38 2. THE MATERIAL WORLD {VASTAVl MAYA) 2.0 MayTi^ the Problem Advaita Vedanta 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 Brahman, is the two fold course of the Advaita Vedanta 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 Vedas 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 ap­ 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 Vidyaranya, 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).