, because

it

m, and

falls outsicft

our

We
e

will chiefly discuss those that

,

he within

sphere of the Vedanta proper, viz

those that

|ive*

been raised by some of the other VedSntic

shall subsequently

shook, and

weigh

briefly the

nncipal theories
)

commonly held up to-day

in order

rebut the doctrine.

The Vedanta system

schools

easily divides itself into four

These are represented chronologically by and Sarikara, Ramanuja, Madhva, and Vallabha
;

their four corresponding

types of interpretation are

II 4

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

as

known

Advaita, Visistadvaita, Dvaita, and Each of these schools presents a Suddhadvaita.

different type of

relation

thought on the problem of ttie between the Absolute and the Universe,
its

and each attempts to give

own

interpretation of

the principal passages of the Badarayana's Sutras to suit its

Upamsads and of own pre-conceived

plan of ideas

The

existence of these different schools within the

It is vain to expect all VedSnta needs no apology the Vedantists to conform to the absolute rationalistic

type of Sankara, or to the theistic type of

Ramamvja, or to the other types Variety, which is no less true of human nature than of the external world, demanded a variety in the philosophic and religious beliefs, and such diversity, at least in types It is an idle dream to or groups, will ever prevail expect ^hat at a certain time the world will have one
form
of religion, or will think

one set groove of

thought. These four schools in the Vedanta represent four stages of the development of thougMg which carry with them the philosophic and rehgioqi
"

beliefs

I
u|

personality enters into the formation <m our philosophic or religious systems, and each of

Our whole

accepts the one and rejects the other in so far as it is in harmony or otherwise with his cognitive experiences
or general interests. The psychological process ol selection or choice is ever going on our every-day life in all its activities. Hence it is not in any way a'

OBJECTIONS WITHIN THE VEDANTA

drawback
in the

115
into

Vedanta that

it split itself

up

four systems.
final gynthesis.

This analysis was essential for a

In tracing the development of the conception of Maya, we have already described in bnef the main
briefly,

To recapitulate very we may add that the whole of it centres round Maya Hence its characteristics may be summed up as
features of Sankara's school.

the theory of
1.

2.

That the only true existence is that of Brahman. That Brahman is identical with the Atman. That the universe is Maya, having only a

Max

phenomenal or relative existence Muller seems to have been a little surprised,

"

judging by his observations on Sankara

The entire

complex or phenomenal existence is considered as true so long as the knowledge of Brahman and the Self of all has not arisen, just as the phantomsof a dream are considered to be true until the sleeper
i 14), and says, But it is veiy curi(11 ous to find that, though Sankara looks upon the frtiole objective world as the result of nescience, he

awakes"

"

Nevertheless allows

it

to be real for all practical pur-

But as we have already Iboses ( vyavaharartham ") 1 Dinted out above, there is nothing to be surprised m. in this conception. That was the only way one
could reconcile the seeming reality of the world with To deprive the the idea of the absolute reality
Max* Muller, Stx Systems
of Indian

PMosophy, 1899,

n6

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

world totally of all relative reality, even for practical purposes, would be to propose a doctrine that

would soon destroy itself, since it will not ? any way explain the problem but will simply ignore it. Moreover, in this respect, Sankara's views were
exactly similar to those of Kant, who appeared on* the world's stage about i ,000 years later Kant, too,

while strongly inveighing against the

and Scepticism

of his times,

critical analysis of

Reason

itself

Dogmatism by a thorough-going came to the inde-

by Time, Space, and

empirically
his point
real.

pendent conclusion that the world, qualified as it is Causality, has no metaphysical is reality, but none the less is an appearance, i e
,

We

hold that whatever other

weaknesses there

may have

been in Kant's system,

was true beyond question Many Hegehans of modern times have come forward with a wellarrayed attack against the fundamental doctrines of Kant, but unfortunately they have started wi^h
gratuitous premises and consequently their criticisms have mostly missed the mark 1 Kant's " " seem to them to sta Things-in-Themselves

opposed to phenomena, and so supposing a cleavs between the two worlds they infer that it is unp< ble to bring these two into relation The same cntf cism has been preferred against Sankara's conception

We

refer,-

e g

to the works of

T H Green

(see

Pro-

Ufomena

to

Ethics,

cb
"

Knowledge, chap on

i Pnchard (Kant's Theory of ), Things-m-Themselves "), and many

OBJECTIONS WITHIN THE VEDANTA

117

"

of Nirguna Brahman (unqualified Absolute, corres" " Noumena or Schopenhauer's ponding to Kant's

WiJJ ")*and Saguna Brahman (qualified Absolute, " the Isvara, 1 corresponding to Kant's Phenomena,"

MayS, or Schopenhauer's fundamental conception of the unreality of the world, " Die Welt ist meine Vorstellung." ) a ^,when he says, This short digression is meant simply to point out " " that Sankara's concession of phenomenal reahty was not due to any aberration of his thought, but
quite consonant with even the result of the

or the Vedantic idea of

modern

critical philosophy of Kant and others The point has been worked out in some detail by Deussen in

his Elemente der

Metaphysik
the examination of
it is

As we
the

are

now concerned with

objections to the Maya theory, less to dwell longer on its constructive side

mam

need-

We now

give a
*

summary

of the other three schools in, the

objection's.

Vedanta, before dealing with the

The Ramanujas represent the theistic schogl of the Vedanta They worship Visnu as their Brahman,
|v opposition to Sankara's Nirguna Brahman, and, peftying that the deity is void of form or quality, egard him as endowed with all good and auspicious the supreme dualities, and with a two-fold form 'spirit (Paramatma, or cause), and the gross one (the
1 The word Isvara is used in a pantheistic sense, such as would regard the whole world as pervaded by Isvara, or a manifestation of Hun, or His body as it were.

Cf Schopenhauer,

Du Wdials Wilie und VorsteUung.

n8
effect,

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

the universe, or matter)

Their doctnne

is

consequently
trine of

known

as

Visistadvaita, or^the doc-

1 Unity with attributes.

Madhava

up the

tenets of

Ramanuja

in the formula

Vums "

Three

categories are established, as soul, not-soul, and Lord ; or as subject, object, and Supreme Disposer." *

Ramanuja himself has furnished us with a summary of his mam teachings in the introduction to
his Vedantadlpa

He

starts with

what he

calls

the
to

three primary

and ultimate
Universal

certainties

known

philosophy, viz.
1.

God (Han).
Soul
(at).
(acit).

Soul,

personal,

and

intelligent.
2.

Individual,

intelligent.

3.

Matter

Non-intelligent

other

is distinct from the God, the Supreme Soul of the Universe, is the from individual distract soul, which again is This differdistinct from non-intelligent matter The relation between ence istintrinsic and natural God and the universe (matter and soul) is that of

Each

of these three entities

effect. Matter and soul form the body God, which in its subtle condition is the universe its causal state, and in its gross condition the create!

cause and

I M

universe

itself.

The

individual

soul

enters

inti

* See Wilson, Religious Sects of the Hindus, London, 1861 ,1 vol. i, p. 43 Cf. Sarvadarsanasamgraka. Bibl Ind., Calc , 1858,

p. 46. * Cf

1882, p. 66.

Sarvadarlanasamgraka. Trans Cowell and Congo, Deussen, Gesckickte der Pktiosoptae, in., p 261.

OBJECTIONS WITHIN THE VEDANTA

matter, and thereby makes
it live
;

119

and, similarly,

God enters into matter and soul and gives them their
The universe powers and their peculiar characters without God is exactly analogous to matter without
soul
.
1

Brahman (which
system)

is

identified

with Hari in this

is regarded as having svagatabheda, i.e., differences within itself in its threefold aspects re-

ferred to above

It is

imagined to be

like a tree,
itself in

which, though one, has differences within the shape of its branches, etc

Madhva

(also

known

as Anandatlrtha

and Purna-

2 prajna ), in the thirteenth century, proposed another system the VedSnta, which he called the Dvaita It is so called because he believed in the

duality of ultimate principles,

real entity in itself

which he named the

independent and the dependent

to God, the
ister

Difference was a The relation of the individual Supreme Lord, was that of a lave and the latter was the former's object of obediis

Maya
e grace of

Visnu

only the will of the Lord*(Vi?nu). is won only through the know-

e of his excellence, not through the knowledge of

p-duahty
>,

The whole world was manifest from

body

of Visnu. 3

1 Cf Ramanuja's Sribhasya, trans Rangicarya and " Varadaraja, Madras, 1899 Analytical Outline," p. I. * See Madhava, Sarvadarsanasamgraha, ch. v. " " Vi$nor dehaj jagat sarvam awaslt Witaon, , p. 144, note

120

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

Vallabha, the founder of another Vaisnava school of the Vedanta, flourished in the fifteenth century

and taught a non-ascetic view

ing
all

of religion, 'deorecal*

destroyed the body of the Supreme Spurt

est reality

kinds of self-mortification, which, he said, which there lives a spark

According to him, the high-,

was Krsna, exempt from all qualities * and the supreme soul of the world The creation of the world was by a pro" Krsna being cess of evolution and involution " alone in the Goloka," as Wilson * says, and meditating on the waste of creation, gave ongm to a being of a female form endowed with the three gunas, and thence the primary agent m creation " This account of Wilson This was Prakrti or Maya As a matter of fact, there is too scrappy and vague is a very scanty literature on the teachings of Vallabha The Sarvadarganasamgraha has no place for it, and even Deussen, following closely the plan of this book, omits it altogether from his Geschichte
eternal, self-sufficient,

der Philosophic the subject

Max

Muller too

We

shall not give

is quite silent oat' here any detailed

account of Vallabha's doctrines, but we must stntfc their essentials so far as they affect the general!

conception of Maya.
'

'

'

Hence the name of the system as Visuddhddvaita Vallabha held that Krsna was devoid of all qualities, while R&manuja had alleged before his times that Visnu possessed
all

auspicious qualities Rfiigtous Sects of the Hindus, vol.

i.,

p. 123.

OBJECTIONS WITHIN THE VEDANTA

121

Vallabha was preceded in his line of thought by Nimbarka and VisnuswSmi. He attempted to punfy
the vilistfdvaita of
said
it

Ramanuja and
all
cit,

others.

He

was a contradiction

in terms to suppose with

intelligence

Ramanuja that Brahman

gent matter, jada)

should be in inseparable union with

actt (non-intellicit,

Brahman is sat,

and ananda

exhausts the possibility of all being, and becomes whatever it wills by the evolution (avirbhava) and

Whereas involution (tirobhava) of its properties Sankara explains the phenomena of the universe by
adhyasa,
of of

Ramanuja by

qualitative

and inherent

differences in

Brahman, Madhva by manifestation Brahman's body, Vallabha does so by the process evolution and involution of Brahman

After this very brief

to

summary

of the chief doc-

trines of the schools within the

Vedanta, we come

Ramanuja's criticism of the theory of Mya. This is embodied in his greatest work, The Sribhasya, a commentary on Badarayana's Brahmasiitras.
His exposition of the
first Sutra occupies the largest space in his treatise, and this criticism appears under fliesame division 1 Ramanuja brings seven charges

against the doctrine of

gist of each, in order,
I.
-

Maya We reproduce the with a criticism of our own.

The charge
is

of ASraydnupapatti.

What
1

'Residing in

the dfraya (seat) of Maya (or avidya) ? what does it produce illusion ' Surely

See "Sribh&sya, trans Rangacarya and Varadaraja, Madras, 1899, pp. 156-341

122

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

self,

not in the individual

the individual self
neither could
it

because the selfhood of

,

is

itself

reside in

essential nature of self-luminous intelligence,

projected by avtdya Brahman, since*He has the and is

thus opposed to avidyd (ignorance)

Criticism. This objection rests upon a two-fold In the first place, Ramanuja misinterpretation starts with the idea that Maya (or Avidya) is some-

thing real, and consequently demands a seat for this " " or ignorance A may a is decidedly not illusion a reality it is only the negation of vidyd, or the
' '
' '

obscuration of it.
is

the upadhis,

As the fire is latent in the wood, so our godly nature, our spiritual principle, hidden by In the second place, Ramanujamakes

an unwarranted differentiation between Brahman and the individual soul In stating the position of the Advaitin he has no right to colour it with his own conceptions. We, after Sankara, do not admit such a differnce between the two Brahman becomes the
individual soul only by upadhis, i e self-impo$bd limitations of manas, ten senses, subtle body, Karma, etc. These upadhis may figuratively be spoken of
,

"~"

Atman and resolving it into t Atman (Brahman) and t Atman. If, therefore, we are individual by Ramanuja to state the residence of AvidyS, ^ may meet him by saying that it must, if at all c ceived as such, reside in the upadhis the mind (manas), the senses, etc. As a matter of fact, this demand of Ramanuja seems to be unjustifiable and
as limiting the

aspects of the Highest

OBJECTIONS WITHIN THE VEDANTA

inadmissible
It

123

wholly rests upon his supposition

of the reality of
*2.

Awdyd
of

Pfc Charge

The supposed cannot, as mainignorance tained by its upholders, conceal Brahman, whose essential nature is self-luminosity. The concealment of luminosity means either (a) the obstruction
of the origination of luminosity, or (6) the destruction of existing luminosity But as it is held that

"

Tirodhdndnupapatti "

the luminosity of Brahman is incapable of being a produced thing, the concealment of luminosity must

mean

the destruction of luminosity, which, in other words, amounts to the destruction of the essential nature of Brahman
Criticism. This objection is based upon Ramanuja's losing hold of the real position of the upholders " of Maya Our " ignorance is merely negative
It

anything
to see
it

has no positive existence to be able to conceal Brahman* is ever else in the strict sense

the same in

its splendour and luminosity, but^ve fail only through our own avidyd, which can, therefore, in no way be said to be able to conceal

Brahman

in the sense of destroying its luminosity.

In the same way, if a follower of Ramanuj| " ask Kant, not see t Why do we " ? he would A (das Ding-an-sich ') " Because between that and ourse]es.afe the
'

intel-

'lectual forms (upadhis) of Time,

lity."

culty pointed out

Thus we are not explainfi by Ramanuja

ftJZ^ug ftfcft*

124

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

(tirodh&na) of

we deny the concealment

ignorance (avidya)
3.

Brahman by
*

The Charge

? As long must either have the nature of But it is not admitted to l>e reality or of unreality. a reality 1 and it cannot be an unreality, for, as long as a real misguiding error, different from Brahman

What is
it is

Svarupanupapatti the essential nature of Amdya

of
all, it

as

a thing at

Himself, is not admitted, so long it is not possible to explain the theory of illusion If Brahman Himself have the character of the misguiding error, then,

owing to

his eternity, there

self.

would be no

final release

to the individual

The whole difficulty is purely factitious Certainly we do not admit the reality of the but at same time we do not hold that it is Maya,
Cnttctsm
unreal

from

the

empirical

standpoint

as

well

Empirically
is

it is sat (existing) the world is, but it MdytK Ramanu]a is too anxious and tactful to us by his dilemmas But as a rule these corne^

dilemmas have one of the two horns already broken, since he generally starts with self-assumed premises, and draws his own inferences from them, most logically, of course.

The question
in the sense in
i

as to

what
it is

is

the cause of

Maya

is,

which

asked, an illegitimate one.i

Here Ramanuja rightly understands the standpoint/ but at once again makes a great confusion and, becomes inconsistent when criticizing the theory on the basis of the
i reality of

Maya

OBJECTIONS WITHIN THE VEDANTA

125

Causality is the general law in the world (in BfSyS), but it has no warrant to transcend itself and ask, " " The category only What^s tfie cause of Maya ?
applies within the

phenomenal world, and at once

stretched out of it. Everything within Maya has a cause, but Maya has no cause The same fact would be stated by Kant in the words

breaks

down when

"Causality is the universal law of the empirical " Hence the question as to causality being world meaningless in the present context, we are not to answer it obliged
Again, when

RSmanuja

suggests that

"

as long as

a real misguiding error, different from Brahman, is not admitted, so long it is not possible to explain the theory," the suggestion seems to us to convey hardly

any meaning,

since the

moment we grant a real existfalls

ence to Maya, our whole theory

with

it

real

dualism between the two

will

realities (facing each oth^r) be at once created, and this will in no waf afford even the slightest explanation of the theory. We wonder how Ramanuja himself would try to explain the theory even on these duahstic premises. The whole of this charge, therefore, is imaginary and
futale.

4.

The Charge

of

The Advaitms says that Maya

i e.,

Amrvacamyatvanwpapatti. is antrvacawya,
it is

incapable of definition, because

(sat)

neither an

entity

nor a non-entity

(asat).

To

hold such a

view

impossible. All cognitions relate to entities or non-entities ; and if it be held that the object of
is

w6

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

a cognition has neither the positive characteristics of an entity nor the negative characteristics of a
non-entity, then all things
of all cognitions.

may become'th^ objects

is

Cnttctsm.
clever

This difficulty

couched in a very

and catchy way. Yet the whole rests ona misconception, viz., the want or perceiving clearly " what the tertium comparatioms "is in each case.
Sat and asat sound two contradictory conceptions, and to say that a thing (" an object of cognition ")
is

neither sat nor asat

all.

is

not to say anything about

it

at

But the thing is thought of in two wholly different aspects, and the tertium comparattonts is
not
"

common

to both.

Maya, we say, is neither sat nor asat, neither an " " " nor a It is not sat, since entity non-entity the Atman alone is real, and it is not asat, since it
appears at
least, or in

other words, maintains

itself

as an A>a (" as it were "). Where is the contradic? tion Does not this very fact allow us "to ^ow

speak of MayS as something mysterious, incapable of a stnct definition ?

5.

The charge of Pramdnanupapattt Is there any means by which this curious a

brought within the range of our cognition ? I<l can neither be proved by perception nor by infer-] ence. Neither can it be established by revelation, as the scriptural passages can be explained other-,
is

wise.

Crtttcism.lu the

light of

what we have said

OBJECTIONS WITHIN THE VEDANTA

127

above this objection stands self-condemned. When we do not believe in the real existence of MSyS, what
logic is*there in requiring us to

prove the existence

If we had granted its reality, then indeed it we could be called upon to name the source of its

of

">

Knowledge perception, inference, revelation, etc. However, to prove the validity of our conception we do not require any marshalled arguments or formal
It is as clear as anything, when syllogisms recall to our mind the nature of amdya, which, as

we we

have shown after Sankara, is an erroneous transfer of the things and relations of the objective world to the Self in the strictest sense of the word Further, Ramanuja examines a few scriptural
passages, and giving them another interpretation, infers that all such passages can be so explained as He might not to corroborate the theory of Avidya

draw any meaning out

gone
into, so long as

few passages he^has bent upon showing the untenableness of Maya, but there still remains a large number of passages, among which the metaof the
is

he

physics of Yajnavalkya occupies a prominent place, that defy all such attempts at a forced, far-fetched

and perverted

When we know
than the Absolute

interpretation that we are in reality no other Spirit, and that the Atman is the

only reality ; and yet we feel that we are different from the Absolute and that the world which we

live,

we

move and have our being, is real, to what shall attribute this clash between our knowledge and

iz8
feelings?

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

Is
it

not a mystery?

And what

else

the

could "
6.

we say but that this is due to our ignorance, " erroneous transference spoken of alcove '*

The Charge of Nwartakdnupapatti. relation to the idea that the This difficulty is cessation of awdya takes place solely by means of th%

knowledge which has the attnbuteless Brahman for its object Brahman is not without attributes and qualities, since there are many passages which prove
that He is possessed of these Moreover, the gram" matical equations, such as" Tattvamasi ("That art Thou "), do not denote the oneness of any attnbute-

they are not intended to give rise to the but they stultification of any illusion due to avidya simply show that Brahman is capable of existing in two different modes or forms The universe is the
less thing,
,

body
all

of which

Brahman

{he three entities

is the soul He is Himself ConGod, soul and matter

sequentfy, the knowledge which has an attnbuteless

Brahmjin for its object is impossible and cannot be the complete knowledge of truth and obviously such an impossible knowledge of the oneness sof of tM t
,

attnbuteless

Brahman cannot be

the remover :r of o 'thl

avtdya postulated by the Advaitms. Cnt%ctsm. The force of this objection lies mainly " in the supposition that Brahman is not without

and it is further pointed out by Ramanuja that many passages of the Sruti prove this thesis. In the light of Sankara's Advaita, as briefly
attributes,"

described in Chapter II.

we

fail

to see the force of

OBJECTIONS WITHIN THE VEDANTA

this

129

that there are some scripthe assertion may equally tural passages bearing out be me* by the counter-proposition that there are

argument.

To say

also passages countenancing the attnbutelessness of Brahman. If, then, both these assertions neutralize

each other from the scriptural point of view, one may well ask, What then is the real trend and pur' It seems to us that port of the Vaidic thought this question could not be better answered than by

repeating the doctrine of Sankara when he attempted to synthesize the whole of the Sruti by taking a wide

conspectus of its purport. All passages which speak of the qualified Brahman may be placed under Apard mdya, while para will include only those that

expound the metaphysical truth as it is Brahman may, from a lower standpoint, be conceived as
" wtth attributes," but the ultimate truth remains
" He is really " without attributes Besides,*he in the strict sense leaves conception of the Absolute Impoe any hardly any room for "attributes." attributes and you at once make the Absolute " non-absolute," i.e., destroy his very nature by

that

making paricchtnna
chinna (without

(limited) that

which

is

apartc-

limits).

Tat Again, Ramanuja denies that the text, foam asi," denotes the oneness of the individual with
the attnbuteless Universal, and holds that
it

"

simply

brings out Brahman's capability of existing in two forms or modes. Now, this seems to us to be an

ambiguous use of language.

That Brahman easts

130
in

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

two opposite forms will be meaningless if one of the forms were not supposed to be due Jo AvidyS. How can a being exist in two contradictory forms ? Cit and acit are two opposite notions in the system of Ramanuja, but he has not succeeded in reconciling their existence by merely saying that they are two modes of the Absolute. To picture the universe as the body of Brahman is after all a mere analogy, which hardly makes the matter even a jot clearer.

Even by investing God with all butes, how will Ramanuja account

auspicious attrifor the existence

of evil (moral) or error (psychological) ' Simply to say, as did Plato, that God is good, hence the

universe must be good, is no explanation, but a mere shirking of the question. Like Plato, Rama-

nuja uses many analogies and metaphors while speaking of Brahman, but the Advaitist cannot but take all these as mere mythical representations.

Hence, with our denial of the qualified aspect of

Brahman as a metaphysical truth is linked the denial " the impossibility of the knowledge which has an attributeless Brahman for its object." Avidya being like darkness is itself expelled when
of
light

comes in. JUana is the remover of ajft&na. As we have already pointed out above, the expression " " knowledge of Brahman is strictly inadmissible, since Brahman is itself knowledge (/rtana) of course
the [term being used in the higher sense of
"

pure

OBJECTIONS WITHIN THE VEDANTA

7.

131

The Charge
^removal "
is

of Nivrttyanupapatti.

of the Advaitin's hypothetical quite impossible. The individual " " is determined by bondage ignorance Karma and is a concrete reahty. It cannot there-

The

"

ignorance

soul's

of

fore be

removed by any abstract knowledge

but

only by divine worship and grace. Moreover, according to the Advaitms the differentiation between the knower, knowledge, and the known is
unreal
;

and even that knowledge, which

is

capable

of removirtg avidyd has to be unreal and has to stand in need of another real removing knowledge.

Critictsm.

Our

struggle with

Karma

is

undoubt-

edly real so long as our consciousness of the true nature of Brahman has not ansen. Karma, its determinations, and with it everything else, is sup-

posed to be real, but only so far. We have already Quoted passages from Sankara where he clearly and
atty

" vyawthdricunequivocally makes this concession, " (i.e., from the practical or empiric point of " It may therefore be called a view), as he calls it. concrete reality," but with the explicit understand" ing that such a reality is after all phenomenal."

We do not hold the efficacy of Karma in the case of

one who has attained the knowledge of Brahman ; such a man, being free from all desires and motives,
'all

trol of

springs of action, is part passu beyond the conKarma in so far as he is not creating any fresh
for himself.

and new Karma

The laws

of

Karma

are valid within the phenomenal, but in

no way do

132

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

they produce any real knowledge to the Atman, whose very nature forbids all such bondageg. The idea of divine worship and grace may be supported for the sake of the ordinary minds unable to go round the higher path of pure knowledge, But surely the idea of grace, etc is not an exalted
,

Truly speaking, grace is only possible a direct and perfect communion in " " between the two forms other words, an identity This fact, too, shows that the ultiof consciousness " man and is Consciousness." nature of God mate So long as our ignorance is not cast away by the " " which alone is knowledge acquirement of
conception

when

there

is

capable of ousting
possible.

tion or deeds will never lead one to the

its opponent liberation is imWithout such a knowledge, mere devosame goal. As to the differentiation between the knower and the known (jneya), (jnkta), knowledge (jnana),
1-

we haye
and
it

fictitious in
is

to repeat that the distinction is certainty the absolute sense. It is made by us

real for all

our practical purposes.

The

metaphysical the world in

of avidya

truth
its

does not attempt to devour

removing avtdya
is

practical aspect " " if we are at all to say removal

The knowledge

not unreal.
"

Unreal knowledge cannot

destroy unreality

a relation

Knowledge in the lower sense of " " " between subject and object is of

course unreal, but such knowledge is unable to give a deathblow to avidya. On the dawning of true " knowledge the artificial distinction between sob-

OBJECTIONS WITHIN THE VEDANTA

"
ject

133 "

and

"
object

"

vanishes.

"

By what shall we
'

know
Ete

was^o

the knower (the subject of all knowledge) forcibly asked by Yajnavalkya.

brief the seven difficulties

These are in

which

RamSnuja
will

perceived in the doctrine of Maya.

As

appear from what we have said above, Ram5-

nuja's criticism rests on the whole on a misunderstanding of the genuine Advaita standpoint. All

through he has been treating

Maya

as

if it

were a

concrete reality, even perhaps existing space, etc do not accuse him even because he attempted to

We

reject Sankara's premises.

But we

fail

to see his

consistency, when even on his own premises he falls short of furnishing a really adequate explanation of the relation between God and the Universe.

His doctrine of divine grace, devotion,

etc., is

apt

to appeal strongly to many Christian theologians, who will therefore naturally prefer his philosophy Be as it may, to us it seemf evito that of Sankara
flent that Sankara's analysis of Reality

went much

further than Ramanuja's. The impersonal conception of the Absolute, we hold, is truly personal, if

there
is

is

any

real

how we

will

meaning in personality." This meet those who cannot hold any such
if it

"

doctrine to be the ultimate

destroys the idea of

the divine personality. Now, coming to the objections of the Purnaprawho hold the absolute separateness of the jfias
individual
stful

and Brahman

it is

obvious that the

general drift of their attacks must be directed against

134

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

Jiva, they say, being limited (paricchinna) is

the Advaitist's doctrine of the identity of the two.

The

distinct

from Brahman.

this school of

One of the followers <Jf Madhva speaks of the Advaitins in the

and polemic fashion

following contemptuous
"

There are certain disputants, sunk in a sea of false logic, addicted to an evil way, filled with a hundred imaginations of idle babble, deceived themselves

and deceiving

who say, I am Brahman, and all this universe Brahman,' which is now shown to be an empty desire. If I and all this Universe were Brahman, then there would be an identity between thee and me thy wealth, sons and wife would be mine, and mine would be thine, for there would be no distinction between us." 1
the world,
also
is
'

To show

the futility of such arguments

it is suffi-

them as such. This criticism quite ignores Sankara's repeated warning that the ideal unreality of the world does not deprive it of its empiric
cient only to state
reality, a^id in

empiric reality

all

the distinctions are

observed.

The criticism is

further couched in rather

We are not surprised that a misunderstanding of the Advaita standpoint may lead one to urge such silly charges against it as are ejncrude language.
bodied in the quotation just noted. The school of Vallabha has not entered into conflict with the theory of My5, but it has pointed
out the untenableness of Ramanuja's standpoint. Ramanuja, as we have seen, only qualified the origiSee Tattvamukttoali of Purnananda, trans, by Cowell (JRAS.. vol xv. part u.). Sloka 87-88.

OBJECTIONS WITHIN THE VEDANTA

nal Advaita
altogether.
;

13!

but VaUabha thought of purifying il It could not be held that Brahman,

should be in inseparable union with
contradiction
in

which as
acit.

all cit,

This would have been a

terms,

and would have

1

soiled the doctrine of the

"Upamsads.

become by its the validity of Ramanuja's standpoint went so far as to keep the school of Vallabha away from discussing the theory of Maya. While Ramanuja it a point to use all means at his disposal to bring the doctrine of Maya into discredit (and so too did Madhva after him), Vallabha stood up to criti-

Brahman was therefore supposed to wtll. Now, this tendency to question

made

cize

Ramanuja.

That

is

why we do

special charges preferred by him against MayS." Of course, this does not mean that he endorsed the

not find any "

theory, but simply that he did not meddle with the right or wrong of the question, and was content to establish his own views in reference to a crificism of

RSmanuja's.
tion of

Hence we now pass on to an e;Jamina-

some of the other objections, which are not raised strictly within the Vedanta. Sankara has discussed at length the controversy

between the S5nkhya and the Vedanta. In Adhyayai. he has established the main principles of Vedanta, and in Adhyaya 11. has attempted a thorough-going
'Sinkhyas
1

inquiry into the various objections preferred by the 2. 11-17), Budd(li. 2. i-io), VaiSesikas (li.

hists (n.*2i8-32), Jainas (33-36),

Paiupatas (37-41),

See Dvivedi,

Monism

or Advattism. p. 104.

136

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

The
it is

PaficarStras (42-45), etc.

physico-theological

proof

is first

taken up, and

dhSna

(non-intelligent matter,

shown how the Praan equilibnumof thft

three gunas) cannot evolve itself spontaneously into An earthen jar though multiform modifications.

springing from clay does not

itself

come

into east-*

ence without the co-operation of an intelligent being, From the impossibility of the viz., the potter.
orderly arrangement of the world and the impossibility of activity a non-intelligent cause of the world
is not to be inferred. Activity may of course belong to those non-intelligent things in which it is observed, but in every case it results from an intelligent principle, because it exists when the latter is

present and not otherwise.

The motive-power

of

intelligence is incontrovertible It may be objected that on the VedSntic premises the2 is no room for a moving power, as in conse-

quence 8f the non-duality of Brahman no motion is But, says Sankara, such objections have possible. been refuted by pointing to the fact of the Lord being fictitiously connected with Maya, which consists of name and form presented by A vtdyd Hence motion can be reconciled with the doctrine of a
non-intelligent first cause. cannot enter into this question at

We

any length

since, as

of

we have already said, as regards the nature Brahman as the Cause of the world and the possiassuming any other

bility or otherwise of

suh

cause,

this conception of "causality" is not tenable in the

OBJECTIONS WITHIN THE VEDANTA

137

purely idealistic sense, and the moment any such category *s introduced the Absolute (Brahman) is

conceived as Phenomenal (mayopahita). After a careful criticism of the atomic theory of

,the Vaisesikas Sankara proceeds to discuss the doctrine of the Buddhists (11. 2. 18-32). That doctrine, as he observes, is presented in a variety of

forms, due either to the difference of the views main-

tained

by Buddha

at different times, or else to the

on the part of the disciples of Buddha. Three principal opinions may, however, be distinguished
difference of capacity
(1)

Realists,

who maintain
Sarvastitvavada

the reality of every(Sautrantikas

thing

and

Vaibhasikas).
(2) Idealtsts,

who maintain

the reality of thought

is

only
(3)

Nihilists,

vijMnavadins (Yogdcdras). who maintain that everjfthnfg

(void,

sunya

unreal)

Sunyavadms

(MS-

dhyamikas).

The criticism of each of these is set forth with great pesspicacity in Sankara, and it is needless for us to go over the same ground again. All this bears on
our subject only
indirectly.

All the chief objections to conception, viz., to take it

criticism of

Thibaut in his rntrooKcflSfi to the VedSnV

tasutras (S.B.E., vol. xxxiv.) It is of misconception.

one's

ratto)A8e

&*:

mind from a

theistic

138

THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA

My5. In Chapter II we have attempted to show how the idea of Maj|5. existed
the doctrine of

much

earlier

than the word

Maya

(in

the technical

sense) and that in itself is a refutation of the main thesis of scholars like Thibaut and others who sup-

was a late offshoot pose that the conception of in the VedSnta, being specially fabricated by
Sankara.

MyS

On a

future occasion

we hope

to supplement the

present treatment of Maya by an examination of the various analogies of the concept in the philo-

sophy of the West and some other eastern countries. It may also be possible to summarize critically the
views of
all

on the question
the Universe.

the other systems of Indian philosophy of the relation of the Absolute to

That

will

be a proper occasion for

recapitulating a criticism of Buddhism, Jainism,

Sanfchya.

etc.

11132