A Constructive Survey of Upanishadic Philosophy c7.s3: Three theories about the origin of the Doctrine of Maya
A Constructive Survey of Upanishadic Philosophy c7.s3
- Language
- English
Three theories about the origin of the Doctrine of Maya
c7.s3.1
found full-fledged in the Upanishads is to deny the process of the development of thought, especially in such a well-equipped mind as that of Śaṅkara. All these theories could be disproved if we find sufficient justification for the sources of the doctrine of Māyā in the Upanishads, and if Śaṅkara’s philosophy be shown to have developed these, and brought them to maturity. One of the chief ways in which an attempt is generally made to trace the source of the doctrine of Māyā in the Upanishads is to find in a Concordance references to a word like Māyā, and to argue therefrom as to the presence or otherwise of that doctrine in the Upanishads. Such a procedure is an entirely ridiculous one, inasmuch as it finds the existence of a doctrine like that of Māyā in words rather than in ideas. To find out whether the doctrine of Māyā is present in the Upanishads or not, we must examine the ideology of the Upanishads, and see whether this affords us sufficient justification for saying that the doctrine is to be met with there. We shall see in the sequel of this chapter that there are definite traces of that doctrine to be met with in Upanishadic literature, and that so far from Śaṅkara having fabricated a new conception altogether, or having owed it to the influence of the nihilistic school of thought, he may definitely be said to have gone back to the Upanishads to find his inspiration there, and as may befit a true thinker and philosopher, to have elaborated it out of the inchoate mass supplied to him by the Upanishads. Our conclusion, therefore, is that Śaṅkarācārya only elaborated the ideas that he found in the Upanishads, and wove them into the contexture of his Advaitic philosophy.
c7.s3.2
24. As we have said, we shall examine the ideas instead of the words in the Upanishads, and see whether the traces of the Māyā doctrine cannot be found in them. The Īśopanishad tells us that truth is veiled in this universe by a vessel of gold, and it invokes the grace of God to lift up the golden vessel and allow the truth to be seen (S. 31. a). The veil that covers the truth is here described as golden, as being so rich, gaudy, and dazzling that it takes away the mind of the observer from the inner contents, and rivets it upon itself. Let us not be dazzled by the appearance of gold, says the Upanishad, everything that glitters is not gold. Let us penetrate deeper and see the reality that lies ensconced in it. We have thus, first, the conception of a veil which prevents truth from being seen at first glance. Then, again, we have another image in the Kaṭhopanishad of how people living in ignorance, and thinking themselves wise, move about wandering, like blind men following the blind, in search of reality, which they would have easily seen had they lodged themselves in knowledge instead of ignorance (S. 31. b). We have here the conception of blindfoldness, and we are told that we deliberately shut our eyes to the truth before us. Then, thirdly, ignorance is compared in the Muṇḍakopanishad to a knot which a man has to untie before he gets possession of the Self in the recess of his own heart (S. 31. c). Fourthly, the Chhāndogyopanishad tells us how knowledge is power, and ignorance impotence (S. 31. d). We, who are moving in this world without having attained to the knowledge of Ātman, are exhibiting at every stage the power of the impotence that lies in us. Not unless we have attained to the knowledge of Ātman can we be said to have attained power. Then, fifthly, the famous prayer in the Bṛihadāraṇyaka, in which a devotee is praying to God to carry him from Not-Being to Being, from