38

2. THE MATERIAL WORLD {VASTAVl )

2.0 MayTi^ the Problem

Advaita imparts the final {anialy) knowledge (vedaY of the Self which is ever persisting, conscious and blissful, discussed in the last Chapter. This is experienced by removing the duality, called woyS.

Calming down the duality and thereby experiencing the non-dual Real­ ity or , is the two fold course of the adopted by making the pramaia as the prameya. Now, at one hand there is the inner reality which is (1) conscious, (2) ever persisting, (3) blissful and (4) non-dual, at the other hand there is a multiple cosmos of objective real­ ity, the world of things which emerge and decay at every moment. These things which are non-exislent before their emergence and after their de­ cay, are called non-existents. They are inert gnd bring about suffering : asatta-jadya-duhkhe dve mayarupam trayam tvidam/-

These are the three characteristics of the dual world or nJaya, viz.,

(1) nonexistent ,(2) inert and (3) painful which are diametrically contra­ dictory to the three natures of the non-dual reality, viz., ever existing, conscious and blissful (sat-cit-ananda).

What to do with these two contradictory experiences poses a prob­ lem. How to solve the problem of one and the many is a riddle. The

Vedas also put us in the same hurdle by, proclaiming two divergent state­ ments. At one hand, the declare the existence of one, immutable. 39

indeterminate and non-dual Being; at another, they advocattfor the mul­ tiple tlux of creations. The proclamations of these two contradictory natures of reality lead to the shape of a crucial problem; if the reality is absolutely’non-dual, how and where is the world of plurality and what is its status? This is the hurdle for a philosophy which is profoundly crossed over by the novel concept, Maya. If the multiplicity is to be explained in the terms of the non-dual reality, then there remains only two possibilities; either one has to ( 1 ) negate the existence of the multiple world, or (2) make an integration of the multiplicity with the non-duality. The former is the course of Advaita Vedanta in its doctrine of mayavada which is a negative way of solving the above problem ; whereas the latter is the solution of the non-dual Saivism of Kashmir in its doctrine of svatantrya or saktivada ,which is a positive attempt to solve ihe above problem.

2.1. The concept of mTiya

The modus operand! of the Advaita Vedanta lies in describing the three levels of maya to solve the above problem. On the first level it maintains the reality of the world exactly in the same manner as a common person experiences the world. Secondly, it rationalizes the cause of the creation in a logical manner and thirdly it discards the creation for a transcendental reality. These are called in the scriptural language as the Vastavi, Anirvacaniya and Tuccha Maya. tucchanirvacaniya ca vastavi cetyasaii tridha / jneya maya tribhir vodhai srautayauktikalaukikaih/P The concept o[' maya presupposes the concept of the Reality whose 40

unique nature logically implies the 'concept of maya and reveals the pro­ fundity underlying in its concept. As shown in the problem of the two states of the reality viz, (1) multiplicity and (2) non-duality, the Advaita Vedantin had to accept two definitions of the highest reality. One is the essential nature (svarupalaksana) and another is the accidental {tatastha) definition of Brahman. The tatastha one is compared with seeing the sea # from its shore (tata) and ascribing the waves to be the nature of the sea which in reality is calm. So far as the accidental feature is concerned, the world as maya, seen from outside is true and real. Since we observe the world as changing, it cannot be regarded absolutely real; but real none the less. Such reality of the creation is termed as relatively real or apparent, like the silver on the shell-silver-illusion. The apparent entity

logically implies* one reality (shell) as its substratum; but the reality does

not imply the appearance. In other words, reality exists in the absence

of appearance; but appearance cannot exist without reality. Thus, at the

level of permanency where no trace of relativity could crop up, the ­ pearance has to be relegated to the background. This is due to the unten­ able nature of the reality which can never be related to the relativity. This shows the great difference of the 'Pedantic reality from Bradley's

reality where" relativity is a must". In this sense the reality in Advaita Vedanta is called absolutely Absolute, or meta-reality where duality or maya cannot be traced in. The reality as non-duality contradicts the duality, m aya' as light contradicts darkness, "tamahprakasavat viruddhasvabHavayoh iteretarabHavanupapatlau"-- as writes Sri Acarya f * Sankara on the first line of his famous commentary on the Brahmasutras.

If anything appears except such Reality, that is called niaya. This is the reason why the concept xrf maya has been a great confusion for a long 41

lime. Prof. C.D.Sharma writes, "many critics have failed to understand the real significance of maya or avidya and have therefore charged / Sankara with explaining the world away".^ Not only the modern schol­ ars, but also the great traditional Ac^ryas interpret maya differently for which Vedanta has been assailed by^and developed to^many schools of philosophy. The term mayi^ is very complex and flexible. It has been understood in two opposite senses: one in the meaning of the effect which is apparent and illusory; secondly it is used for the sense of the cause of the illusion, "ignorance" (cijnana) or nescience (avidya). J)j^~aya there­ fore, has two perspectives, metaphysical and epistemological. In the metaphysical perspective, maya is a power of God (paramesasakti) which is the cause of the creation. The epistemological sense is concerned with a subjective way, whL-re maya is ignorance. The effect of the igno­ rance is called nTaya or nothing (tuccha)

2.2 Three approaches to m aya

There are three approaches to understand maya, as Dr. N.S. Chakraborty’ points it out . These approaches are (i) from the nature of reality, (ii) from the theory of causation and (iii) from the peculiar con­ cept of consciousness. (i) From the standpoint of the nature of the reality, mhya is a symbol for the transitory existence of objectivity, or relative reality, which might not have a logical necessity , but certainly has a logical possibility, "or more broadly psychological possibility" as argues Dr.K.B.R.Rao.* (ii) From the point of view of causation, maya explains the creation,

emanated from the Immutable Brahman. Discarding all other theories of 42

causation, such as arambha, parinama, etc, maya upholds that transfor- mation of the cause into the effect cannot be a real process. Had it been

real, the cause would ha\ c been transformed into the effect and the ef­ fect would have really a distinct entity from the cause. Then we could not have said that the effect exists in the cause. So, holds the Mayd- vadin, that the effect is only a transfiguration or illusory appearance (vivaria) of the cause, as a snake on a rope. However, from the empirical

point of view ,parinama is accepted. The world is a parinama of mhya. but vivaria of Brahman. One empirical may be transformed into another empirical (parinama), but one transcendental cannot be transformed into empirical (vivarta)J (iii) From a third approach the nature of mhya can also be understood. This is from the standpoint of the/liyvcj/7/c peculiarity of subjectivity or consciousness. Consciousness is the evidence of all objective entities {prameyasamvit pramanat hi). An object is certified on the certification

of consciousness, where as consciousness is self-certifying, because its absence also implies consciousness (cf. Descartes' "cogito orgo sum"). H' consciousness is the ultimate proof, what is then the proof of con­ sciousness ? Whether it is iion-certitled or proved by another conscious­ ness or self-luminous ? It is evident that the first and the second possi­ bilities are not tenable. Ultimately, consciousness is self-proved (lumi­ nous), i.e. without depending upon anything else for its own revelation, it never stands unrevealed"*. This implies that consciousness is never unproved; it cannot be certified by anything other than consciousness

and it is self-certified, (not in the meaning of being an object to itselO- It is manifested even in the absence of all the objective entities. Self­ luminosity implies that it is without beginning and end'', because begin­ 43

ning implies previous non-existences. Consciousness is indivisible and homogeneous and cannot prove its limitations. Therefore, consciousness is self-luminous, non-temporary and non-contradicted. This is the unique­ ness of consciousness which alone cannot be negated, and whatever is other than consciousness must be rejected, and that is called maya. If objective world is other than con§ciousness, it cannot but be rejected and must be called "Maya”.'"

2.3 Three aspects of

There are three different stand points, as says Swami , from which maya is envisaged. These are from, the stand points of (i) common man (/aukika), (ii ) that of reasoning (yauktika) and (iii) revealed experience (srauta). (i) For a common man, the world (niaya) is real (vastavl), because he experiences it through his transactions of all activities.The world helps him to attain the goal. (ii) The person who demands to understand it logically, maya be­ comes neither real nor unreal nor both and therefore, it is indeterminate

{anirvacaniya). (iii) From the stand point of a realized person (srauia), maya is unreal {tuecha), for there remains no world and maya becomes that iy7>) which is not (m7i). These three aspects of maya are emphasized equally in the Vedanta science. Had Vedanta contained mere nirguna {srauta) aspect of Brah­ man, and discarded the jagatika portion of the world, Vedanta would have maintained the position of a nihilist, aS many opponents charge 44

against it. Without the anirvcicaniyatva aspect , the system would have become illogical, and without accepting the unreality of m'aya but by maintaining merely the Iciiikika view, Vedanta would have played noth­ ing more than a materialism. However, the essence and the apex of the Non-dualism lies in ascribing the world of duality as unreal and ulti­ mately false, for without declaring the duality as apparent, there cquld not be any establishment of the Non-dual reality. Therefore, the Advaitasiddhi opens its philosophical dialects from rejecting the dual­ ity or maya. It states, "the establishment of the Non-duality is dependent

upon the refutation of the duality, for that let ds start to remove the dual­ ity tlrst."" This final negation of all objects is the greatest role of ni&yd.

2.4. M aya and the three substances: prakrti, jiva, and isvara

2.4.1. Prakrti as the creatrix » ,

From time immemorial, various thinkers in various places have

been analyzing the nature of the world in order to find out the source of

the universe. Many of them reached at a Sankhyan model of emanation which consists in a progressive unfolding of various principles, such as mind and ego {). Vidyaranya, in order to explain the creation tries to reconcile the Vedanta with the Sankhyan system of creation. Sadananda follows him. Upanisadas also have a sanction on such expla­

nation. Like Sankhya, the Vedantin conceives of a primodial nature

I {prakrti) from which emanate various principles of mind and ego, the 45

bases of the subtle and gross objects constituting the material of the world'-. Here the concept ot' prakrti is ,therefore, not imaginary; but is * derived from and traceable to the nature of the multifarious existent bodies from whose existence, the permanent existence of the self is de- rived'\

Vidyaranya conceives ot' prakrti in another way. He conceives that the actual reality, which is Non-dual, Immutable, and Bliss is not fully recognized by all. On the contrary, a thing of dual, inert, and mu­ table and misery is felt. It implies that an impediment of the reality must be originated from any cause which is called avidya. So, he con­ cludes, "ihananadi avidyaiva vyamohaikanivanandhanam"^. To clarify this idea of avidya, he posits the concept ot'pr^akrti.

In Upanisadas prakr/i is a synonym of rnaya.'^ In AevaitaVedarttic » 0 the difference between niaya, prakrti and avidya is more subjective and subtle. Literally prakrti is the source of creation or Creatrix. It is nei­ ther a product of Brahman nor a real entity apart from Brahman, but Brahman itself filled witli the desire to create, ''vahusyam prajayeya".

Hence, it is not unreal but the bliss aspect of Brahman which apparently becomes the world"". Prakrti in its un-manifested condition is the union of opposites."Prakrti is that in which there is the reflection of Brah- man, (in the pure consciousness and Bliss) and is composed ot' sattva, , and tamas, in a state of homogeneity.'* It is a 'string of three strands'. When the three gunas, sattva,rajas and tamas are in a state of equipoise or united with the refiection of Brahman, it is called prakrti” .

Therefore,is called "gunamayi". It is being, becoming or being- becoming, apparently it differentiats the gunas, which are not qualities but the constituents in the apparent process of materialisation-". They 4G

are the characteristic manifestations of the phenomenal reality. Sattva is intelligence, rajas is motion and lamas is matter. Cunas are not different from substance constitute but can be cut out or separated not realisti­ cally, but only ideally.-' When the equilibrium of the three gunas is dis­ turbed, there is the destruction ofprakrti, and thereby the empirical world is produced. Prakrti, therefore is the prius of creation, the womb of mahy- fold.

2.4.2. Prakrti as the source of maya and avidya :

To make a distinction between maya and avidya, Vidyaranya says that prakrti is called pure when sattva is predominant and impure when sattva is obscured by the other two gunas. Prakrti when predominant with pure sattva, is called maya and predominant with impure sattva, it is called avidya. Brahman being reflected in maya and avidya is called •• / Isvara and jiva respectively--. These are like the reflections in water which is pure, steady and clear {isvara), and in the water mixed with cow-dungs (Jiva). Jivas are many, viz., animal, bird and demon etc., on account of different degrees of impurities in avidya. Maya is the causal

body (sarira, which destroys) of Isvara, and avidya is the causal body of the Jivas. It is causal, because.it is the cause of all experiences. Due to Jiva's affliction for avidya and he being the illuminator of individual ignorance,.y/va is designated as . Besides the qualitative and quan­ titative differences (malina and vyasti), the other difference of avidya from maya is that of its conceptual or epistemological behavior.

2.4.3. Prakrti as tritayi 47

The pure and impure predominant prakrti has a third form called the tamas predominance, from which the inert things of world are evolved. For the experience of prajna and at the command of God, the five subtle elements, viz.. other etc. are evolved from this prakrti pre­ dominant with tamas-*. In this way prakrti becomes the cause of God, beings and world (isvara, jiva and jagat) in its predominance ol' pure, impure and tamas aspects respectively.

Prakrti

Isvara jiva gross elements

2.4.4. Creation from m aya

From the sattva part of the five subtle elements, arose in turn the five subtle sensory organs. :md from a combination of their all sattvamsas arose antahkaranas; from rajas arose in turn the organs of action and from a combination of all rajas arose the five vital airs (). All the

seventeen (Five sensory organs + Five organs of action + Five pranas +Two antahkaranas) together constitute the subtle body, called suksma

or lingasaria. Identifying with the subtle body prajna becomes and jiva becomes hiranyagarbha. 46

- / In order to provide enjoyment, Isvara makes gross matters from the subtle ones, which are modes of C/7/. GroSs elements are produced by the method of quintup!icatiopn (pancikarana), Swahananda writes, "it is a dogmatic process, supported by sruties, but can neither be proved nor disproved at least in our present state of knowledge-^". But the rea­ son of such concept in Vedanta is evident to our knowledge when the elements are rightly considered. The gross elements earth, air etc. are not conceived of as the physical earth, air etc. as such. Each element comprises all that is perceived by its respective sense organ, viz, eajrth stands for all that is sensed by nose. In this way the whole method of quintuplication is comprehended. We know that earth emerges from wa­ ter. Sw.Hiranmayananda rightly exposed, "The theory of pancikarana is adduced in the explanation of the world from the one Reality. Brahrnan transforms Itself serially into the five rudimehtary elements which by admixture in different proportions, create the phenomenal world". From these composite quintuplicated elements, the cosmic egg (brahmanda)

arose. When hiranyagarbha identifies himself with the totality of gross

bodies he is known as vaisvanara, when taijas do so with the individual gross bodies, they are known as the visvas-^. The individualistic and collective approaches refer to micro-cosm and macro-cosm. The gross body which is the product of the quintuplicated-^ elements is known as the food sheath. That portion of the subtle body which is composed of the five vital airs and five organs of action and effected from the rajas

aspect of prakrti, is called the vital sheath. The doubting mind and the » five sensory organs make up the mind-sheath. The determining intellect and the sensory organs make up the intellectual sheath. The impure sattva which is the causal body along with joy and other vrttis is called bliss 49

sheath. Maya lies on a pari of Brahman ; ether is a partial manifestation of maya and air is a part of ether and so on.

2.4.5. jiva and isvara, the two calves of maya

The ultimate Reality when functions differently due to the super impositions effected by the two illusory adjuncts (maya and avidya), He is called Isvara and jiva respectively. Brahman appears as Isvara due to the association oi‘ mayn and maya appears as conscious due to the association of Brahman. The conception of such distinction is only a concession to those who cannot comprehend the higher Reality in the beginning-*. For them maya is a " kamadhenu" whose two calves are jiva

-I - and Isvara, and which milks the duality as much as one likes-'^. Jiva and Isvara are represented by the sheaths of bliss and intellect respectively^”. Vidyaranya brings a very good illustration. Maya is further compared with the cloud. The mental impressions in the buddhi are the water par­ ticles which make up the cloud. The reflected consciousness in maya is •• ✓ like the sky reflected in the water particles of the cloud. Isvara is this reflection in the cloud like maya: and jiva is like the retlection of the sky in the pot-water like avidya?^. Isvara and jiva create the two differ- / ent creations : material and mental respectively. The causality Isvara like the superimposition oijiva and kutaslha, is mutually superimposed for Brahman’s causality whereas Isvara is the true cause of creation.

Vidyaranya ascribes this mutual superimposition to be the intention of Suresivara.^- Vidyaranya concludes that Isvara who is the Lord of maya,

■>» creates the universe, whereas the jiva is controlled by maya God whose essence is Bliss thought to be many and became Hiranyagarbha” . 50

Swahananda says, maya is the material cause (empirical) and the Lord is the efficient cause, but separately they are neither the material nor the efficient cause. In fact, they are not the two but one, functioning differ­ ently though jointly^^.

2 . 5 . M(tya as ajiiana

In the former works like Citsukhi, maya is a synonym for ajnana. Vidyaranya says that the definition of ignorance applies to maya also.^’

Ajnana is attributed to jiva by which he thinks the eternity of the world. It is a subjective form of maya^*", by which jiva identifies himself with ajnana and feels " I am ignorant"^^. Ajnana in the epistemological level resides on two locus, viz., Brahman as the substratum (adhisthana) and

jiva with reference to ego (abhimgna). Due to ajnana jiva cannot dis- criminate the real and the unreal. Ajnana has two powers, viz., obscure­

ness (avarana) and projection (viksepa)^* By obscureness, the jiva does not know the Real and says it is absent. For describing the power of the

obscuration, the example of the tenth person is often quoted where the tenth person not counting himself, says that the tenth is missing. By viksepa, he weeps and grieves. Jiva comes into existence due to this

A/_ viksepa, like the illusion of silver in shell. Before the rise ot'jiva, ajnana

resides in jiva's samskara^. Jiva is power in limited form as avidya; and Lord is unlimited power as rrTaya. The knowing (avidya) which is lim­

ited experience (//vo> is another thing. Both are the eternal aspects of the reality. Brahman with tam om aya is the material cause, with

suddhasattvahtaya, it is the efficient cause.

13 51

2.6. Three roles of m aya

Dividing the three aspects of Brahman, viz., existence, conscious­ ness and bliss and dealing with each one of them in five successive chap- ters of the book 'Pancadasi\ Vidyaranya first establishes the existent nature of the self in the first five chapters, where we find the exposition of the nature of the mundane world, viz., five elements, tlve sheaths etc. Hence maya is dealt with as existence (apparently) "Vastavi Maya" where from the cosmos is evolved and which includes the cosmos also. In conformity with the knowledge aspect of Brahman, dealt in the next five chapters of the book 'Pancadasi', maya turns to be indeterminate "anirvacaniya", and thirdly maya is considered to be "tuccha” keeping in view with the bliss aspect of Brahman, dealt within the last five chap- /\y I — lers of the book ’Pancadasi\ tiiccha'nirvacaniya ca vastavi cetyasau tridha/ jneya maya tribhirbodhaih srautayauktikalaukikaih//^^

In comfermity with this, three roles of niaya are considered from the three different levels, viz., jagatika, pratibhasika, andparamarthika, dealt here with the three successive chapters of this thesis.

2.7. Mayti^ the materiality : vtistavimayTt

Philosophy is the "science of sciences". Where science ends, phi­ losophy starts. This assertion is very well justified when one studies the nature of maya. The chapter Vastavimaya i.e. Maya as the principle of materiality, opens the veil of the Reality where science ends.lt is studied I as followws 5:^

(1 ) Maya as ihc vastiiniyaniika : Regulator of matter The natural sciences end on the point of describing the physical

properly of a thing. While describing a matter, the chemical science just mentions the physical property of that element. Science is unable to answer the "why" of the physical property of an element. For example, chemistry states that the physical property of iron is to be attracted by

magnet. It is silent why it does so. Philosophy starts from describing

the nature of things. No one can question to nature. Rather, the object is recognized by its nature. So, the Advaitin describes " There exists a power (called maya) which controls the propei’ty of all elements. It ex­ tends to, and inheres in, all elements of the external world." saklirastisvari kacit survavastuniyamika/

anandamayamarabhya giidha sarvesu vastusu//^'

As tluidly is the nature of water, heat of fire and hardness of stone,

so the making of the impossible is the nature of maya. It is uniqut in this respect

dravatvamudkau vahnauausnyam kathinyamctsmani/ A > ■ mayaya durghatat'aih ca svatah siddhyati nariyatha//''^ A • The physical entities are kept intact due to the function of this marvellous power, maya. In another way, it answers to the question ,

"why does iron differ from silver?" Due to maya alone silver differs from gold, (Isvari sakti). It gives the property of fluidity to water, warmth to fire and so on.. In short, it controls as well els regulates the natural and

physical properties of all objects -- sarvavastuniyamika.

Therefore, maya as vastavl, relates not only to matter (vastiij, but also to the reality,the physical world. Thus, (naya makes the world real (discussed in another section). The word, va\stavi is derived from vastii

15 53

(matter) with the secondary suffix an. Thus, maya refers to the nature of materiality.

(2) Had there not been this power (mayasakti) within the physical objects, the individual property of the physical elements and compounds

would have been lost by mutual exchange of attributes. Then the world would have been in a state of dissolution and disappearance. vastudharma niyamyeran saktya naiva yada tada/ anyonyadharmasamkaryad viplaveta jagat khalu//^’’

" If the particular attributes of all objects are not determined by

this power , there would be chaos in the world, for there would be noth­ ing to distinguish the properties of one object from those of another."-**

(3) maya functions for the conventional utility. Just as a common man due to the different adjuncts (pratiyogi) assumes different relations,

viz., a wife, daughter-in-law, sister-in-law, cousin or mother, but she

herself remains unchanged, similarly due to maya there exists a universe

of objects of different properties, though maya herself relates to the one

and the same consciousness or Brahman.'**

(4) maya bestows the property of existence (satta) to ether etc,

though in reality ether etc. exists in sat. This is understood from the

theory oi' pancikarana. By this way it reverses the nature of the prop­ erty and that of the substance in a topsy tuiivy way.^’ During creation,

maya conjures up akasa from consciousness. Thus maya produces the objective world. It is responsible for objective reality.

(5) A seed sprouts up and grows to a tree with full of branches, flowers and fruits. A semen in a uterus becqmes a conscious being and

develops hands, feet; it passes through childhood, youth; then perceives,

eats and moves. Above all, the whole transaction of the phenomena de- 54

pends upon the function o{' maya.^'^ This explains the role of^ maya played for the existence of the world. It is supported by the Upanisadaic lines: "maya srjati visvam. (6) The comprehension of maya surpasses the imagination , be­ cause it is the cause of the whole material universe which itself is in­ comprehensible. How does the cause of an incomprehensible object be

comprehended? Things that are inconceivable should not be subjected

to the cannon of logic: acintya khalu ye bhava na tamstarkesu yojayet/ acinty'a-racanarupam manasa'pi jagat khalu// acintya racanasaktibijam mayeti niscinu/

may'abijam tathevaikam susuptavanubhiuyate//^^ In denying the logic to query on 'why and how' of maya, the

Vedantins ascertain that objectivity is the nature of maya and the cause

of physical nature is unquestionable.

Dr. Radhakrsnan writes : "if we confine our attention to the em­ pirical world and employ the dialectic of logic we get the conception of a perfect personality... This energy becomes transferred into the unmanifested matter, from which all existences issue... It is the object — / through which the Supreme subject Isvara develops the universe"’* (7) As the cause of materiality, " even the children and dullards

know the nature of maya"- writes Vidyaranya.’- The empirical experi­ ence of all beings about the insentience of pot etc, is the nature of mhya-

says the sruti .This being so, the whole of the world is now understood

to be maya and created by maya. Without in anyway affecting the real

nature of the Absolute, it creates the world and makes the impossible possible. In the Sanksepasariraka, the Vartika of the commentary of 55

' - ...... Sankara on the Brahmasutras, Sarvajnatmamuni writes that maya together with the Ciisakti, creates the world: " citsakti paramesvarsaya-vimala...."^'' Therefore, as Eliot remarks, " The doctrine of maya explicitly places the world of our ordinary experience where it properly belongs"**. All experiences are maya, because all objects have dawned from it and rest on it. Had not there been this m"aya, there would have no possibility of any experience of objectivity. (S)Therefore, Paramahansa Yogananda writes "Newton's Law of

Motion is a Law of maya.... Fundamental natural activities all betray their magic origin. Electricity, for example, is a phenomenon of repul­ sion and attraction, its electrons and protons are electrical opposites.

Another example; the atom of the final particle of matter is like the earth

itself, a magnet with positive and negative poles. The entire phenom­

enal world is under the inexorable sway of polarity; no law of physics, chemistry or any other science is ever found free from inherent opposite or contrasted principles. "Physical science, then, cannot formulate laws outside of m^ya,

the very structure and fabric of creation. NatUre herself is maya; natural

science must perforce deal with her ineluctable quiddity. In her Own

domain, she is eternal and inexhaustible; future scientists can do no more than prove one aspect after another of her varied innnilude."'*’ Being the principle of materiality or oijjjectivity, it objectifies the metaphysical, pure-consciousness to the physical entities of earth, wa­ ter and self etc. The question of why and when of this objectifying is I inatimissible, for here is being explained the origin of the world which i includes time, space and causality. Time ow^s its birth to this objectifi- I cation. So the time of objectification is beyond question. This convinc­ 56

ingly depicts the nature and function of m'aya in Advaita Vedanta.

2.8. Maya, the world: its reality and objectivity

We notice nowadays the modern trend of ascribing realism to Sankara. The baci

The arguments in favor of the reality of the world are presented as

follows:-

2.8.1. With the possible exception of PrakaS^ananda, Advaita thinkers

hold that a subjective is not the proper philosophical expres­

sions or consequence of the doctrine of maya. Acarya Sankara by ac­

cepting the reality of the world, differs from and refutes the subjective idealism of I'iJnanavada which supports drsti-srstivttda.

Sankara writes; "there could be non-existence because external entiities

are actually perceived... An external entity is invariably perceived in

every cognition such as pillar, wall, a pot or a piece of cloth. It can never be that what is actually perceived is nonexistent"(Br.S.S.Bh.2.2.28). This refutation clearly proves the reality of the world in Sankara's AdVatic

Philosophy. 2.8.2. World is not unreal, for unreality is non-being. It is that which never appears as an objective datum of experience because of its self-

contradictoriness. "Of the unreal there is no coming to be". Offcourse , in such doctrine, the world is not absolutely real, because, "of the real there is no coming to be."’“ Neither it is inconceivable like a square circle

19 -T] 57

nor it IS mere void (siwya). (or sunya is also a product of maya. There­ fore it is practically real. 2.8.3 The world is non-contradictory. The Advaitin describes two types of creations. One creation is made by god with the creative pow^r and another by jiva with delusive power. So, maya is categorized into two-- one is the creative power possessed by God and another is the delusive power possessed by beings. God creates the world by mayd- vrtti; jiva enjoys it through manovrtti , just like a lady takes birth by her father, but is enjoyed by her h u s b a n d .A physical thing remains con­ stant, but its mental creation affects differentlyi*® The physical body of a woman, composed of flesh, is one, but the mental lady formed by differ­ ent persons varies.*' The creation of the mental attachment or aversion is not present in the physical realm which is neutral.

By. the principle of concomitance gnd difference (, vyatireka) it is evident that the material existehce is neither the cause of misery nor of duality, but the mental creation thereof alone is the cause.‘’- For example, a father's affliction for his son does not depend upon the

fact of a message about him, and irrespective of the external reality he suffers.*^ Therefore, the mental creation is the cause of bondage. This

supports for the non-contradictoriness of the external world which is helpful for self - realization. i (iv) "If pleasure and pain depend upon mitlid only, the external object becomes purposeless. This amounts a pure Realism which deprives of the significance of all external objects.*’^ Th^ answer to this objection is

I thai existence of external object is essential for forming its mental con-

I ^ ception, but not vice-versa. This being a diference from the Vijnanavada, i I it asserts a realism for the Vedanta philosophy. 58

(v) Even if the external things are purposeless, still they are not dis­ pensed with altogether, because cognition is concerned with the exist­ ence of objects and not with their utility. The purposelessness (vaiyarthya) of external things does niU lead to their nonexistence. For example, "thorns on the road may not serve any purpose but no one can deny their existence. So vaiyarthya is not nonexistence, but purposelessness. In any case, cognition is acquired by the existence of objects and not by their utility.*’’ This shows the indispensability of external objects.** (vi) The acceptance of the reality of the wofld is not casual, but it has been said frequently that duality is not opposed to the knowledge of non­ duality, but on the contrary, the knowledge of duality is opposed to it.

Annihilation of dvaita is not the cause of advaita,*’ for in dissolution when the duality disappears, the secondless Ttman still remains un­ known. This is for the simple reason that they do not belong to the same grade. But the knowledge of the non-duality and that of duality ate of the same grade. So they cannot coexist simultaneously. Non-duality does not mean that it cannot coexist with the duality, it is for the simple rea­ son that they are not of the same grade. To Achieve the non-duality, the

Vedantin does not discard the material duality but discards the mere mental concept of it. So he describes two types of creation: one by god

I and another by individual being. For exampk, the water in the desert or the blueness of the sky does not prejudice the knowledge of the desert or that of the space. The creation of dream is not a hindrance in conceiving the non-duality of the dreamer **. Like this the creation does not prevent

! the knowledge of Brahman. Rather the existence of the creation i$ con­

ducive for attaining Brahman, for one knows the non-duality through i teacher and scripture. On the other hand, t|he existence of the world is 59

far from, and beyond annihilation . So, why one should go against it. abadhakam sadhakaih ca dvaitam isvara nirmitam/ apaneturh asakyam cet 5stam taddvisyate kutah//^^ "The duality created by god is not contradictory to non-duality, rather complementary to it. If it cannot be discarded, let it be there. Why is it opposed against? "

(vil) A question arises, "il’reality of the duality is not against the non­

dual knowledge, then how does the iruti say that at the realm of self-

knowledge, there is no seer, no smeller and no speaker?"’*’ The reply is that, sruti does not state here the conditions of the self-realized person. It can only be applicable either to deep sleep or final liberation.This

has been made clear in the Brahmasutras (4.16.16) and Upanisads. Oth­ erwise, the teaching of would not have been possible. More­

over, Vedanta concerns with the knowledge of the self, but not with the

absence of the duality, nor a combination of the two: both knowledge of

the self as well as absence of duality. (viii) 'or knowledge does not mean the: absence of duality, other- I wise the question of non-dual knowledge vj/ill be meaningless. The

knowledge of a magician's feat does not destroy his play. Therefore, the

knowledge of the self alone is vidya.’’- If a combination of both the knowledge of the self and the absence of duality had been the subject of Vedanta, the inanimate objects like pot etc. in which the knowledge of I duality is absent, would have been half enlightened. Therefore, by no means one Qan establish the unreality of the world. Rather the Vedantin

proclaims the reality of the world. \^aya ijnakes the world appear or i disappear just as a picture on a canvas can be exhibited or withdrawn by

I rolling and unrolling the canvas.’^ f> 0

From all these poinls it is concluded that maya in Advaita Vedanta refers to all the panorama of the world. By this, it only states the fact that the One appears as many.^^

This is the realism of Advaita Vedanta where there is no reason to call the world unreal before the oneness of the 'atman is realized. But this realism is only a concession to those who cannot comprehend the higher conception of the reality in the beginning. However, the realism is the "vyavaharika", practical which leads to a land of logic , where niaya comes out with a new garment of

indeterminatibility (anirvacanTyatva) for the condition of cau­ sation. In Sankara's pen, it is called "pratibhdsikasatta". Finally, this

logic falls in arriving on the Supreme level called paramarihikasattd, where there could neither be any apparent^relative realism nor be any ray of logic. The multiple world which once was governing the knowl­ edge of reality, freezes into nothingness. Everything as well as the source t of everything, called Mdy'a, pitiably loses its reality in front of the

effulgent Brahman. So, the sruti says:-

"na tatra rathah na rathayogah na panthanah bhavanti/

na tatra vasantah puskarinyah sravantyah bhavanti//"^^ Lo! There remains one^and ONLY ONE : svayam jyotih hiranmayapurusa eka hahisah.’^

23