What is Maya?

The Svetasvatara Upanishad describes the Lord (Isvara) as the mayin, the wonder-working powerful Being out of whom the world arises. The word maya is used in this sense in the Rg Veda.

Generally it is used, though I am afraid very wrongly, to denote illusion, or delusion, or some such thing, but as the theory of Maya forms, as it were, one of the pillars upon which the Vedanta rests, it is necessary that it should be properly understood, and I ask a little patience of you, for there is great danger of being misunderstood in expounding the theory of Maya. The oldest idea of Maya that we can find in Vedic literature is where this word is used in the sense of delusion, but then the real theory had not been reached. We find such passages as "Indra through his Maya assumed various forms." Here it is true the word Maya means something like magic.

So we find various other passages, always taking the same meaning. The word Maya then drops out of sight altogether. In the meanwhile the idea is developing. Later the question is raised, why cannot we know the secret of the Universe, and the answer given is very significant. "Because we talk in vain, and because we are satisfied with the things of the senses, and because we are running after desires; therefore we, as it were, cover this reality with a mist." Here the word Maya is not used at all, but we get one idea, that the cause of our ignorance is a kind of mist that has come between us and the truth. Much later on, in one of the latest Upanishads, we find the word Maya, reappearing, but by this time a good deal of transformation has been worked upon it, a mass of new meaning has by this time attached itself to the word. Theories have been propounded and repeated ; others have been taken up, until at last the idea of Maya has become a fixed quantity.

We read in the Svetasvatara Upanishad Know nature to be Maya and the mind, the ruler of this Maya is the Lord Himself." Coming to our philosophers, we find that this word Maya has been manipulated in various fashions, until we come to the great Sankaracharya. The theory of Maya was manipulated a little by the Buddhists, too, but in their hands it became very much like what is called Idealism, and that is the meaning that is now generally given to the word Maya. When the Hindu says the world is Maya, at once people get the idea that the world is an illusion. This interpretation has some basis, as coming through the Buddhistic philosophers, because there was one section of them who did not believe in the external world at all. .. But the Maya of the Vedanta, in its last developed form, is neither idealism nor realism, nor is it theory. It is a simple statement of facts what we are, and what we see around us. As I have told you before, the minds of the people from whom the Vedas came were intent upon following principles, discovering principles. They had no time to work upon details, or to wait for them; they wanted to go deep into the heart of things. Something beyond was calling them, as it were, and they could not wait.

We find that, scattered all through the Upanishads and other books the details of subjects which we now call modern sciences, are often very erroneous, but, at the same time, their principles are correct. For instance, the idea of ether, which is one of the latest theories of modern science, is to be found in our ancient literature in forms much more developed than is the modern scientific theory of ether to-day; but it was in principle; when they tried to demonstrate the workings of that principle, they made many mistakes. The theory of the all-pervading life principle, of which all life in this universe is but a differing manifestation, was understood in Vedic times; it is found in the Brahmanas. There is a long hymn in the Samhita in praise of Prana, of which all life is but a manifestation.

If there is only one Reality (Brahman) how can its non-duality be sustained in the face of the multiple world? What is the nature of the illusory world of maya? In what sense can we speak of the world and Brahman as being both different and non-different? Is not Brahman (the cause) affected by maya (the effect)? What is Sankaracharya's stance in regard to Isvara and his relationship to maya?

The first question, the phenomenal world, simply, is not real—it is not eternal and immutable, and it is sublated by the experience of Brahman. We recall the words of the Bhagavad Gita: "...of the non-real there is no coming to be: of the real there is no ceasing to be." The world is not real. It has no ontological or ultimate status. Nevertheless, while the world is not real (sat), nor, says Shankaracharya, is it altogether unreal (asat). It is apparently real (vyavaharika). It is perceived and it exhibits spatial, temporal and causal order. "There could be no non-existence" (of external entities) says Shankaracharya, because "external realities are perceived". It is the existence and the apparent reality of the world which is in need of explanation. It has often been remarked that maya can be viewed from several standpoints: from that of mundane experience, the phenomenal world of maya is real; from that of the inquiring mind maya and all her effects are a riddle, a puzzle, a Sphinx; from the viewpoint of the Absolute and from that of the realised being, maya simply is not.

The problematic relationship between maya and Brahman is only apparent from the empirical, worldly and maya-created point of view. It is only because of ignorance (avidya) that we are unable to see the non-duality of Brahman. Non-duality exists a priori: the separation of the world from Brahman is an illusory 'fissure' which from its own standpoint, within the limits imposed by the very nature of maya, is enigmatic. Right Knowledge reveals the nonduality of Brahman quite uncompromised or qualified by the phenomenal realm.

The suggestive etymology of the term maya which has been translated, or at least signalled, by a kaleidoscopic array of terms, can be sampled in two clusters:

(a) 'illusion', 'concealment', 'the web of seeming', 'appearance', 'glamour', 'relativity', 'classification', 'contingency', 'objectivisation', 'distinctivisation', 'exteriorisation';

(b) 'cosmic power', 'divine art', 'universal unfolding', 'cosmic magic', 'the power of Isvara' and 'the principle of self-expression'.

Clearly there is, behind these terms, a principle of considerable subtlety. However, in these translations, we can see two strands of meaning—more or less negative in the first group, positive in the latter. The Sanskrit terms avarana ('concealment') and viksepa (projection) are closely associated with the notion of maya and designate two aspects, or guises, of it. These twin faces of maya are reflected in Hindu temple iconography and are traceable in the etymology of the word.

The word maya is linked to the root 'matr': 'to measure, form, build, or plan'. Several Greco-Latin words are also connected with this root: metre, matrix, matter and material.

On a more immediate, literal level the word refers simply to 'that which' (ya) 'is not' (ma). In its more positive meanings we find maya is etymologically related to the Assyrian maya (magic) and to maya-Devi (mother of Sakyamuni Buddha), Maia (mother of Hermes) and Maria (mother of Jesus). Here we can detect the obvious association with the feminine and Shaktic pole of manifestation. All of these etymological considerations provide clues to the various meanings. As Mahadevan has said, following Sankara, "To logic maya is a puzzle. Wonder is its garment; inscrutable is its nature". This does not mean that nothing whatsoever can be said about maya in logical terms but rather that the ratiocinative process must necessarily arrive, sooner or later, at certain impasses which cannot, by their nature, be overcome logically. Sankara did elaborate a detailed and acute dialectical examination of maya. Of itself this could not lead one to penetrate the nature of maya, but through it the mind could be cleared of certain misconceptions. The following exposition is a condensed account which attempts to rehearse Sankara's argument in outline and in its most salient points.

Maya is a power or potency of Brahman, coeval with Brahman, completely dependent on and inseparable from Brahman, neither independent nor real in itself. It is not different from Brahman on pain of contradicting Scriptural declarations of non-difference, but it is also not non-different from Brahman as there cannot be identity between the Real and the unreal. Nor can maya be both different and non-different as such contradictors cannot reside in one and the same thing. The relationship between maya and Brahman is thus tadatmya, neither identity nor difference nor both. A similar dialectic exposes maya's status considered in terms of the Real. Maya is not real because it has no existence apart from Brahman, because it disappears at the dawn of knowledge, because it does not constitute a limit on Brahman. However, it is not altogether unreal because it does project the world of appearances. It is not both real and unreal because of contradiction. Maya is not possessed of parts. If it were partite it would have a beginning and consequently the Lord and the jivas which are reflections thereof would have a beginning. Furthermore, maya with a beginning would necessitate another maya as its cause and there would thus be a contingence of infinite regress. However, maya cannot be partless because of the contingency of its not being the primal cause. It is the cause only of partite phenomena, and cannot be both partite and impartite because of contradiction. Maya, has a phenomenal and relative character and is an appearance only (vivarta). It is of the nature of superimposition (adhyasa) and is removable by right knowledge. Its locus is Brahman but Brahman is in no way affected by maya. Maya is beginningless (anadi), for time arises only within it; it is unthinkable (acintya), for all thought is subject to it; it is indescribable (anirvacaniya), for all language results from it.xviii Because its nature is outside the determination of normal human categories it is indeterminable (anirvaniya) and indefinable. Maya, indeed, is most strange!

Prof (Dr.) Kanayalal Raina is an internationally known writer, educator and consultant/ trainer, advocates spiritual teaching besides providing management consultancy services. His strategic plans are being used for obtaining funding to run various programs conducted by NFP nonprofit and business organizations. He strengthens NFP and business organizations through education, empowerment of leadership and mentoring, personal growth and strategic counselling. Areas of expertise are Govt. funding and preparation of Business Plans, Strategic Plans, Marketing plans, Sales and Pricing Plans, Balanced Scorecard, and Business Performance Analysis Management.