Doctrine of The Maya

BUTLER t
THE SELWOOD
Fum
TiMl
PRINTING
WOES,
AND LONDON,
PREFACE
of
Maya
is
the Advaita Philosophy

of Indian speculation
the pivotal principle in
the final pronouncement
on the conception
of Reality
and Appearance.
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 by the way.

Vedanta
in the later
richly^ supported
an established
fact,
That
is
it is
already
but a number of writers seem
to conclude, rather hastily, that
it is
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
contribute a
on
this
debated, and
little
it is
The
only with a view to
towards a clearer understanding

I undertook to examine the
problem that
Upanisads as minutely and as fully as
could,
always relying upon the original texts more than

the
many more
or less slipshod translations which
are to be found.
Hitherto these treatises have
PREFACE
vi
been
looked
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
with appropriate references, an examination of

will lead us inductively to the established
which
To
conclusion.
view as
I,
those
who do not hold
a statement here and there
the same
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
To
one's
own
press
perquestion scientifically.
sonal belief and point of view in a scientific inquiry
vitiates, I believe, the conclusions to be arrived at.
On
is
the question whether the conception of Maya

found in the literature from Sankara down to the
The point to be
all opinions concur.
present day,
investigated
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
(i) that the conception of Maya

of the later books of the Rgveda
conclusions are
as old as
some
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)
illusion
"
that the word
"
Maya," in the sense
of course, occurs later
for the first
tune, in the Svetasvatara Upanisad (iv. 10) ; and

(3f that most of the critics of Maya have started
with gratuitously assuming
Maya
to be
concrete
standing face to face with the Absolute as

were, a tertium quid between the Absolute and
reality,
it
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
cised
futile
it
of the world does not deprive
it
of its empirical
reality."
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
PREFACE
Tiii
word
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.
is
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
I have given a very

Gaudapada's Kankas on the Manfar as they bear on the
subject.
own justification, since the book 'is
brief analysis of
dukya Upanisad, so
This has
its
unfortunately not so well known, and even those

it cursorily do not always understand
who know
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
it
other schools within the Vedanta, especially those
PREFACE
Idealism of RSmanuja. These

objections have nevdr before been collected together
and discussed in reference to the doctrine of
the
of
Theistic
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
Plotmus, Berkeley, Kant, and
But in the present volume I have
it was felt that the present essay
Plato,
out, since
t
is
in a
part,
in
way complete
in itself, arid that the additional
which would have taken a considerable length

is
itself,
not necessary for the purpose.
my own translation of passages

my opinion have not been quite accurately
have given
which in
reftdered in the current translations.
ployed the words

rather
"
"
appearance
indiscriminately
"
maya," though
am
and
have em-
"
illusion
"
translating the word

conscious of the subtle
two conceptions. The word illusion

has been most current in this connexion.
Persondifference in the
I 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;
mere
"
e.g.,
illusion
shown
in
"
some
mdyamatram
would* imply
detail
"
if
this.
But as
.ith reference
to
"
a
have
rendered as
passage^
PREFACE
Erom the Chandogya Upanisad, this was not exactly

what was meant by the old indian thinkers. I
dold that even
they were
is
temper
if
some
of
them
really thought so,
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
;
instead of starting with the

the world, and comes to the
Upan%W^|
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.
this
correspond to Schopenhauer's parallel sayings :

"
(i) that the word is my
Vorstellung," (2) that
"
it
is
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-
my
causality
it
is
the
My
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
Office,
Professor
manuscripts,
To
fl
D, Barnett, of the British
Professor Barnett
;tmg
the
proof
am
further
sheets,
PRABHUDUTTSHASTRL
January, 1911
CONTENTS
PAGE
[ACE.
IISTORY OF THE
CHAPTER
"
WORD
MAYA
Wilbams-The Nigbantu and

Conclusions so far
Introductory Bothkngk and Roth on

Geldner
Uhlenbeck
Grassmann
1-32
Maya
Momer
the Nirukta
The various forms
of the
word arranged
in order of their frequency of

References to R.V. Hymns of
occurrence
RV
word
where the word occurs

in
RV
Lndwig,
The idea
explanations
of
Meaning of the
Rosen Sayana's
"
"
Power as Will
"
"
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
---Reference
&
rftyana's Sfltras
Ankara's-
BhSsya-Philomeanings Etymosophical
logy Two-fold Conception of Maya Inter-
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
Importance of the Bfh. Up.-Yijflavaiziii
33-110
CONTENTS
PAGE
kya's Idealism-Metaphysical and Empirical
standpoints
Idea of
"Accommodation"
The Upamsads as a system-The

Pure
Idealism,
Theism and
in
support
Pantheism,
Materialism,
stages of
Cosmogomsm,
etc
-Quotations
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
schools of the
Vedanta-Their funda-
mental doctnne in relation to

nuja's
his
cnticism
arguments
of
Maya-Rama-
Maya-Examination
Their chief fallacy
point of Vallabha and
Madhva
important objections to the Theory
tulationConclusion.
of
Stand-
Other more
Recapi-
CHAPTER
HISTORY OF THE
"
is
|
la
WORD
"
"
MAYA
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
But as
labour of writing this chapter,
word IB very fluid, and has
What
various shapes of meaning.
Vedic literature seems at

contradictory to
inquiry
links
first
it
is,
the
assumed
meant
in the
sight to be almost
later connotation.
Our present
intended to bring out the connecting
is
between
ally passed
all
its
it
at different times
its
various meanings as they gradu-
through stages of transition.
To avoid
subsequent error and confusion in understand-
ing the conception of Maya,
make
clear the
with the word

use of words
hence,
we
finished
if
ground by
itself.
is
seems necessary to
coming
to terms
The misconception and mis-
at the root of a host of fallacies
believe that
we
it
first
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,
Now
Tauschung.
their
these do not help us much by

In order to be free from
mere juxtaposition.
the fault of false analogy and hasty etymolojgizing

shall proceed inductively; and we now oegin
to view the meanings
connexion with the context
which the word occurs.
we
in
Geldner
word as
it
assigns the following meanings to the
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,
Tauschung, Schem, Erdichtung; (3) der

eindnngende Geist, Phantasie.
in das Verborgene
Karl F. Geldner, Der Rtgveda in Auswahl, Stuttgart,
1907.
HISTORY OF THE
Uhlenbeck
takes
also
it
WORD
to
"
MAYA "
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
Kunst oder Zauber-Kunst, Zauber-
bild, Trugbild.
1
*
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
"
cery,"
"
witchcraft,"
trick,"
fraud,*'
deception,"
reality,"
magic," he
is
sor-
not accurate,
using these words loosely. Some shade of

these is of course in
V., and their further develop-
and
is
ment îs noticed
in A.V., but to say that all these
are found in R.V.
is
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,
"
"
while exprajfia
brings out the same sense of
"
"
(Nir. i. 6, 4),'
plaining adhenva carati mayiyaisah
"
"
imam u nu kavitamasya mayam

"
mayam u
4),'
"
and
2,
visva hi
We
6).*
how
(Nir.
vi.
tu yajniyanam" (Nir vii 7,

"
avasi svadhavah
(Nir.
maya
3,
5),*
xii.
have occasion to see presently
shall
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
far
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,
10
vol in
vol. iv., p. 278,
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 ;
WORD "MAYA"
HISTORY OF THE
occurs nineteen times
mayinah
(ace. pi.
and gen.
*
sing,
(instr.
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),
mdydvdn (R.V iv. 16 9)* mdydvtnam (R.V.

and mdydvmah (RV x. 83. 3).
ii. 9),
ii.
There are altogether seventy-five hymns in

R.V. in which the word appears in its simple or
2.
iv.
24
85
to Indra
30 12, 30 21 ,
viu 23 15, 41
R V.
Cf
II. 10
v.
of these thirty-five are ad-
eight to
63
63
3,
Agm
(R.V.
144
i.
i.
m. 38
2,
39.
51
5,
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
;
73 9, 83 3
4,
64
v 44
ii
54
7,
'
7,
61
vi
vn
51 5, 151 9
47 18, 63 5 ;
3,
80
ui
vm
u. ii. 5
34
6,
14. 14
Cf
Cf
RV
RV
RV
'
Cf.
R.V
i.
61
111
85
vii
Vtde R.V.
32 4
i.
5,
n,
v. 63.
85 6
28. 4
m.
30.
'
Cf.
ix 73 5,
177. i
18,
i
Out
forms.
compound
dresse'd
x. 54. 2.
88. 6
99- 10, 147. 5

20. 3, 34 3.
32, 33, 51, 53, 54, 56. 80, 144, 160;
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^
iii.
20, 27
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)
48)
Soma
v.
(RV m
one each to U3as

61), the
Adityas (R V.
Atn \R V. v
XBf.V
in. 60),
(R.V. x. 85),
vii
(R.V.
61), Sarasvati
(RV.
Pusan (R.V. vi
n. 27),
vi.
5$),
Jfianam (RV. x 71), the Rbhus

Indravarunau (R V. vu. 82), Somarkau
Mayfibheda (R V. x 177), Indravisnu
40),
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 tra-
38),
3.
dition itself bears
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
As a
rule, following
gives
the
>
as
preserved
u 11,17
44. 45-
47
138. I 47 .
in
34. 53
vii. 28,
commentary
Sayana's
iv. 16,
98, 104
30
viu
30, 31
3, 14,
76
;
;
tells
us
vi 18, 20, 22,

x. 73, 99. ill,
HISTORY OF THE
WORD "MAYA"
that the two meanings prajnd and kapata l are the
most common, and Sometimes run
parallel.
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
He
"
make
his
own
by kapatavisesaih
explains mdydbhih
(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
' '
are not the only meanings accepted
In R.V.
by
"
tradition.
"
27 7 Sayana explains
mdyayd
*
by karmavtsaydbhijMnena," i e "by knowledge
of sacred rites."
This meaning appears to us to
111
be rather far-fetched.
In R.V.
the same word as karmabhih

"
is
translated as
power,"
in.
In
"
60. i
m
"
he renders
61. 7, tttdya
glory
rapa," ht. in the form of effulgence or light.
1
Which mean
"
prabhaIn R.V.
Germ
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
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
and
iv. 30. 21,
v.
30
6,
Sayana emphatically gives
the meaning sakti (power).

Again, keeping aside for a
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
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
its
appropriate place in the sequel.
The two chief meanings,

word is assigned in R.V. are
"
knowledge
")
and
which the
therefore,
"
"
"
power
(Prajna,
"
(" Kapata,'
deception
lit.
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
cana).
"
"
"
a mysterious power of the

power, but
which we would translate into such Sanskrit
physical
will,"
expressions
R.V.
iii.
as
saiikalpa-sakh
or
tcchd-iakti.
53. 8, for instance, Indra is
"assuming many
different forms,"
In
spoken of as
it is not
and
HISTORY OF THE
done by
"
"
his
physical
WORD "MAYA"
wonderful and extraordinary
"
the Vedic
(anekawill-power
that he may
nature
it
is
realized
very frequently termed mayin in
hymns
results are
and these
is
his
"
rupagrahanasamarthya). He wills
assume such and such forms and
hence Indra
it
power but simply by
Certain mysterious things or
produced by
this mysterious will-power,
results being extra-ord.ma.ry by their very

be said to set at naught the ordinary
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
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
may, however, note here
where Indra
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
(cf.
is
especially
power.
12
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
as well as
suit their particular func-
some new mantras
In the Y.V.
ideas are subservient to sacrifice (yajna) and its

while in the S.V.
various elaborate ceremonies
all
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
books
set of
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.
civilization,
R.V.
not for us to enter into the question
It is
The A.V.
here
represents a different state of

society from that described in the
are satisfied to note that the word
of
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
s
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.
;
xui.
Cf.
the
AV
8.
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.
iv. 38.
vi
72
34 ; xui. 2 3, 2 II ; xix 68.

A.V. xix. 27 5, 27 6, 66 i.
A.V.
iv. 23.
vm. 3
24.
vu. 81
I.
vill
4 24
X.
14
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.
"
Here the mysterious o{

"
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
"
"
throughout, and
magic
"illusion"
subject)
it is
tic
(the great
by Whitney.
is
even translated
controversial word in ojir

The two passage* in whfch
rendered so are found in the well-known
"
"
Mys-
extolling the Viraj, e.g., in A.V., 10. 22,

Illusion* (maya),
Asuras caOed to her,
hymn,
"The
come "
!
It
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
A.V.
vii.
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

,
1878, p. 493-
"
"
mystery instead of Whitney's
"
"
use of the word
illusion
here.
We would rather say
'
HISTORY OF THE WORD

details
The
here.
which are
of
really
"
MAYA
philosophical
"
15
treatises,
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
"
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
(xi.
69),
mayam, mayavant, and mayavattarah (viii. 23),

"
where the word clearly means
supernatural or
"
"
magical skill." The form
mayayS also occurs
in the, Taittiriya
maxim
Brahmana 7
(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
1
the
of
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
"
"
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
'
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-
6
Is
12
and we now hasten to quote

Upamsads and from the BhagaUpamsad or
cient for our purpose,
references from the
vadgita, which may be termed the final

the kernel of all the Upamsads 3
The Brhadaranyaka Upamsad the
oldest as well
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.

mSyS.
i6),
(i.
the Svetaivatara
mayam, mayinam
(iv, 10),
Up maya
mayl,* and
(i.
17
io),
mayayS
(iv. 9).
Upamsads too the word occurs

the forms maya, mayam, mayaya m Nrp. Up. (ni.
Among
v. i)
the later
and
in Nrut.
Nrut. Up.
.tram
we read
(i
Up. (Khanda
and 5). 5 In
9),
Cul.
mayamaUp.
(3)
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)
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
com
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
"
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,"
where an inquiry
is
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"
kbnaparsve ramamaye"
(17).
(61)
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

"
"
mayavidye ye kaiapSratattve
namo mSySxaaySya. ca" (30).
MAYA "
19
"
(89).
The Gopicandana Up. reads

I
"
"
fhe
"
"
"
"
In
m&yasahitabrahmasambhogavasat
mayasabahtam Brahmasit
Krsna Up.
Up.
etc.
evam
and
"
"
mayapanmohitatma
indrajalam iva
(Kaivalya
"
m5y5mayam
(Maitri
2).
of the
Advaitism
Upamsad.
is
8
and important works on

Gaudapada's Kankas on the,Mandukya
most
brilliant
These
(prakaranas)
Advaita
"
maya means appearance,"
The same sense is further found
these passages
sa
12),
Uf.* iv.
as
(11)
"
Mayaya mohitam jagat (12)

(13)
tasya m3y3 jagat katham
all
One
s5 tnvidha prokta (5)

"
tredha hy udahfta
(6)
"
(7)
ajayya Vaisnavl maya
Hanh saksan mayavigrahadharanah "
illusion,"
in
(4)
(Ibid
m5ya
maya
"
"
"
"
also reads
(4)
(i)
are
divided
Agama
(2)
Alata-santi, each of
a separate Upamsad.
into
four
parts
(3)
Vaitathya
which is regarded
;
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
"
"
maya is here also used in the
* illusion "
(In one
appearance,"
"
supernatural power,"
passage, however, it means
out that the word
same sense
ii.
of
"
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
where the world is likened to a world

to illusion, both of which are false.
"
vikalpita,"
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,
word
"
"
is
composed,
e
is
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
But, as will be shown preclosely allied to each
two ideas are

other.
The
sense
of
development of the idea

"
of
illusion
such a
"
is
21
natural
"
power."
"
mayaisa tasya devasya yaya sammohitah svayam
(
i9).
where maya
"
"
is
spoken of as the Lord's great illusion.
svapnamSye yatha dfste gandharvanagaram yathH

(
"
3i),
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
mayaya janma yujyate na tu tattvatah" (ut. 27)
"
asato mayaya janma tattvato naiva yujyate
(iu. a&).
ID Part IV we find
22
"
"
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"
58),
where " maya
"
is
said to
have no
real existence at
all.
"
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
tatha jagrad dvayabhasam cittam calati
mayaya,
mayaya
"
(iy 61),
where the seeming duality is spoken of as mere

vijUdnamaya, and the waking and the dreaming
compared in this regard.

The same sense is observed in the great
For instance
states are
epic, the
Mah&bharata.
"
purS vikurute
mayam
Cf also
"
"
"
(i
6,029)
7,631,111 2,557. xiii 7.595.
mayam mohinim samupasntah

"
apsara devakanya va maya
"
(i
(111
1,156),
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-

"
sambhavSmy atmamayaya
Here
"
(iv.
6).
will-power
Daivi hy esS gunamayi

mama tnaya duratyaya,
mam eva ye prapadyante
mayam etam
taranti te
"
Here it means
on God is spoken
"
"
"
"
means
it
23
prakrtim svam adhisthaya
illusion,"
of as
"
"
(vii.
14)
which being dependent
divine."
mayayapahj-tajaana
asuram bhavam asntah "
(vii.
**
Here, too, the same sense of
15).
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
where, speaking of the nature of a dream, the dream"

is pronounced to be mere
illusion."
Max
world
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
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
is the one by Sankara (otherwise called

"
"
This
Sankaracarya) called the Sariraka-Bhasya
Bhasya has so much been respected that it forms a
Sutras
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."
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.
u
"
7.
"
"
9.
10
"
(On
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)*
mayamatram
hi etat
"
(Ibid
7
)
yatha ca mayavi svayam-prasaritam

"
(On
apayasena eva upasamharati
"
mayam
11
21
icchaya
8
)
loke 'pi devadisu mayavi-adisu ca svarupa-anumar"

vicitra hasta-asva-adi sfstayo djsyante
dena eva
(On u
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
II 1-3
Ibid , p
342,
I.
12.
Ibid.,
3 19, Ibid., p. 406, I. 6.

7 Ibid
,
432, U. 8-10.
p
432,
1.
13.
Ibid.,
472,
Ibid., p. 484,
I.
u.
Ibid
~- J
p. 342,
Ibid, p. 343,
343.
on
I.
9.
I1.
I-
269,
*
1.
g.
26
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
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.
since, as
the term
glance through such works as the PancadaSi,

the Vedantasdra, the Vedantapanbhdsa, the Atmabodha, the Vwekacuddmani, etc., will amply endorse
We may, therefore, safely close our survey of the meanings of the term when we have come
this fact.
down
to Sankara's time.
"
is
"
Apart from its philosophic use, the word maya

used in modern classical Sanskrit to convey some
HISTORY OF THE
WORD "MAYA"
Sometimes
other ideas also.
it
"
means
27
a female
"
"
x
or fraud
Again it means
deception
(kapata) or hypocrisy (chadma), e.g., in the MahSbhSrata.
juggler."
"
"
sevetSm amayaya gurum
let
i*.,
"
(xui
7,595).
both of them serve the teacher without
any deception."
"
If also means
"
"
in an
unphilosophian ordinary way free from the
technical shade of the philosophical idea. For
cal
"
sense,
e.,
illusion
in
example, in the Raghuvamsa

"
mayam mayodbhavya
we reSd
"
pariksito
'si
(11.
62),
"
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
i.e.,
"
"
is one
of
Devi"), as
mayadevlsuta
"
Buddha's names mentioned in the Amarafcoia." *
"maya
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 pratiha1
Amara
nkah"
*
"
Amarakosa, ed
Colebrooke,
Ibid
3,
Sloka 10
"
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
p 657 also Sansknt Dictionary,

by Taranatha Tarkavacaspata, Calcutta, 1882 Padmacandrakosa, by Prof. Ganesh Datta Shasta, Nirnaya-sagara
edition, Calcutta, 1832,
28
Even
at the present
"
actually named
"
or
Maya-Kaur."
so
if
dayt
Maya-Dew
The
India some
"
"
or
chief reason
are
girls
"
Maya-vati
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
ever be abounding in riches.

^
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
will
"
riches "'leads us to the next
which
is
Punjabi.
In the Sankhya system
Press,
Bombay
p 263
Dictionary, Lond , 1893, p

Sanskrit English Dictionary,
is
identified with
F Bopp, Glossanum
further see
tum, Berohm, 1847,
Maya
Sanscri-
Macdonell, Sanskrit English

Theodore Benfrey, A
,
226
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
1
festival
29
"
matter ") as the source of
Prakrti (the primordial
the universe, with the distinct difference that the
It is
latter is real.
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
,
immeasurable Brahman appears as
if
measured.
"
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
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.,
are known,
ritual, etc., are
Ma to measure by which the

measured c (i.e understood, or per-
(2) -v/
jnayante
iti
formed) , hence maya

of the ritual, etc.
60
Again R V.
the knowledge of the object

"
i also,
adds Sayana,
mayah karmam,"
"
"
miyante
mayah
"
"
(nom.
"
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
pi.)
to say that this derivation of Sayana is a little

Another rather fanciful denvation
far-fetched.
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)
Hence, the conception of maya as the causal will(iccha-s"akti or prajna) may be derived from
power
to
Vma,
world as
know
illusion,
and, as the effectual state of the
from
<tfin.5.,
to measure, to build,
etc.
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
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
(3)
illusion,
.*-
be found to
exist in
form even in the Vedic

where in the R V
usage of the term, e g

it
meant
"
power or
skill
"
always meant
"
"
"
supernatural or wondrous power and
not the ordinary physical power
"
"
idea of mystery or
wonder
always was
"
The
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
present,
'
(1)
As the
cause
principle
of
creation
maya
as
corresponding to the sense of Sakti
(wondrous power), or
(2)
As the phenomenal
as an
"
effect
"
creation
itself
maya
corresponding to the sense of
appearance," etc
This short summary, we hope, will suffice as an
illusion,"
THE DOQTRINE OF MAYA
32
introduction to the conception of

ing chapter.
discussed,
ment
The meaning
maya
if the
we will now attempt
in the follow-
term having been
to trace the develop-
of the theory or the idea of
Maya from
Vedic times down to Sankara's, when
the
its
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
would lead us out
conceptions in other
of our present scope
s;
We h
however, to be able sometime in the near future
write a separaterfreatise on this doctrine with special

reference to
and
its
gions
its
place in
modern Hindu philosophy
analogies in other Eastern
and
Philosophies.
and Western
Reli-
For the present we have
to confine ourselves mainly to the historical view of
the conception of
Vedanta.
Maya
within the system* tf the
IT
OF THE
CONCEPTION OF
MM
CHAPTER
II
DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONCEPTION OF MAYA.

AFTER
a brief philological survey of the word mSyS,
we now turn
to the idea
itself.
idea are not to be confused

is
Tke word and the
since such a confusion
productive of various false assumptions as to the
doctrine of
mSyS
Indian
in relation to its place in
There are not a few who boldly allege
thought.
that*tlte doctrine is distinctively of
a late origin and
growth, an after-thought or a subsequent suggestion of
some
Idealistic
pretend,
is
VedSntms
of the later
temperament.
The
of
thj purely
idea of M5yS, they
wholly wanting in the earlier philoso-
phical treatises of the Hindus, viz
the Upamsads,
Without anticipating any discussion on this
point, we may only state that such thinkers seem to
,
etc.
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
certainly older than the word

its
MSyS
is
maya.
usual sense, of course, occurs for the
very
old-
The word
first
in
time in
36
the Svetalvatara
Upamsad
(iv
10),
but the tdea
may be traced to the later stige of the Vedic civilization
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
,
"
"
was found to yield no

satisfactory explanation of its being, and a desire was
felt to know the mystery, the underlying unity
reached* where the
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
war with one another, but only manifestations

Monotheism conquered Polytheism
The last book of the R V.
exclusive sense
of
One God
in
its
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
important for our purpose,

lation as follows
1
"
and has
philosophy,
As the hymn is very
we give our
own
trans-
Deussen, Outlines of Indian Philosophy. Berlin, 1907,

I- 20
Deussen, Geschichte der Philosophic, vol. i , p. 126, and
p. 13,
*
also in his Geheitnlehre des
Veda, zweite Auflage, Leipzig,

1907. P- 3- The hymn has been translated by many, but
of the translations seem to be incorrect in places.
most
RV
1
Then was
No
What
Twas
No
air
all
enveloped
Were waters
2
x itg
Non Being
no sky beyond
?
Where ? In whose care
neither Being nor
realm of
there
the deep abyss
'
'
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 âs ocean without distinction
But a pregnant germ lay hidden in shell
The One engendered by

4 Within
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
it at first
When like a
What was
Who
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 ?
From whom
arose this whole creation

it or not he
Whether he produced
Who
in highest
He knows
it
heaven surveys it,

or even not he
well
DEVELOPMENT OF
This
marks
the
ITS
beginnings
CONCEPTION
39
of
philosophical
The*same conception of the basal
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
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
We
and
self-contradictory trains of thought." J

to perceive any such contradictions. The various explanations are in themselves demanded by the
fail
very mysterious nature of the problem. It may be

remarked in passing that the Being and Non-Being
*
Richard
Garbe,
Chicago, 1897, p.
i.
The
Philosophy of
Anctent India,
40
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 Non,
does
it
Being
not
mean
while the manifested state
the negation of Being;

is called by the name,
of Being.
This also explains why Being
Non-Being in R.V. x. 72 2-3,
said to be born^f
and the root of the
is
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
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.
to determine
."
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
Sfltras,
this idea see Sankara's
4. 15, p. 376,
11.
commentary on Vedanta-
7-10 (Bibl. Ind. edn.).
DEVELOPMENT OF
However,
sads.
we
CONCEPTION
ITS
Vedic
in another
hymn
"
41
(R.V. x.
"
Puritsa
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
90)
see the
we
(who,
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
RV
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),
948
sen, Geschichte,
132
With some
variants, this hymn is

has been translated by Weber,
which
Dte Hymnen des
VS.
RV
xxxi. 18 (=Svetas.
314
Up
found in
A V.
iv
2,
xvm 8 ; Oldenberg,
Bloomfield, JAOS, xv. 184.
8- Muir v. p 373) refer
111.
to Purusa-
"I
know
this great Pumsha, resplendent as the sun,

It
by knowing him that a man
above the darkness.
42
We
the world, R.V. x. 190
here insert the former
in our
own
hymns
of the Rigvedic speculation
translation, as if
is
one of the typical

and is important
for our purpose
Vac
I
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
support Sbma, swelling with juice,

support Tvastr, Pusan and Bhaga
I who give wealth to the zealous
Tis
To
the sacrincer
who
presses
offerer,
Soma
am
the queen, the showerer of riches,

The knowing, first of the worshipped ones , *
Me have the gods in many forms displayed,
I
Me, living everywhere and entering

There
ever passes death

xxxii 2
VS
is
all
things
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),
Griffith,
i.
171
DEVELOPMENT OF
Through me he
4.
Who
eats food,
who
breathes,
ITS
who
CONCEPTION
43
sees,
hears what's spoken
Not knowing me they stay by me,

Hear thou of fame, I tell thee what's not easy
to know,
worthy of
belief.
(Mw)
to be credited.
(Whitney
It is I myself who declare this truth,

Agreeable to gods and men alike ,
make him
powerful,
Him a Brahma
6
It's I
whom
I love,
(Brahmana), a Rsi, a sage
who bend
the
bow
for Rudra,
That
his
It's I
who fight for my peoples' sake.

who have entered both heaven and
It's I
arrow
may
strike the foe ot
7 I create Father (Dyaus),
My
birth-place
is
Brahmana,
earth.
on the world's summit,

the waters, in the ocean
first
Tterf I into all things existing Center,

And touch yonder heaven with my body
It's I
who blow
forth like the wind,

all that exist ,
Spreading into being
Beyond the
I So great
sky,
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

m
have the gods

many forms displayed.
Me, living everywhere and entering all things,"
we have already referred

expressed by the Rsi Dirgha-
she repeats the same thought

to,
which again
is
tamas while praising

"
Of the one
Agm
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
this conception of the underlying
RV
x 81, 82,
brought out are
which we can only refer to, instead of
All this clearly shows that this
translating here
unity of being
90, 121, etc
is
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
same thought
in
many
beautiful strains
It is needless to multiply instances
three Vedas, since the
RV
is
from the other
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
these
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
"
CONCEPTION
ITS
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."
Aditi
is
A.V
6. i i
vii.
"
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-
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
AV
"
What moves,
flies
and
xj7.
17,
that combined becomes
"
One only
Prajapati goes about within the

"
Unseen, yet is manifestly born
and
Compare
MS
Viraj, see
RV
iv 14 4
ix
AV
89. 10
VS
xxv 23
II.
For a similar sentiment

10
x 8
womb
A.V
i
38.
that
AV
"
and
stands, breathing,
not-breathing and winking
x, 8. ^3.
T.A
13 2
in reference to
24
"
"
For a discussion on Yaksa
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.
1
* 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 ;
;
46
not deficient
satisfied with the* essence,

1
respect, one is not afraid of death."
self -existent,
any
is
AV
x. 8. 44.
"
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
,
variously
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,
Ludwig,
u.
noticed, for instance, in R.V.
where the question

p.
395
is
asked
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
the wood from which

~ Brahman was the tree,
"
' '
they hewed
earth and heaven
conception of PrajSpati and of Purusa is

Samhita and the
also developed in the Va]asaneyi
1
The simple note of unity
Taittiriya Brahmana.
is also sounded, for instance, in the* Satap
Br , iv.
"
a.
2.
sarvam hy ayam atma,"
We
"
,
this soul is everything
"
however, mainly concerned with the

t
Upamsads, which are, as a rule, the final positions
are,
BrShmanas.
of the
root sad, to
sit,
The word
is
derived from the
with the prepositions upa, aear, and

"
t=very
which
is
(adverbial),
imparted to
his teacher
and conveys the sense, that

a pupil when he sits very near
"hence,
"
secret doctrine."
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.
23.
V S.
;
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
phical system, which
is
the kernel of the whole of the
later philosophy.
Their idealism is the groundstone
of the later Vedanta.
They are canonical, and
quotations from
complete and
them
are held
by tradition ever
and require no further
authorities 1 The general
self-sufficient
They are final

support
trend of their thought is towards a thorough-going
monism, which
the Vedas, as
in its germinal
form existed even in
we have shown above
mental formula
may
Their fundfr
be expressed in a well-known
distich
"
Brahma satyam jagan mithya

"
Jivo brahmaiva naparah
"
Brahman is
The Atman
the Reality, the universe is false.

"
Brahman, nothing else
is
In other words, there
Brahman
or
is
only one Reality, call it

will, and the world
Atman what you
around as which appears so real is not so

This is
the central thought which has been so admirably
*
It
Bhasya
interesting to know that the Upamsads

chief source of quotations in Sankara's Sariraka-
may be
form the
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
We may
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
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
only
baffle all
we looked
some readers
attempts at explana-
at the external aspect,
of the Upanisads
may
and
consequently
50
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
*
are found certain passages, chiefly in the

four chapters, which are connected with the dis-,
course of Yajnavalkya, and which furnish the oldest
Upanisad
first
idealistic
conception as far as
Yajnavalkya's standpoint
is
we know
*fT
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,"
which at once implies that the world
is
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 evi1
dences, especially the parallel texts, etc
the Brh. was the older.
it
appears thai
DEVELOPMENT OF
shall
ITS
CONCEPTION
51
now examine some
of these passages, in order

concrete* idea of the general position
the old idealist
more
to give a
maintained by
"
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
This
is
to be seen, heard, understood, meditated
is
by
ing the Atman,
and
seeing, hearing, understanding
all this
world
is
repeated again in iv 5
The same idea
realiz-
known
6.
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
is
similes, viz., of the
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 follow,
ing
is
the passage containing these three similes
" sa
yathft dundubher hanyamanasya na bahyan sabdan
52
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
are kena vijaniyad
kena vijaniyad vijnataram
iti."
Brh Up
(Trans
11
'
4-
1.1
ôr 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 know the knower
in
Cf also Ibid
.
iv. 5.
11
one this
all
'
By what
shall
4 8
The same passage is again found
8-10.
This famous passage reappears in Brh. Up.

with slight alterations.
iv. 5. 15,
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
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
appearance
is
only possible
ihable
the word
"
"
subject
(in
'be inadmissible, since it is
the current sensd
only a relJhve
when the
object perishes, the idea of t

also goes with it
The distinction is lost, that
was real remains as the one, and the unreal,
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
"
By
exist, is
vijfiataram are kena vijaniyat

\\
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 srnu-
yan na mater mantaram manvitha na

vijanlyah esa ta Stana sarvantaro
'to
vijflater vrjfiataram
'nyad arttam
Brh Up
(Trans)"
Thou couldst not
111
"
4. 2.
see the seer of sight, thou couldst
54
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
else
anywhere
means never
external
by
find
it.
at a rigid definition of Brahman are

Tiffs thought is like that of the popular'
The attempts
all
Mile.
tale so well
known
child on his shoulder
India
A man
and was
strolling
had
his little
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 ,
"
street.
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
when
child
to his utter surprise

"
1
was
always
saying
"
not
are
seen
"
in us
it is
on him
still
in us
In fact
"
The proverb
the
Atman
as truly speaking "it is ourself,"

"
;
declares, therefore, that this
lost
is
are never justified in
the latter would imply that we

from the Atman
The sage here
in us
different
found
So exactly
we
is
technically
chad kudi Sahara dhandora."
Atman
known
is
the subject of
in Punjabi as
"
kuc-
DEVELOPMENT OF
ITS
CONCEPTION
55
knowledge, hence unknowable. The categories

of all knowledge breaK down when stretched with
all
a view to their application to the Atman. And as

"
the other," the sage says
to all else, which is
"
ato anyat artam,"
This phrase
is
With Kahola
8
ii,
all else is full of
sorrow.
the so-called world,

!R.
5 i, in a dialogue
repeated again in
"
This
other than the Self," i.e.,
is
again denied
where Yajnavalkya
is
its
reality in
instructing Gargi
(who was
of a highly philosophic temperament) in

the mysterious love of the Brahman.
In Brh
is
iv 4
Up
4,
again, the similôf a
As he by taking a bit of goj

and more beautiful forms,
employed
into various newer
it
so the
Atman
is
supposed to create through Avidyd
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
"
manasaiva anudrastavyam
mftyoh sa mftyum apnofat

ya iha naneva pasyafa."
iv. 4.
58
synthesis of the subject and object, or when

supposed that speech is able to describe the
The knower, the

objects, but
how can
truth of the idea
is
it
Self.
can know the known or the
self,
the knower be
not very
known
'
The
difficult to grasp, if
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
one just
wht
self-consaousness
this sense the
is
ultimate in
itself
Hence
in
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
seeming* paradox therefore disappears on a
The
little
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
here and there

sads as well.
revolt,
and so appears scattered
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
falsity of the world,
totally given
up
"
the
later on.
Certainly it has been gradually obscured though

at the same time shining through by its inherent
light
by
more realistic or antiSuch conceptions we may have
the huge mass of
idealistic notions.
refer to briefly later
on
We
hasten
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
Eto
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.
1 Cf the same idea in

two mantras, Chan. Up.
vi.
4.*
different similes in the following

vi.
i.
5-6.
60
(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
it is
Some
said that
As
known
is
all
by knowing the one the
the forms into which

;h clay
all
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
critics of
TheyWI
>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
,,
you may
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
no way implies any alteration in the thing itself while

a vtkara is the transformation of the substance itself
in
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
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
"
"
merely the beginning of speech (vacarambhanam),
only a mere name (namadheyam) without reality.
1
.The plurality is all a mere name, hence unreal.
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
Chan.
Again, in
Up
'
vn 23*
"
yo vai bhiima tat sukham, nalpe sukham asti bhumaiva

sukham bhunia tv eva vijijftasitavya iti "
(Trans
)-
That which
is
the Bhutna (the Great)
is
happiness, there
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
*>t cease to be earth
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-^.

a
is
therefore to^5e searched after
In this passage Brahman
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
(the Great)
i is
denned as
anyat srnoti na anyat vijan
And
the Alpa
is
denned as
*yatr(< anyat pasyat anyat brnot
pam
any ad v janatitadal
(Trans )
Where another sees another hears another knows that
is
Alpa
The
latter
tyam
is
declared to be perishable ( tat mar

the nature of multiplicity is real
When
ized to be false
exist
the other
and only the Bhuma
(anya) will cease to

will shine in his ever
lasting luminosity
The
does not contain much on the

mainly concerned with the more
conception of the creation of the world
Taitt
subject
realistic
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.
(Trans )vords return with the mind without having reached

mg the bliss of that Brahman, one never fears
t
io,
too, the Ait
Up
has
ves^flêô
I
contribute
In one place
to the subject
as denned as consciousness
elephants, cows, men, trees, animal

the names (namadheyam) of consciousness, which
is
identified with
This means that
Brahman (prajnanam Brahma).
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
ara
"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
In
colour such notions.
i.
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.
The more one knows, the humbler
The most satisfactory passages, however, come

Katha li. The one is almost identical with
later in
Brh.
iv.
4.
19,
which has already been quoted
above.
i Cf.
Mund. Up
2.
(where we have o
See S.B.E. xv., p.
vii 9.
*
8.
Katha Up.
n. 5
also
Mate,
DEVELOPMENT OF
"
(Trans
What
is
it
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.
)
here, the
is
same
is
in the next world
and what
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
unced
false
already seen, the multiplicity
he who even imagines
stated in the next
is
thought
it
The same,
true does not attain liberation

i
"
mrtyoh sa mrtyum apnoti ya iha naneva pasyati
Katha Up n 4 n
(Trans
)-
by
the
ly
:ity
mind
this
to be obtained
is
here whatsoever
there
is
no
he goes from death to death
any multiplicity here
[sees
^Here again the
fact that there
is
no
multiplicity
whatever
is
particularly emphasized, hence the
universe, which is the embodiment of this ide"a of
multiplicity,
is
false
The conception
of the
Atman
is
further explained
in n. 5. 13
"
mtyo anityanam cetanai cetananam

eko bahunam yo vidadhati kaman
tarn atmastharn ye 'nupasyanti dhlras
tesam santih Sasvati netaresam."
Cf.
Svet Up.
vi.
13

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 fleeting shadows for eterplurality/' taking

never find rest and peace but will
pf
JMl
the Atman, since that is the only true

knqw|
All others who will hold fast to the setpj
realities, 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*
(i. 10).
Again in in 8 it is &nh
no other way of conquering death
the
ever-luminous
Atman. Îf
except *by knowing
the world were real or true, its knowledge could
In ui. 10
savl people from the clutches of death
God Hara
oner
that there
is
said that only they who know the Atman, who

beyond the Purusa, formless and pure, attain
it is
is
'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
"
sa vetti
vedyam na ca
is
clearly
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
to
first,
ITS
CONCEPTION
67
beknown, but no one knows him
the great Purusa
a beautiful description of the nature
of the Atman
"
na tasya karyam karanam na vidyate
netaresam.'
'
(Trans)
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
,
thttMHffhe
and there is of him

neithei^^^Hor lerd,
That only god who spontaneously covewHHBelf, like
spider, with threads drawn from Nature (Pradhana),
of the organs,
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,
mf old the wise m ho perthem belongs eternal happi,
cerVe
him within
their self, to
ness, not to others
Svet
Up. vi
8-iz
An
examination of the other Upanisads also will

bear out that the conception of the sole Reality of
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
that the world was there
sqmehow
could therefore not be explained

"
it
The inherent empirical tendencies
unreal."
called
or other and
away by being
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
Y^^^^Ha seem hardly to convey any meaning]!

imHy^ds are not totally to be ignored by
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
world.
This could be done by granting
of the world
and yet maintaining
that the sole reality
is
the
t]
at t
Atman
of
degeneration of Idealism into Pantheism,
its
.doctrine
"
All
this
is
Brahman
"
(Chan
111
14. i)
It
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.
maintains that
Atman
else exists besides
it
alone
The one
is
real
while the other
Idealism
and nothing
Pantheism
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
ITS
CONCEPTION
called
"
the reality of 'this reality
"
69
The Atman
both are identical, one with the other
is
(Satyasya sat-
Brh Up 11 i 20 It is immanent in the

world and pervades even the minutest particle.
yam)
in
THis view
is
speaking untenable, yet to
strictly
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
(tasmm
(tasmm
liyate),
aniti),
"
all this^^BBsorbed
and in Brahman all this breathes
meaning thereby that all-in-all is
Sarvam khalu idam Brahma

iti
Tajjalan
santa upisita
"
Chand Up
(Trans)All this is Brahman
Let a
man
111*14
meditate on
*.
tljat
as
beginning, ending and breathing in It
Further on Brahman
is
called
"
the all-effecting,
all-wishing, all-smelling, all-tasting,

hi.
and
all
this
"
2 and
14
4).
Again, in the very interesting narration in Prapathaka vi., where Uddalaka teaches his son by means
(Ibid.,
of the parables of
a large tree
salt (vi.
13),
honey (vi. 9), streams (vi. 10),

n), the nyagrodha tree (vi. 12),
a blind man travelling towards the
(vi.
70
Gandhara
(vi
14), etc
of as penetrating
"
"
tvam
tat
(Trans
is
spoken
tat
etadatmyam
satyam sa atma
Svetaketo
iti
y,
"
That w hich
It
taketu, art
asi
Atman
all
sa ya eso anima
idam sarvam
its self
etc v the
"
the
the subtle essence, in it all that exists

the True
It is the Self, and thou, O
is
is
it
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
SeK
is
Up
vii
25
4Mfc
)-
bflow, above, behind, before, right and left
Self is
all this
" esa vai

visvarupa
The
Self
atma vaisvanarah "

Chand Up v
which you meditate on
is
13
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.
Also vm.
7-
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
many
chief
exponent ,0!
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."
Ibid,
3.
i.
1.6.,
AU
"
Brahman
Ayam va atma sarvesam bhutanam
this
is
lokah."
Brk Up.
Le..
This
Atman is the support of all creatures.
I,
4. 16.
72
tad yatha rathan&bhau ca
samarpitah
Bj-h
(Trans
And
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
in that Self
Yah
amrtah
sarvesu bhutesu tisthan
Ibid Hi
15
He who
all
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
rules all beings
Immortal
atmanam
Atmaflrêva
sarvam
pasyati
Brh
pasyati
The
Taittir
Om
iti
Up
atmanarfl
iv
23
too says
Brahma
Om
iti
idam sarvam
tasminl lokah sr tah sarve
Katha
T\iat the one
Atman
158
Cf
11
the air and
like the fire
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
etc
Svet
sarvananaairognvah
pampadam
16
11
11.
16
sivah
Ibid
sarvatah
tisthata
Ibid.
DEVELOPMENT OF
A
is
ITS
CONCEPTION
mantra from the Purusa-sukta
quoted as
73
of the R.V.
n. 15
"
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
"
Yas tu sarvaru
"
jagat
Isa.
Isa
vijugupsate"
Isa.
"
Brahmaivedam
"
Sarvam
Mw4
"
vanstham
Mund n
^m
"
catuspat
'
Mand
is
7.
not our object, however, to collect all such

here.
To multiply such instances is in
j^Bages
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
no
Upamsads
In the
is
pantheistic
first place, it zs
this
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
"
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
the Atman, even though the world

some kind of existence
may be
to possess
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
been familiar
an idea with which
the idealist has to
it
has long
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.
be only a name depending on the Atman,

and as the name is unreal, it fol-
for its existence
lows that even this doctrine indirectly comes to the

same truth. But a further abuse of the doctrine
reduces
it
to
what we may
call
"
the lower Panthe"
according to which each and every

"
thing is also the Atman, the horse
Atman, the rider is the Atman, the table
ism,"
terial
ma-
is
the
is
the
"
when a man kills a snake the

Atman " would be the vulgar
Atman,
etc., so that
Atman
way of
has killed the
expression , and losing sight of the original

idea on -which this conception is based, it is liable
DEVELOPMENT OF
CONCEPTION
ITS
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 misunderstandto be laughed at
ing 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
in saying that this world
(which
really does not exist in his view) too is not anything
Atman
the
besides
Such
man, being
quite
(ananda) of the
"
Atquestions by the word
are still ignorant of their blind-
intoxicated with the true bliss
Atman,
Jian
"
will
meet
Others
all
who
ness deny that they are blind and consequently

laugh at the spontaneous uttenngs of * sucfl a
Vedantist
As
a matter of fact, there

knowledge of the
in such a
not
intellect is
of reason
tions
made to
and by use
is
a strange anomaly
of
words
and imperfections inherent
down the moment
it
The human
Atman
grasp the reality
by its power
There are limitain
it.
It
breaks
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
with the import of language.
in
fit
It
is
self-
ilkumnating, and to yield its meaning it demands

our self-consciousness, our living will, our whole self,
life, but not our speech, which is after
*
inadequate.
In order fully to realize such truths the intellect
our whole
all
must transcend
it
itself,
which
has to be content with
its
it
Hence
cannot do
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
When we
say,
eg,"
ourselves
the world
appearance," even so
we
is
on quicksands
nothing but an'
use the term
"
world,"
Hence, in
doing do suppose it to exist
the interpretation of the passages of the Upamsads
and
in so
we must always
confine our attention to the spirit
underlying the text and to the motives which led

the sages to unite various standpoints in one text,
which
may seem
to be conflicting
if
looked at merely
in the external
Th% degeneration
of
Pure Idealism
the kernel
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
CONCEPTION
ITS
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,
and was
lost its
force,
parent,
suppj4
*nore empirical conception, viz
according to which the Atman
,
i:
from
[world proceeds
it
as an
eff|fcq>1jhB-5
thought prominently appears inuCam Up.-;n

*
the chief passages are

"
&*"
\&<>
V/fJ
Tasmat etasmad va atmanah
"
So 'kamayata bahu syam
"
Yato va imam bhutam
tat
Ibid
pravisat"
tad Brahmeti,
"
Ibid
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
Just as the spider goes
the sparks.
by means
of its threads, as
sparks fly out, so

i
vi.
Brh
Cf. for example,
asrjata"),
2
i,
sarvam
vi
")
4. i, i
2,
Mund
from
5, i
4.
vi
3
i
3
7,
this
from
iojt
Atman I
2 5 (tenaAl
4 10,11.
vii 26 i ("a1
i. i,
u.
78
life
(Brh
ii.
worlds, all gods, all living beings
all
spring forth,
The same illustrations are further

Mund. Up i. i. 7 and 11. i i.
20)
set out at length in
The one notable point
in this
connexion
is
that
at this stage the Atman who creates the worldfSs

identical with that who lives in it. 1
Brahman is
the
Atman
world,
is
is
universal Self, the creator of the
Brahman
not in any
It is
but
The
not different from the individual Self within
each of us
way
is thus the psychic

principle.
divided into so many Atmans,
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
"
referred to a passage (Brh

"
as to
inquiry
"
is
soill
all,"
am Brahman "
the idea
4,
Brahman
the
answered as
"
It is
that
lii
is
5),
where the
within
thy soul that
which as the knowing subject
(Brh
We have already
and
is itself
is
all
as
within
unknow-
able*
view the remoteness of the age when

the authors of the Upamsads breathed on this earth,
Keeping
it
in
strikes us as
something really wonderful to grasp

between God and man so
this relation of identity
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.
fbove, e.g
ii. 6.*
Ufr
"
,
Tat srstva tad eva anupravisat."
DEVELOPMENT OF
CONCEPTION
ITS
79
rather a circuitous way long after by Western thinkers

as well, and
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
remain unshaken.
will ever
Take away this principle and you destroy

physics worth the name
Now, the adaptation

empirical
all
meta-
of the higher truth to the
understanding went
still
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,
"be true, it is
it is
meaningless to us
beyond us to understand
,,,evefl if
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
grasp this higher truth and it was

creates the world may be
Atman who
distinguished from that who is within us.

was called the Paramatman (the Great
the
Kvara
Jwatman
(the
(the
thus paved the
Governor),
individual
way
and the
Atman)
to Theism.
The former
Atman) or
latter,
the
Cosmogonism
The distinction
8o
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
"At
the bidding of this imperishable

sun and moon are held asunder," etc
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
the Katha
Up
two Atmans
is
Self.
This
first
appears in
where the distinction between these

likened to that between light and
shadow
"
Rtam pibantau sukrtasya loke

pravistau parame parardhe
chayatapau brahmavido vadanta
"
paflcagnayo ye ca trmaciketah
guham
'
Katha
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
Katha
fire"
The
exponent at this level of thought is the

Svet&Svatara Up., in which though the original
chief
DEVELOPMENT UF
identity of
Brahman and
ll"b
not denied, yet a distinction

e.g., in
COJNUSFU1UJN
the individual
is
clearly
81
Atman
drawn
is
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
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
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
itself
two more aspects.

The first was the denial even of the individual
soul. The existence of the world could not be denied,
in
since
perceived , but one could doubt the reality

"
Let us call those who did so ApsychThis denial of the soul and the belief in an
it is
of the soul.
tsts."
DEVELOPMENT OF
ITS
CONCEPTION
83
external world only, which was more or less a stream

of perceptions, changing and momentary, found its
place in
The second aspect was the

degeneration into gross materialism,
even rob Buddhism of all idealistic
Buddhism
ld
leanings
what
is
(or
called
tendency)
Only matter exists, and
mind is a mere product of it
Percep-
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
philosophy
The short account we have sketched above on
this
may perhaps seem to be a digression from

our subject proper, but even if so, it is quite in-
subject
tentional,
since
we
believe that
present our Idealism in
thought, most of
Upamsads
mutual
it
may
h^lp to
relation to other stages of

are themselves found in'the
its
whiffli
So long as these arc not \ lewed in their

and coherence, it is not to be wonmay accuse the Upamsads of mani-
relation
dered that one
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
in
more
realistic stages of
itself
to the empirical tendencies innate in
thought in order to adapt

all
of
84
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
us
may
as the conception of
Maya)
in Indian
whole.
We
thoughts
a.
how the great Sankara

these forms of thought into a single
shall presently see
synthesises
all
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
On
"
Kankas on
the
Mandukya Upamsad."
compare the views
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
des Vedanta,
Weber,
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
of the
Upantsads. p
Indian
Oitere
VedAnta. Heidelberg, 1910, p.
i.
DEVELOPMENT OF
The nature
this work
ITS
CONCEPTION
.of
it
85
examine
of our subject requires us to

some detail, instead of
simply
The KankS is divided

and as already observed, each of
upon as having the authority of an
as such.
rts,
1
The four parts are named

Agama,
The first, which
Vattaihya, Advaita and Alatasanti.
in its subject-matter is chiefly based on the Mandukya Up
discusses the nature and significance of the

"
Om," and as it hangs mainly on the
secret syllable
Sruti or the
Agama
(i
the Veda)
Agama.
means
how
it is
The second explains by

the world, characterized as
it
of
by
is
called
argument
duality,
is
(vaitathya), hence it is named Vaitathya

In the third are refuted the accusations against the
Advaita view and then the real standpoint is mainfalse
tained
by reason
hence
the fourth are refuted
all
it is
called Advaita.
In
the arguments which, while
attacking Advaitism, themselves prove contradicand then a calm is restored and the final
tory
,
word
is
spoken on the
the falsity of
all else
sole reality of the
This part
is
Atman'and
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
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
known
as Aldta-cakra
thoughts only in the other three*parts

These are therefore more important for our purpose.
flight to his
We
here give a brief
this great teacher,
ception of
"
of the Advaitism of
permeated with the con-
summary
which
Maya
is
"
Boldly and truly Gaudapada asserts the world does

hence this Maya cannot be
not exist in reality
,
removed or destroyed even All this is

"
"
mere appearance, in sooth it is Advaita
In other
literally
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
Nobody ever MADE

hence 1 it
moved
"
is
"
"
(i
17)
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
world
is
external, while the
dream-world
is
wakinginternal.
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
CONCEPTION
ITS
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
and in a
dream are differ-
of being internal
phenomena
of
ent from those of waking, yet (the fact remains) that

their being seen (drsyamdnatva) and their consequent
futility
(or falsity,
common
to both.
vaitathya)
In
11
of presentation, are
5 the same
is finally
Enun-
ciated
analysis of our experience we find that
naught at the beginning and end is neces-
From an
what
is
sarily so
at
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
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
dreams are only a result of the condition of the

1
Further,
(11. 8).
cogmser, and, therefore, unreal
of
See Dvivedi, MSniJflkya Upamsad,
etc., trans, p. 42.
DEVELOPMENT OF
must be noted that
ITS
CONCEPTION
89
only from a relative standpoint that dreams are spoken of as unreal and the
it
it is
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
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
ward
experience
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
of
Atman is the very
it.
The Atman, we
the cogmser of experience.

He is himself the cogmser and the cognised.
He imagines himself by himself, i.e brings aUxmt the
reply,
is
variety of experience
by himself
It all subsists
through the power of Maya. This

word of the Vedanta on this subject (u.
ilso in himself
s
the last
)
Our waking expenences

those of dreams.
are as
much an
For the phenomena
of
illusion as
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
ognition
it
(ii.
is
caused only by the instruments of
15).
The Atman is the only reality.
As the rope, whose
go
nature
is
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
numerous
similar things, so is the Ati

imagined to be the variety of experience,*^
All illusion vanishes when
Prdna, etc (n 17)
of
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,
actually perceived, so
is
though
the cosmos an illusion, an
unreality, though experienced as real

ignorant regard such illusions as real
Only the
The Scrip-
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,
tural texts
mos
(n 31)
master of fact,
none liberated
lished that the
an
In other words, when
Atman
illusion, it follows
alone
that
it
is
estab-
real and all duality isj

that forms the subject,"
is
all
of experience, whether derived from ordinary mter-^

course or from sacred texts, is mere illusion
In the*
"
absolute sense of the word, therefore,
Destruction
So too creation, etc. (11 32).
impossible
is
Atman
'"-
The|
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
and
ITS
CONCEPTION
91
well versed in the Scriptures, are
to perceive this truth (n 35)

realized the Atman, the wise
[avmg
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
dead matter
(n
realization of the
will
be a sort of block of
This consciousness of the self-
36)
Atman should never
cease
(11.
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
by any such thing (m
least affected
is
2)
Multiplicity
only due to self-imposed and imagined limitations.

of the Atman into the Jivas is
The individuation
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
not different from the ether enclosed in a jar

dkdsa
,
the enclosure being destroyed, the limited
mahdkasa
So
Jlva merged in the

fStman on the dissolution of the self-imposed adfcnerges into
juncts
(m
3.
is
Differences are only
4)
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
On
this
compare Sankara on
11.
i.
14 below.
92
effect of dkasa, so is Jiva neither

effect of the
Atman
The Sastras praise
a part nor an evolved
(m. 7).
the unity of the Atmai
by reason and borne out by
strated
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
19. 21).
The Atman
is
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,-
convert
itself into
The
tion.
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
ITS
CONCEPTION
93
"
The
fourth part, called Aldta-Sdnti, i.e.,

QuenchFire-brand," is the final pronouncement of
j.the
,,
which
"
down
is
intended to destroy the
fire-brand
i effect is
"
The
examined, and
while applying to the
is
Nothing
illu-
between
shown how it
relation
it is
produced either of
Atman
itself
or
(iv.
n-
by some-
thing else, nor, in fact, is anything produced,
whether
be being, non-being, or both (iv 22)

The various theones held by the Vijnanavadms, the Nihilists,
it
etc.,
Those who maintain the

28)
world must not forget to realize that
are false (iv
reality of the
the world, being without a beginning, cannot,

reason, be shown to have an end.
Nothing which
is
So also is it impossibegmningless is non-eternal

prove the eternity of salvation, realized only
ble to
at the
moment
of its knowledge,
and
therefore hav-
That which
ing a beginning (iv 30)
the beginning and at the end, cannot
present
are
all
objects
igh regarded as real
,
fht
all-peace
like
naught at
exat in the
is
ordinary illusions,
*
(iv
and
31).
one, the
ever-unborn,
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).
'tive
tc.
j
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
and the
like (iv
The
47).
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)
affected
fire-brand in motion are not brought into it from witW;

out
and they do not appear in any other plafee
,
when
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
it
thought
They are always indescribable
because of their defiance to the relation of cause and
enter
So long as one has faith
in causal-
one sees the world eternally present

is nowhere
this faith
effect (iv 51-52)

ity,
being destroyed, the world
(iv
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
a salutation
^v 94) The treatise ends
to the Absolute after having realized it, such j&j
attitude being justified from the standpoint
truth
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
There
development of the idea of Maya.

perhaps have been some, but unfortunnames have not come down to us We
to the
may
ately their
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
and conceptions of the chief metaphysical

None of them is pnma facte open to
problems
reconciliation with the others

it
In face of such facts
would indeed be worth the trouble to go deeply

how far can the Sutras as
into the problem, viz

such be made to give
any
definite interpretation
9*>
THE
and meaning
LKJHK1JNU, U*
As
'
far as
we
MAYA
are aware,
nobody has
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
them
these
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
the latSrVtages in the degeneration of pure Idealwhich we have briefly described above and
ism,
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,
The other parts
etc
of
the
Upanisads, which deal with more realistic or empiriwhole ntual canon of the
cal views, as well as the
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
its
îder promise
world,
the
things
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
"
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
the great dynamic force in 4
him to base the wh<
thought
is
and
this that led
it is
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 Advait-
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
ism.
says, at
"
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
In his Introduction he defines it as "atasmin tad"

i.e ,
supposing a thing to be what it is not
buddhih,"
actually.
DEVELOPMENT OF
CONCEPTION
ITS
99
"
"
and
adhydsa) of the object denoted by the Thou
to the pure spiritual object indicated by
its
quahti^
false
untrue,
conversely, the transfer of the sub-
Its qualities to the object, are logically

Yet in mankind this procedure, resting on
knowledge pairing together the true and the
is
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
transference
am
thus
That
I,"
made
is
This
etc.
mine,"
term Avidyd
contradistinction to it, they call
the
wise
(ignorance), and,
the accurate determination of the true nature of
things (" the bemg-m-itself
"
If
pam) Vidyd (knowledge)
that that to which a similar
of things, vastusvaruthis
be
so, it follows
thus
false transfer is
not in the slightest degree affected by any

made,
want or excess caused thereby
is
\H
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
the erroneous empirical concept is to be sought for

solely in the knowing subject ; in this subject the
avidyd,
as repeatedly
asserted,
is
Cf. Sankara's Sarirakabbajya, Bibl.

P. 21. 7, 807. I*.
>.
innate
lod
(nai-
p. 10,
1.
i,
loo
sargtka)
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*,
is
up Sankara's view,
("
is
viz
Brahman alone is
the reality
"
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
understood that in reality it is

i e
has no existence
non-different from the cause,
How so ? "On account of

apart from the cause
the scriptural word
(arambhana ") and
origin
"
"
others." The word
arambhana is used in con'
nexjon
'
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 beingâ 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
Calcutta, 1863, vol.
444.
Commentary. Bibl. Ind
u-u.
DEVELOPMENT OF
which has
it
ITS
CONCEPTION
101
speech, while the truth is that

etc
The meaning of this
isÂtf "merely, thus,"
that if there is known a lump of clay
i
its origin in
y and truly
nothing but clay, there are

things made of clay, such
is
known thereby likewise
all
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
'as jars, dishes, pails,
having clay for their true nature
fications
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,
reference to
"
ambhana
quoted,
effects
to the case illustrated
we understand
by the instance
body of
that the entire
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
"
On
of the Sutra.
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
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)
so this mani-
fold world with its objects of enjoyment, enjoyers,
"
has no existence apart from Brahman 1
further replying to the plurahsts objec"
that if we acquiesce in the doctrine of absotions
etc
little
lute unity
(1)
The ordinary means of nght knowledge, perception, etc become invalid, because the
absence of mamfoldness deprives them of
,
Jheir objects
AU the texts embodying injunctions and prpi
hibitions will lose their purport if the dis,
(2)
tinction
on which
does not really exist

(3)
The
entire
body
their validity
<
of doctrines
which referl
final release will collapse, if the distu
of teacher
is
and pupil on which
it
dep<
not real,"
5ankara says
1
Sankara on 11 i 14
toaufs Translation,
Sutras des Vedanta,
DM
Bibl Ind p 444-445

See Thii
p 320-321 Cf Deussen,
p 281
SEE,
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
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
%t
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-
knowledge and
man
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
activity, exertion, etc
other similes used
its
,
stopping
all possibilities of
in the world.
by Sankara
in
There are two

describing
nature of Brahman, and before we refer to h

passages let us see what he says in his G
ii.
i.
"
we
With regard to the case referred to
"
refute the assertion of the ca
the
io 4
effects
mere
its qualities by showing that the latter are the

fallacious super-impositions of
and
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
of
some very appropriate
similes,
among
whichr are
(1)
(2)
The rope and

The magician
the snake
or juggler (mayavin)
andju^
jugglery
The desert and the mirage.

(4) The dreamer and the dream.
The last of these has been already made use
(3)
'
;
Ref GaudapSda.
Gaudapada, K&nfta.
See also Sankara on
i.
i.
16.
3.
19.
of
CONCEPTION
ITS
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)
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
,
illusion is clearly perceived.

"
"
j)
only
It 1S
"
waking world
speaking that
relatively
the dream-world
is
is real
unreal
"
we say
and
"
the
"
;
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,
THE DOCTRINEfflPkAYA
106
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.
If
ably
the ultimate reality
nothing but the
is
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
principle of individuation
due to
To
all
What
'
is
the
such questions
Sankara answers with the aid
of the theory of
All *hese differences are only
due to the imposition

Here he says in
of
name (nama) and form
Maya
(rupa)
the course of his exposition on
11.
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
;
Again, on
19, refuting the view that the

individual soul is not identical with the Universal,,
i.
3.
Sankara remarks
'
" Some
are of opinion that the individual
soul, as such.
DEVELOPMENT OF
ITS
CONCEPTION
107
refute all these speculators who obstruct the

intuition of the unity of the Self this
To
is real
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
is
cognition,
and who by means
fests himself in various
different shapes
The
of nescience (avidya)
mani-
ways, just as a juggler appears in

"
of his magical powers
by means
and Brahman is again

same place as being only due to avidya
difference of Jiva
forth in the
"
avidyakalpitam lokaprasiddham jivabhedam

Btbt Ind p
set
"
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,
some way an improvement

The distinction is implicitly
Upamsads and in Gaudapada's
but nowhere is it more clearly and em-
which was
in
upon Gaudapada.
obsgrved
HnkS.s
in
too,
the
On
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,
1
fc}43
'660
804.
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,
4,
i,
807. ii. 837. 2, 860. 15, 1,056. i, 1,132. 10,
12, 1,133. 15.
1,133.
108
For
phatically brought out than in Sankara
in-
stance, he remarks on page 488

"
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
the Self
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
'
'
'
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
Vedarata
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 cbn-
with the views of Sankara

After having
been made the object of polemics from different
flictirlg
quarters, this theory was again revived withfuU

force and vigour though it has never been dead iJ
its
influence
The same
by modern writers on the Vedant

GaudapSda and Sankara were stfll
ideas of
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^ÎTS CONCEPTION
109
became more and more laboured and technical. It is

not the aim of this chapter to enter into the forms in
which
is
it
exhibited in the present day
parts of*india are
still
In
all
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
which has two aspects

monotheistic, with the belief that
philosophy,
exotencally,
it is
the one Atman manifests

are taken as
"
of attaining the
the two
hold, since
means
esotencatty,
it is
"
Atman
itself in various forms,
(sadhanas) or
which
"
"
symbols
this is the lower aspect of
monotheism has no place to

final truth
the only meta-
not the
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
lavmj
recourse to
the
lays'
Abliite-twjflotkf
bit
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
we propose
doctrine, as
to
show presently
not our purpose here to take into account

objections,
clujdish
We
secondly, because
such
falls outsicft
our
he within
those that
been raised by some of the other VedSntic
shook, and
shall subsequently
nncipal theories
)
it
will chiefly discuss those that
sphere of the Vedanta proper, viz
|ive*
It is
all
because some of them are^nerily
and destroy themselves in their very enunci-
m, and
first,
weigh
briefly the
commonly held up to-day
in order
rebut the doctrine.
The Vedanta system
easily divides itself into four
These are represented chronologically by

and
Sarikara, Ramanuja, Madhva, and Vallabha
schools
their four corresponding
types of interpretation are
II 4
known
Advaita, Visistadvaita, Dvaita, and

Each of these schools presents a
Suddhadvaita.
as
thought on the problem of ttie

between the Absolute and the Universe,
different type of
relation
and each attempts to give
its
own
the principal passages of the

Badarayana's Sutras to suit its
interpretation of
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
Our whole
personality enters into the formation <m

our philosophic or religious systems, and each of
u|
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
four systems.
Vedanta that
it split itself
up
115
into
This analysis was essential for a
final gynthesis.
In tracing the development of the conception of

Maya, we have already described in bnef the main
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.
briefly,
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
"
awakes"
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
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
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,
Reason
critical analysis of
Dogmatism
by a thorough-going
came to the inde-
itself
pendent conclusion that the world, qualified as it is

Causality, has no metaphysical
is
reality, but none the less is an appearance, i e
by Time, Space, and
We
real.
empirically
hold that whatever other
may have
weaknesses there
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
his point
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,-
Ufomena
to
e g
to the works of
Ethics,
Knowledge, chap on
cb
"
T H Green
(see
Pro-
i
Pnchard (Kant's Theory of
),
Things-m-Themselves "), and many
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,"
or the Vedantic idea of
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
modern
quite consonant with even the result of the
critical philosophy of Kant and others

The point
has been worked out in some detail by Deussen in
his Elemente der
As we
the
are
Metaphysik
now concerned with
mam
the examination of
objections to the Maya theory,

less to dwell longer on its constructive side
give a
summary
it is
need-
We now
of the other three schools in, the
Vedanta, before dealing with the
objection's.
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 universe, or matter)
consequently
trine of
up the
known
as
tenets of
Their doctnne
is
Visistadvaita, or^the doc-
1
Unity with attributes.
Ramanuja
Madhava
Vums
"
Three
in the formula
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
He
his Vedantadlpa
three primary
starts with
and ultimate
what he
the
calls
known
certainties
to
philosophy, viz.
1.
God (Han).
Universal
Soul,
personal,
and
intelligent.
2.
Soul
3.
Matter
Each
Individual,
(at).
(acit).
intelligent.
Non-intelligent
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
of these three entities
other
I
M
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
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
Sarvadarlanasamgraka. Trans Cowell and Congo,

Deussen, Gesckickte der Pktiosoptae, in., p 261.
1882, p. 66.

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
Brahman (which
is
identified
with Hari in this
is
regarded as having svagatabheda, i.e.,
differences within itself in its threefold aspects re-
system)
ferred to above
It is
imagined to be
like a tree,
which, though one, has differences within

the shape of its branches, etc
Madhva
(also
known
as Anandatlrtha
itself in
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,
which he named the
independent and the dependent
Difference was a
The relation of the individual
Supreme Lord, was that of a lave and
the latter was the former's object of obedi-
real entity in itself
to God, the
ister
Maya
e grace of
is
only the will of the Lord*(Vi?nu).

is won
only through the know-
Visnu
e of his excellence, not through the

knowledge of
p-duahty
>,
body
The whole world was manifest from
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
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*
kinds of self-mortification, which, he said,

which there lives a spark
destroyed the body

of the Supreme Spurt
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
est reality
eternal, self-sufficient,
Max
der Philosophic
the subject
We
Muller too
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.
121
Vallabha was preceded in his line of thought by

Nimbarka and VisnuswSmi. He attempted to punfy
the vilistfdvaita of
said
it
Ramanuja and
was a contradiction
all
cit,
should be in inseparable union with
gent matter, jada)
others.
He
in terms to suppose with
Ramanuja that Brahman
Brahman is sat,
intelligence
actt (non-intellicit,
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,
Ramanuja by
qualitative
and inherent
Brahman, Madhva by manifestation

Brahman's body, Vallabha does so by the process
evolution and involution of Brahman
differences in
of
of
After this very brief
summary
trines of the schools within the
of the chief doc-
Vedanta, we come
to
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
Maya We reproduce the

with a criticism of our own.
against the doctrine of

gist of each, in order,
I.
-
The charge
What
is
of ASraydnupapatti.
the dfraya (seat) of Maya (or avidya) ?

what does it produce illusion ' Surely
'Residing in
See "Sribh&sya, trans Rangacarya and Varadaraja,

Madras, 1899, pp. 156-341
1
122
not in the individual

the individual self
neither could
it
self,
is
because the selfhood of
itself
reside in
projected by avtdya
Brahman, since*He has the
and is
,
essential nature of self-luminous intelligence,
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
' '
' '
As the fire is latent in the wood, so

our godly nature, our spiritual principle, hidden by
In the second place, Ramanujamakes
obscuration of it.
is
the upadhis,
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

inadmissible
It
of the reality of
*2.
Pfc Charge
123
wholly rests upon his supposition
Awdyd
of
"
Tirodhdndnupapatti
"
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
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
has no positive existence to be able to conceal

Brahman* is ever
else in the strict sense
anything
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
to see
it
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
'
'lectual forms (upadhis) of Time,

lity."
Thus we are not explainfi

by Ramanuja
culty pointed out
intel-
ftJZûg ftfcft*
124
we deny the concealment
(tirodh&na) of
Brahman by
ignorance (avidya)
3.
The Charge
What is
Svarupanupapatti
the essential nature of Amdya
of
?
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
as
it is
a thing at
all, it
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
to the individual
would be no
final release
self.
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
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^
Empirically
is
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
what
as to
which
it is
is
the cause of
Maya
is,
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
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
down when
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
"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 exist-
ence to Maya, our whole theory
falls
with
it
real
dualism between the two
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
will
futale.
The Charge
4.
of
Amrvacamyatvanwpapatti.
is antrvacawya,
The Advaitms says that Maya

i e.,
incapable of definition, because
entity
view
(sat)
nor a non-entity
(asat).
it is
To
neither an
hold such a
impossible. All cognitions relate to entities

or non-entities ; and if it be held that the object of
is
w6
a cognition has neither the positive characteristics

of an entity nor the negative characteristics of a
non-entity, then all things
may become'th^ objects
of all cognitions.
Cnttctsm.
This difficulty
is
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.
clever
Sat and asat sound two contradictory conceptions,

and to say that a thing (" an object of cognition ")
is
neither sat nor asat
is
not to say anything about
it
But the thing is thought of in two wholly

different aspects, and the tertium comparattonts is
at
all.
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
ôw
speak of MayS as something mysterious, incapable

of a stnct definition ?
The charge of Pramdnanupapattt

Is there any means by which this curious a
5.
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
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
few passages he^has

bent upon showing the
untenableness of Maya, but there still remains a
large number of passages, among which the meta-
gone
into, so long as
of the
he
is
physics of Yajnavalkya occupies a prominent place,

that defy all such attempts at a forced, far-fetched
and perverted
interpretation
that we are in reality no other
Spirit, and that the Atman is the
When we know
than the Absolute
only reality ; and yet we feel that we are different

from the Absolute and that the world
which we
move and have our being, is real, to what shall

attribute this clash between our knowledge and
live,
we
iz8
feelings?
could
"
the
Is
it
And what
not a mystery?
else
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%
6.
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
is the soul
He is Himself
ConGod, soul and matter
Brahman
{he three entities
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 onenesssof
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
129
To say
that there are some scripthe assertion may equally

tural
passages bearing out
be me* by the counter-proposition that there are
this
argument.
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
limits).
apartc-
"
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
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.
in
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
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
light
the [term being used in the higher sense of
"
pure

7.
The Charge
The
131
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-
"
^removal
"
ignorance
is
of
soul's
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
"
vyawthdricunequivocally makes this concession,
"
(i.e., from the practical or empiric point of
"
It may therefore be called
a
view), as he calls it.
atty
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
springs of action, is part passu beyond the conKarma in so far as he is not creating any fresh
trol of
and new Karma
for himself.
The laws
are valid within the phenomenal, but in
of
Karma
no way do
132
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
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),
capable of ousting
possible.
tion or deeds will never lead one to the
1-
we haye
to repeat that the distinction is certainty

the absolute sense. It is made by us
fictitious in
and
it
is
real for all
metaphysical
the world in
removing avtdya
of avidya
is
The
The knowledge
practical aspect
"
"
if we are at all to say
removal
not unreal.
Unreal knowledge cannot
Knowledge in the lower sense of

"
"
"
between subject
and object is of
destroy unreality
a relation
our practical purposes.
does not attempt to devour
truth
its
"
course unreal, but such knowledge is unable to give

a deathblow to avidya. On the dawning of true
"
knowledge the artificial distinction between sob-

"
ject
know
Ete
and
"
"
object
"
vanishes.
133
By what shall we
the knower (the subject of all knowledge)

forcibly asked by Yajnavalkya.
'
"
wasô
These are in
RamSnuja
will
brief the seven difficulties
which
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
how we
"
meaning in personality." This

meet those who cannot hold any such
real
will
doctrine to be the ultimate
if it
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 Advaitist's doctrine of the identity of the two.
The
Jiva, they say, being limited (paricchinna) is
distinct
One of the followers <Jf

Madhva speaks of the Advaitins in the
from Brahman.
this school of
following contemptuous
and polemic fashion
"
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, aîd in
observed.
empiric reality
The criticism is
all
the distinctions are
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.

nal Advaita
altogether.
which as
all cit,
should be in inseparable union with
This would have been a
acit.
and would have
terms,
"Upamsads.
13!
but VaUabha thought of purifying il

It could not be held that Brahman,
contradiction
in
soiled the doctrine of the
Brahman was therefore supposed to

wtll.
Now, this tendency to question
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-
made
cize
Ramanuja.
That
is
why we do
not find any

"
special charges preferred by him against

MayS."
Of course, this does not mean that he endorsed the
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.
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
tion of
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
inquiry into the various objections preferred by the
2. 11-17), Budd(li. 2. i-io), VaiSesikas (li.
'Sinkhyas
hists (n.*2i8-32), Jainas (33-36),

1
See Dvivedi,
Monism
Paiupatas (37-41),
or Advattism. p. 104.
136
The
PaficarStras (42-45), etc.
proof
is first
dhSna
taken up, and
physico-theological
shown how the Praan equilibnumof thft
it is
(non-intelligent matter,
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
we have already said, as regards the nature

Brahman as the Cause of the world and the possi-
since, as
of
bility or otherwise of
assuming any other
suh
cause,
this conception of "causality" is not tenable in the
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)
who maintain
Realists,
the reality of every-
Sarvastitvavada
thing
(Sautrantikas
and
Vaibhasikas).
(2) Idealtsts,
only
(3)
who maintain
the reality of thought
vijMnavadins (Yogdcdras).
who maintain that everjfthnfg
Nihilists,
sunya
(void,
unreal)
Sunyavadms
is
(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
mind from a
theistic
ratto)A8e
&*:
138
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-
MyS
was a late offshoot

pose that the conception of
in the VedSnta, being specially fabricated by
Sankara.
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
the other systems of Indian philosophy

of the relation of the Absolute to
on the question
the Universe.
That
will
be a proper occasion for
recapitulating a criticism of Buddhism, Jainism,
Sanfchya.
etc.
11132

Doctrine of The Maya

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Doctrine of The Maya

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

BUTLER t

the Advaita Philosophy

the pivotal principle in

the final pronouncement

During the last thirty years a

and by the way.

but a number of writers seem

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

imported from Buddhism and receives

hardly any countenance from the Upanisads.

only with a view to

towards a clearer understanding

Upanisads as minutely and as fully as

always relying upon the original texts more than

or less slipshod translations which

Hitherto these treatises have

and unsystematic. Scholars 'nave only dashed at

thought within the Upamsads, and has attempted

I have not stated a fact

with appropriate references, an examination of

who do not hold

a statement here and there

dogmatic, but that hardly touches me, since

the question whether the conception of Maya

and to what extent the con-

ception is to be traced in the earlier literature before

(i) that the conception of Maya

inhere its forms are clearly noticeable,

gradually developed through the speculation of the

Gaudapada and Sankara was* crystallized into a

that the word

Maya," in the sense

of course, occurs later

for the first

tune, in the Svetasvatara Upanisad (iv. 10) ; and

with gratuitously assuming

standing face to face with the Absolute as

of the world does not deprive

Chapter I is more or less introductory, as it is

strict scope of my essay, but

not within the

ever, claim that the internal

system of the Upafli^

stages of thought, etc., is to be looked upqp Its as

In the same chapter

I have given a very

unfortunately not so well known, and even those

Some of its epigrammatic stanzas

other schools within the Vedanta, especially those

Idealism of RSmanuja. These

The brevity in this part of the work was

on the analogies of the Conception

in itself, arid that the additional

which would have taken a considerable length

not necessary for the purpose.

my own translation of passages

reftdered in the current translations.

ployed the words

translating the word

two conceptions. The word illusion