Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A Constructive Survey of Upanishadic Philosophy c7.s5: 25. Vicissitudes in the historical development of the doctrine of Maya

A Constructive Survey of Upanishadic Philosophy c7.s5

Language
English

Contents

25. Vicissitudes in the historical development of the doctrine of Maya

c7.s5.1.1

Having traced the source of the doctrine of Māyā in the Upanishads, it is but proper that we should give a very brief account of the vicissitudes of that doctrine in its historical development in the post-Upanishadic period, and especially of the transformation of it which was effected by Gauḍapāda and Śaṅkara, inasmuch as this particularly concerns the question as to how far Śaṅkara may be said to have elaborated his full-fledged doctrine from the teachings of the Upanishads and from those of his spiritual ancestor, Gauḍapāda. In the post-Upanishadic period, as early as even in the days of the Bhagavadgītā, we do not find the doctrine stated in the terms in which the philosophers Gauḍapāda and Śaṅkara state it. In the Bhagavadgītā, the word Māyā is used in the sense almost of magical power, and God, the great magician, is declared to cause the spirit-host to revolve as by the power of His divine magic (XVIII. 61), and yet again the beings in the world are declared to be resorting to the demoniacal sort of life when God robs them of their wisdom by his power (VII. 15). Moreover, it must be remembered, that here again we have to investigate the doctrine of Māyā in ideas rather than in words. Also, the Bhagavadgītā is a short treatise compared with the Upanishads, nor does the theistic-mystic trend of the argument leave much room for a philosophical development of the conception of Māyā.

c7.s5.1.2

When we come to Gauḍapāda, however, we find that a great stride forward is taken in the development of that doctrine. Gauḍapāda uses Buddhistic terminology, but sets forth an original doctrine. He tries to write a systematic treatise on philosophy instead of only giving a lift to the spiritual impulse of man in the manner of the Bhagavadgītā. Hence he states his opinion deliberately and fully, and we find him in his Kārikās maintaining the doctrine, not simply that the world is an appearance or an illusion, but that the world was never created at all! His was what has been known in the history of Indian Thought as the doctrine of "Ajātavāda," the doctrine of Non-creation. "If there were a universe, the question might arise whether it would hide from our view; but the universe is not; duality is only Māyā; non-duality is the only reality" (I. 17). The sage Gauḍapāda, however, is not decided as to whether he should regard the world as a dream or an illusion, or not. In one place, he praises those who have called the world an illusion: he calls such people the "well-versed in the Vedāntic science" (II. 31). On the other hand, when he is enumerating the various views about the creation of the universe, he is stating the view that the world is a dream or an illusion as a view which is held by others besides himself.

c7.s5.1.3

"Some people regard the universe as the greatness of God, others as his creation, others as a dream, others as an illusion, others regard it as merely the will of God,......still others the object of His enjoyment, some people call it the play-thing of God, and yet others regard it as God's nature" (I. 7-9). As contrasted with these views, he states his position that he is at one with those who maintain the doctrine that the universe was not created at all (IV. 4-5). But it must be remembered that for the purposes of spiritual perfection and ethical conduct, Gauḍapāda has to take account of the world as a verity. "That is the state of the highest Samādhi, in which all talk is at an end, all anxiety is at an end, which is full of the highest tranquillity and eternal illumination" (III. 37); and, again, "creation has been recommended by the sages for the benefit of those who cannot but find the world to be real (Upālambhāt) and who must needs be led on the path of good conduct (Samāchārāt)" (IV. 42). We thus see how even the sage Gauḍapāda has to take some cognisance at least of the world as real, though it may be for the perfection of mystical endeavour or ethical conduct, even though, philosophically, he may regard it as not having been created at all. Śaṅkara profits by all the conceptions that have preceded him, and weaves his full-fledged doctrine out of the strands left at his disposal by the Upanishads and Gauḍapāda.

c7.s5.1.4

If we examine carefully the expressions which Śaṅkara uses about Māyā in his great Commentary on the Brahmasūtras and elsewhere, namely those of inexplicability (sadasadanirvachanīyasvarūpatva), super-imposition (atasmin tadbuddhiḥ), and illicit transformation (raju-sarpa and śuktikārajata) on the one hand, and those of subjective modification (ākāśe talamalinatvādi), and postulation of negation (khapushpa, mṛigatṛishṇikā, aindrajālika, śaśavishāṇa and vandhyāputra) on the other other, all to designate the phenomenal appearance of the world, we shall see that Śaṅkara is placing himself between the doctrines of lesser reality and illusion ; but his meaning is entirely unmistakable, that the world is merely an appearance on the background of Brahman. We cannot enter here into greater details about the doctrine of Māyā as Śaṅkara develops it. But we cannot leave unmentioned even in the short space at our disposal here the objections which Rāmānuja raises against Śaṅkara’s doctrine of Māyā, in order that we may be able to understand the real meaning of Śaṅkara’s doctrine better. Rāmānuja asks—What is the seat of Māyā, the Soul or Brahman ?—How does the ever-luminous Brahman come to be hidden ?—Is Māyā real or unreal ?

c7.s5.1.5

If real, it cannot be an “ upādhi ” of Brahman—Is not the description of Brahman that it is incapable of definition a definition itself ?—What is the criterion of the proof of Māyā ?—Is it not a contradiction in terms to say that Māyā ceases by the knowledge of the attributeless Brahman ?—Is not the removal of ignorance, once established, for ever impossible?—all these objections would seem to be merely an *ignoratio elenchi*, if we only consider for a while Śaṅkarācārya’s criticism of the Vijñānavādins and the Śūnyavādins in his exposition of the Brahmasūtra “ Nābhāva upalabdheḥ ” (II. 2. 28), where by a severe criticism of theories which hold that the world is merely an idea, or that the world is merely a naught, Śaṅkarācārya proves himself to be neither an epistemological idealist, nor an epistemological nihilist. To Śaṅkara, the world is real, but only phenomenally real. Noumenally, *sub specie aeternitatis*, it is unreal. We shall entirely mistake Śaṅkara’s point of view if we do not consider the great distinction that he draws between the “ pāramārthika ” and the “ vyāvahārika ” views of reality. Like his later successor in Germany, he was the first in India to bring into vogue the distinction between empirical reality and transcendental ideality. Kant was himself charged with having been an Idealist in spite of his celebrated Refutation of Idealism.

c7.s5.1.6

In like manner has Śaṅkara been charged with having been an idealist-nihilist in spite of his celebrated criticism of these doctrines. The recognition of the distinction between the Vyāvahārika and the Pāramārthika views of reality, added to the recognition of the Prātibhāsika and the Svāpnika views, which may also be gathered from his philosophy elsewhere, yields us a doctrine of the Degrees of Reality, which is all the while implicit in Śaṅkara, though it is never explicitly stated. Greater reality than the reality of the world of illusion belongs to the world of dream ; greater reality than the reality of the world of dream belongs to the world of life ; greater reality than the reality of the world of life belongs to the world of the Self, or God, or the Absolute, which are all ultimately identical with one another. Every system of philosophy must needs take account of some sort of appearance. From the days of Parmenides, Plato, and Plotinus to the days of Berkeley, Hegel, and Bradley, there has been the same cry. There is an extraordinary "moral" meaning in the doctrine of Appearance which critics of that doctrine systematically ignore. To quote the words of Carlyle : "Where is the cunning eye and ear to whom that God-written Apocalypse will yield articulate meaning ? We sit as in a boundless Phantasmagoria and Dream-grotto ;

c7.s5.1.7

boundless, for the faintest star, the remotest century, lies not even nearer the verge thereof : sounds and many-coloured visions flit round our sense; but Him, the Unslumbering, whose work both Dream and Dreamer are, we see not ; except in rare half-waking moments, suspect not. Creation, says one, lies before us, like a glorious Rainbow; but the Sun that made it lies behind us, hidden from us. Then, in that strange Dream, how we clutch at shadows as if they were substances; and sleep deepest while fancying ourselves most awake! . . . . . Where now is Alexander of Macedon? . . . . . Napoleon too, and his Moscow Retreats and Austerlitz campaigns! Was it all other than the veriest Spectre-hunt? . . . . . That warrior on his strong war-horse, fire flashes through his eyes; force dwells in his arm and heart: but warrior and war-horse are a vision; a revealed Force, nothing more. Stately they tread the Earth, as if it were a firm substance: fool! the Earth is but a film; it cracks in twain, and warrior and war-horse sink beyond plummet’s sounding, Plummet’s? Fantasy herself will not follow them. A little while ago, they were not; a little while, and they are not, their very ashes are not. . . . . . Thus, like a God-created, fire-breathing Spirit-host, we emerge from the Inane; haste stormfully across the astonished Earth; then plunge again into the Inane. . . . . . . . . . But whence?—O Heaven, whither? Sense knows not; Faith knows not;

c7.s5.1.8

only that it is through Mystery to Mystery, from God and to God.”

c7.s5.2

¹ (*a*) तद्ध एक आंहुरसदेवेदमग्र आसीत् । एकमेवाद्वितीयम् । तस्मादसतः सज्जायत । छां. VI. 2.

c7.s5.3

¹ (*b*) येयं प्रेते विचिकित्सा मनुष्ये अस्तीत्येके नायमस्तीति चैके । क. I. 1.

c7.s5.4

²⁰ (*c*) श्रोभावा मत्यस्य यदन्तक एतत्सर्वैन्द्रियाणां जरयन्ति तेजः ।

Linked texts (2)