Latest / THE SECRET LAW OF ATTRACTION: Manifest Wealth, Success & Abundance / MĀYĀ: Hidden Force Behind Reality, Consciousness, Attraction & Manifestation

Transcript

MĀYĀ: Hidden Force Behind Reality, Consciousness, Attraction & Manifestation · THE SECRET LAW OF ATTRACTION: Manifest Wealth, Success & Abundance

0:00
Speaker 1: The Doctrine of Maya in the Philosophy of the Vedanta
0:03
Speaker 1: by Prabu Dutch Shastri P. H. D. M. A. M. O. L. B. T. B.
0:09
Speaker 1: S c. Nineteen eleven preface. The doctrine of Maya is
0:15
Speaker 1: the pivotal principle in the Advita philosophy, the final pronouncement
0:19
Speaker 1: of Indian speculation on the conception of reality and appearance.
0:24
Speaker 1: During the last thirty years, a good deal has been
0:26
Speaker 1: written on the Vedanta, and naturally this doctrine has also
0:29
Speaker 1: been treated of, though only in passing, and by the
0:32
Speaker 1: way that it is richly supported in the later Vedanta,
0:36
Speaker 1: is already an established fact. But a number of writers
0:39
Speaker 1: seem to conclude rather hastily that it is not the
0:42
Speaker 1: genuine product of the early speculation of the Upanishads, but
0:45
Speaker 1: has been later added to the original Vedanta by Sankara
0:48
Speaker 1: and his followers. Some critics believe that it is imported
0:52
Speaker 1: from Buddhism and receives hardly any countenance from the Upanishads.
0:57
Speaker 1: The point is still debated, and it is only with
0:59
Speaker 1: a view to contribute a little towards a clearer understanding
1:02
Speaker 1: on this problem that I undertook to examine the Upanishads
1:05
Speaker 1: as minutely and as fully as I could, always relying
1:08
Speaker 1: upon the original texts more than the many more or
1:10
Speaker 1: less slipshot translations which are to be found. Hitherto, these
1:14
Speaker 1: treatises have been looked upon as paradoxical, inconsistent, and unsystematic.
1:20
Speaker 1: Scholars have only dashed at them to get out some meaning,
1:23
Speaker 1: but have hardly attempted to see if there existed in
1:25
Speaker 1: them an inner principle of unity and system. Deuson has
1:29
Speaker 1: of course indicated in his History of Philosophy the evolution
1:33
Speaker 1: of thought within the Upanishads, and has attempted to base
1:36
Speaker 1: their chronology on such internal evidence. Working independently on the
1:41
Speaker 1: original texts of the Upanishads, I have also reached practically
1:45
Speaker 1: the same conclusion. Hence, in Chapter two have enlarged and
1:48
Speaker 1: developed that scheme with the aid of all the more
1:50
Speaker 1: important passages bearing on each point. My method has been analytical,
1:55
Speaker 1: more appropriately synthetical analytic. I have not stated a f
2:00
Speaker 1: act dogmatically, but have in every instant supported it with
2:03
Speaker 1: appropriate references, an examination of which will lead us inductively
2:07
Speaker 1: to the established conclusion. To those who do not hold
2:10
Speaker 1: the same view as I, A statement here and there
2:12
Speaker 1: may appear a little dogmatic, but that hardly touches me,
2:16
Speaker 1: since I have kept out all questions of personal belief
2:18
Speaker 1: and have only made an honest attempt to treat the
2:20
Speaker 1: question scientifically, to press one's own personal belief and point
2:25
Speaker 1: of view in as scientific inquiry vitiates, I believe the
2:29
Speaker 1: conclusions to be arrived at on the question whether the
2:33
Speaker 1: conception of Maya is found in the literature from Sankara
2:36
Speaker 1: down to the present day, all opinions concur The point
2:40
Speaker 1: to be investigated is how far and to what extent
2:42
Speaker 1: the conception is to be traced in the earlier literature
2:45
Speaker 1: before the time of Sankara, who flourished about a thousand
2:48
Speaker 1: years before his spiritual disciple Schopenhauer. Hence, I have confined
2:53
Speaker 1: my inquiry to the Vedic literature, especially the Upanishads, and
2:57
Speaker 1: have carried my investigation down to Sankar. My conclusions are
3:02
Speaker 1: one that the conception of Maya is as old as
3:05
Speaker 1: some of the later books of the Rigveda, where its
3:07
Speaker 1: forms are clearly noticeable, and that it gradually developed through
3:10
Speaker 1: the speculation of the Upanishads and passing through the hands
3:13
Speaker 1: of Gadapada and Sankara was crystallized into a technical form,
3:17
Speaker 1: elaborated more and more as time went on. Two that
3:22
Speaker 1: the word maya in the sense of illusion, of course,
3:25
Speaker 1: occurs later for the first time in the Swedish batter Upanishad.
3:29
Speaker 1: And three that most of the critics of Maya have
3:32
Speaker 1: started with gratuitously assuming Maya to be a concrete reality
3:35
Speaker 1: standing face to face with the absolute, as it were,
3:38
Speaker 1: a tertium quid between the absolute and the universe, and
3:42
Speaker 1: this has made their whole criticism feudal and irrelevant. Some
3:46
Speaker 1: again have criticized it while perfectly ignoring one of its
3:49
Speaker 1: chief principles, which expressed in modern Cantin phrase would run
3:54
Speaker 1: the transcendental ideality of the world does not deprive it
3:57
Speaker 1: of its empirical reality. Is more or less introductory, as
4:01
Speaker 1: it is intended to help indirectly towards a thorough grasp
4:04
Speaker 1: of the idea of Maya. The philology of the word
4:08
Speaker 1: is not within the strict scope of my essay, but
4:11
Speaker 1: I have collected some suitable materials which may help to
4:13
Speaker 1: give an insight into the gradual transition of meaning of
4:16
Speaker 1: the word itself. In chapter two, I have attempted to
4:19
Speaker 1: trace the development of the conception apart from the word.
4:23
Speaker 1: I do not, however, claim that the internal system of
4:26
Speaker 1: the Upanishads is sketched there. The transition of the various
4:30
Speaker 1: stages of thought, et cetera is to be looked upon
4:34
Speaker 1: as an ultimate scheme or the only possible scheme. But
4:37
Speaker 1: surely it is one of the possible systematic ways of
4:40
Speaker 1: treating the Upanishads, consistent and coherent as far as it goes,
4:44
Speaker 1: and as yet I know of no better scheme. In
4:47
Speaker 1: the same chapter one have given a very brief analysis
4:50
Speaker 1: of Gadapitus Korecas on the Menducchio Upanishad, so far as
4:54
Speaker 1: they bear on the subject. This has its own justification,
4:58
Speaker 1: since the book is unfortuntionately not so well known, and
5:01
Speaker 1: even those who know it cursorily do not always understand
5:04
Speaker 1: it correctly. Some of its epigrammatic stanzas have been erroneously
5:08
Speaker 1: construed so as to countenance either the doctrine of Shanivada
5:12
Speaker 1: or that of the reality of the world. I have
5:15
Speaker 1: selected the most typical as well as the most difficult passages,
5:18
Speaker 1: which I may hope will remove doubts on this point.
5:22
Speaker 1: It seems to me perfectly clear that Kadapada was a
5:25
Speaker 1: thorough going idealist and a worthy precursor of Sankara. Then
5:29
Speaker 1: in chapter three I have examined and brief the fundamental
5:32
Speaker 1: objections of the three other schools within the Vedanta, especially
5:36
Speaker 1: those of the theistic idealism of romanoch. These objections have
5:41
Speaker 1: never before been collected together and discussed in reference to
5:44
Speaker 1: the doctrine of Maya proper. The brevity in this part
5:47
Speaker 1: of the work was intended in order not to make
5:50
Speaker 1: the essay unnecessarily long. I had a mind, however, to
5:54
Speaker 1: depend another chapter on the analogies of the conception of
5:57
Speaker 1: Maya in European philosophy, especially in the systems of Plato, Plotinus, Berkeley, Kant,
6:03
Speaker 1: and Schopenhauer. But in the present volume I have left
6:07
Speaker 1: it out, since it was felt that the present essay
6:09
Speaker 1: is in a way complete in itself, and that the
6:12
Speaker 1: additional part, which would have taken a considerable length in itself,
6:15
Speaker 1: is not necessary for the purpose. I have given my
6:19
Speaker 1: own translation of passages which, in my opinion, have not
6:22
Speaker 1: been quite accurately rendered in the current translations. I have
6:26
Speaker 1: employed the words appearance and illusion rather indiscriminately in translating
6:31
Speaker 1: the word maya. Though I am conscious of the subtle
6:34
Speaker 1: difference in the two conceptions, the word illusion has been
6:37
Speaker 1: most current in this connection. Personally, I would prefer the
6:41
Speaker 1: term appearance. The world says the Maya theory in its
6:45
Speaker 1: correct interpretation, is an appearance, not a mere illusion, since
6:49
Speaker 1: the latter as such as impossible. There are some passages
6:53
Speaker 1: where the latter conception seems to be held e g.
6:57
Speaker 1: Meya Matrum, if rendered as a mere illusion, would imply this.
7:02
Speaker 1: But as I have shown in some detail with reference
7:04
Speaker 1: to passages from the Shandoggio Panishad, this was not exactly
7:08
Speaker 1: what was meant by the old Indian thinkers. I hold
7:12
Speaker 1: that even if some of them really thought so, they
7:14
Speaker 1: were mistaken, and their ultra rationalistic temper is to account
7:17
Speaker 1: for that. The brihad Oranayaka Panishad emphatically proclaims that the
7:22
Speaker 1: Aatman is the only reality and that all plurality is
7:25
Speaker 1: a mere matter of words. The Shandoggio Panishad, instead of
7:30
Speaker 1: starting with the Yatman, does so with the world and
7:33
Speaker 1: comes to the same conclusion from this standpoint as well, viz.
7:36
Speaker 1: That the world is strictly speaking, the Aatman itself, since
7:39
Speaker 1: there is no other existence but the Yatman. These two
7:43
Speaker 1: positions correspond to Schopenhauer's parallel sayings, one that the world
7:47
Speaker 1: is my representation and two that it is my will.
7:52
Speaker 1: As limited by space, time and causality. It is an appearance,
7:56
Speaker 1: but in its own nature it is the Yatman. My
7:59
Speaker 1: best thanks are due to Professor Paul Duson Keel, the Reverend,
8:02
Speaker 1: doctor J Eslyn Carpenter, Professor A. MacDonell, and Professor J.
8:07
Speaker 1: Smith Oxford for their various useful suggestions. I am also
8:12
Speaker 1: grateful to doctor F. H. Bradley, Doctor H. Rashdahal, Doctor F. C. S. Schiller,
8:20
Speaker 1: Reverend L. P. Jacks Oxford, Professor Henry Jones Glasgow, and
8:26
Speaker 1: Professor Rudolph Ouken Jenna, who were kind enough to give
8:29
Speaker 1: me opportunities to discuss with them the subject of Maya
8:32
Speaker 1: in the light of European philosophy in order to remove
8:35
Speaker 1: some of my difficulties. I have also to thank doctor F. W. Thomas,
8:40
Speaker 1: Librarian India Office, Professor L. D. Barnett of the British Museum,
8:45
Speaker 1: and the librarians of the Bodleean for their kind assistance
8:48
Speaker 1: with books and unpublished manuscripts to Professor Barnett. I am
8:53
Speaker 1: further obliged for correcting the proof sheets Probu Dutch Shastri,
8:59
Speaker 1: christ Church, Oxford, January nineteen eleven. Chapter one, History of
9:05
Speaker 1: the word Maya. Maya is one of the most important
9:09
Speaker 1: and prominent words in the vocabulary of Vedanta, that is,
9:12
Speaker 1: the philosophy of the end of the Vedas, the ancient
9:15
Speaker 1: Indian scriptures philosophy. If it had an unalterable and fixed
9:20
Speaker 1: meaning throughout the history of Indian thought, our task would
9:23
Speaker 1: have been lighter and we should have been saved the
9:25
Speaker 1: labor of writing this chapter. But as it is, the
9:29
Speaker 1: word is very fluid and has at different times assumed
9:32
Speaker 1: various shades of meaning. What it meant in a Vedic
9:35
Speaker 1: literature seems at first sight to be almost contradictory to
9:38
Speaker 1: its later connotation. Our present inquiry is intended to bring
9:42
Speaker 1: out the connecting links between its various meanings as they
9:45
Speaker 1: gradually passed through stages of transition. To avoid all subsequent
9:50
Speaker 1: error and confusion in understanding the conception of Maya, it
9:54
Speaker 1: seems necessary to make clear the ground by first coming
9:57
Speaker 1: to terms with the word itself. The miscan sception and
10:00
Speaker 1: misuse of words is at the root of a host
10:02
Speaker 1: of fallacies. Hence, we believe that no small part of
10:05
Speaker 1: our task is accomplished if we are able, by means
10:08
Speaker 1: of careful philological research, to define the concept of maya
10:11
Speaker 1: in relation to its historical development. This will furnish an
10:16
Speaker 1: insight into the doctrine of maya itself, which has always
10:19
Speaker 1: been a crux to the student of philosophy. In treating
10:22
Speaker 1: the word, we shall proceed chronologically and trace the development
10:26
Speaker 1: of its meaning down to the time of Shankara, when
10:28
Speaker 1: it acquired a rigid and technical sense which survives even today.
10:33
Speaker 1: Both Link and Wroth in the Saint Petersburg Dictionary give
10:36
Speaker 1: the following different meanings of the word art extraordinary capacity,
10:42
Speaker 1: miraculous power, artifice, cunning scheme, deceit, jugglery, and artificial creation,
10:48
Speaker 1: deceptive image, illusion deception. Now, these do not help us
10:53
Speaker 1: much by their mere juxtaposition. In order to be free
10:56
Speaker 1: from the fault of false analogy and hasty word derivation,
11:00
Speaker 1: we shall proceed inductively, and we now begin to view
11:03
Speaker 1: the meanings in connection with the context in which the
11:05
Speaker 1: word occurs. Geldner assigns the following meanings to the word
11:10
Speaker 1: as it occurs in the rig Veda, the oldest of
11:12
Speaker 1: the ancient Indian sacred hymns, and the atharva Veda. Firstly,
11:16
Speaker 1: transformation an assumed form, the art of transforming oneself and others. Enchantment,
11:22
Speaker 1: magical power, the art of magic, the power to perform wonders, omniscience, deceit, cunning, craftiness. Secondly, illusion, deception,
11:32
Speaker 1: semblance fiction, and thirdly the spirit that penetrates into the
11:36
Speaker 1: hidden phantasy. Eulen Beck likewise takes it to mean miraculous power, deceit,
11:42
Speaker 1: and deceptive image. Grass Man, after referring it to the
11:46
Speaker 1: root ma meaning to think, comparable to the Sanskrit mattie
11:50
Speaker 1: meaning thought and the Greek metis meaning cunning intelligence, gives
11:55
Speaker 1: the equivalence superhuman wisdom or cunning, divine art or magical art,
12:00
Speaker 1: magical image, deceptive image. Following Boat, Lincoln Roth money or
12:05
Speaker 1: Williams also says that the meanings art, wisdom, extraordinary or
12:10
Speaker 1: supernatural power are only found in the earlier language, but
12:13
Speaker 1: when he adds that in the Rigveda, the word also
12:16
Speaker 1: means illusion, unreality, deception, fraud, trick, sorcery, witchcraft and magic.
12:23
Speaker 1: He is not accurate and is using these words loosely.
12:27
Speaker 1: Some shades of these are of course present in the
12:29
Speaker 1: rig Veda, and their further development is noticed in the
12:32
Speaker 1: Atharva Veda. But to say that all these meanings are
12:35
Speaker 1: found in the rig Veda is not correct. It is
12:37
Speaker 1: a hasty and erroneous generalization. The Negantu, that is one
12:42
Speaker 1: of the earliest collections of Vedic synonyms, mentions Maya as
12:46
Speaker 1: one of the eleven names of pregna, meaning intelligence. The
12:51
Speaker 1: great commentator on the Negantu Yaska, brings out the same
12:55
Speaker 1: sense of intelligence while explaining several key passages from the
12:59
Speaker 1: sacred texts. We shall have occasion to see presently how
13:03
Speaker 1: far Siyana adheres to this meaning in his monumental commentary
13:06
Speaker 1: on the rig Veda. Without citing any more lists of meanings,
13:10
Speaker 1: let us approach directly the Sanskrit literature and the Vedas first,
13:14
Speaker 1: in order to judge the meaning correctly from usage in context.
13:19
Speaker 1: After a careful examination of all the passages where the
13:22
Speaker 1: word occurs in any of its forms in the huge
13:24
Speaker 1: bulk of the rig Veda, we arrive at the following conclusions. First,
13:29
Speaker 1: as regards frequency of occurrence, the form most commonly met
13:33
Speaker 1: with his maya, the nominative and accusative plural. It occurs
13:37
Speaker 1: no less than twenty four times. Next in order comes Mayaya,
13:42
Speaker 1: the instrumental singular, which occurs nineteen times. Mayana, the accusative
13:46
Speaker 1: plural and genitive singular of mine, meaning one who possesses Maya,
13:52
Speaker 1: occurs fifteen times, Maya be the instrumental plural thirteen times,
13:58
Speaker 1: Minum the accusative singular off mayin ten times, the word
14:02
Speaker 1: maya itself three times, and each of the forms mayam, Mayi,
14:07
Speaker 1: the nominative singular of main and minum, also occurs three times.
14:12
Speaker 1: Meini is found twice in Rigveda five forty eight one
14:17
Speaker 1: and ten five three, and meyina, the instrumental singular of mayin,
14:24
Speaker 1: only once in rig Veda six sixty three five. Other forms,
14:30
Speaker 1: including compounds, which occur once are Meini, Meyevinda, Mayavan, meyavnum,
14:36
Speaker 1: and Mayavina. Second, there are altogether seventy five hymns in
14:41
Speaker 1: the rig Veda in which the word appears in its
14:43
Speaker 1: simple or compound forms. Out of these, thirty five are
14:47
Speaker 1: addressed to Indra, the king of the gods. Eight to Agni,
14:50
Speaker 1: the god of fire for to the Ashvins the divine
14:55
Speaker 1: twin horsemen as well as to the Muruts the storm gods.
14:58
Speaker 1: Three to the vish Diva meaning all the gods, two each,
15:02
Speaker 1: to Varana, the god of cosmic order, Soma the sacred
15:06
Speaker 1: ritual drink personified as a deity, Maitravaruno, the paired deities
15:10
Speaker 1: of friendship and cosmic law, and Davaprathivu meaning heaven and Earth,
15:16
Speaker 1: and one each to ushas the goddess of dawn, Sarasvadi,
15:20
Speaker 1: the goddess of knowledge and speech, the Odiphiars the solar deities, Pushan,
15:25
Speaker 1: the god of journeys and nourishment, Atri or revered sage
15:29
Speaker 1: Nanum meaning knowledge personified the Ribus, the divine craftsman Indra, Varuno,
15:35
Speaker 1: the paired Indra and Varona, Samarkao, Soma and the sun
15:39
Speaker 1: god Meyabida meaning the breaker of illusion in Ravishnu Indra
15:44
Speaker 1: and Vishnu paired Prajapati Vaishwamitra the lord of creatures, and
15:48
Speaker 1: the sage Vishwamitra and Surya of Isvanarau the sun and
15:53
Speaker 1: the universal fire. Third, the word maya is not employed
15:58
Speaker 1: in one and the same sense throughout the rig Veda.
16:01
Speaker 1: The Indian tradition itself bears ample testimony to this fact.
16:06
Speaker 1: As a rule, following Yasca Sayana in most cases gives
16:10
Speaker 1: the meaning progna that is energy, mental power, as distinguished
16:14
Speaker 1: from physical. But he is not always definite. In fact,
16:17
Speaker 1: he could not be. So it would be a gratuitous
16:21
Speaker 1: assumption on our part to expect the same word to
16:23
Speaker 1: be used in one and the same rigid sense by
16:25
Speaker 1: so many different rishis, that is, seers or sacred poets,
16:29
Speaker 1: who were by no means all. Contemporary tradition, as preserved
16:34
Speaker 1: in Piana's commentary, tells us that the two meanings progna
16:37
Speaker 1: meaning intelligence or wisdom and kapata meaning deceit, are the
16:42
Speaker 1: most common and sometimes run parallel. For instance, even in
16:47
Speaker 1: the very first hymn of the rig Veda one eleven seven,
16:51
Speaker 1: in which the word appears as maya be meaning by
16:54
Speaker 1: means of maya and minam meaning the one possessing maya,
16:58
Speaker 1: Sayana seems to waver between these two meanings and leaves
17:02
Speaker 1: the reader to make his own choice. He explains mayabe
17:06
Speaker 1: as kapatavas essay literally by special stratagems or artifices, but
17:11
Speaker 1: adds at the same time that it may also mean prajnavii,
17:15
Speaker 1: meaning by wondrous powers, as the scholar Griffith translates it.
17:19
Speaker 1: Wilson adopts the first meaning by stratagems. Ludwig translates it
17:24
Speaker 1: as through supernatural power. Rosen also renders it as by wonders,
17:31
Speaker 1: but these are not the only meanings accepted by tradition.
17:35
Speaker 1: In rig Veda three twenty seven, seven Sayana explains mayaya
17:40
Speaker 1: meaning by maya as karmaviseebijnana, that is, by knowledge of
17:45
Speaker 1: sacred rights. This meaning appears to us to be rather
17:49
Speaker 1: far fetched. In Rigveda three sixty one, he renders the
17:54
Speaker 1: same word as karmabi, meaning by ritual acts. In three
17:59
Speaker 1: sixty Ue XI one seven, maya is translated as power
18:03
Speaker 1: or glory praparrupa, literally in the form of effulgence or light.
18:09
Speaker 1: In Rigveda five thirty twenty one and five thirty six,
18:14
Speaker 1: Sayana emphatically gives the meaning shukti meaning power. Again, keeping
18:20
Speaker 1: aside for a moment, the first and tenth books of
18:22
Speaker 1: the rig Veda, which are now supposed, on good evidence
18:25
Speaker 1: to have been subsequently added to the original collection. We
18:28
Speaker 1: find the same one of fixity of the meaning conveyed
18:31
Speaker 1: by the term in the other books. For instance, according
18:35
Speaker 1: to Siana's tradition, the word is used in a sense
18:38
Speaker 1: of deception in Rigveda two eleven, ten, three thirty four, six, four,
18:44
Speaker 1: sixteen nine, six twenty four and seven one hundred four
18:50
Speaker 1: twenty four, and so forth, while both the meanings power
18:54
Speaker 1: and deception are taken in five thirty six simultaneously. In
18:59
Speaker 1: five ive thirty one seven the word is taken to
19:03
Speaker 1: mean young woman. This meaning, too has its own justification
19:07
Speaker 1: and is not unconnected with the other two meanings. In
19:11
Speaker 1: what sense a woman can be called maya is not
19:14
Speaker 1: to be discussed here, but will find its appropriate place
19:16
Speaker 1: in the sequel. The two chief meanings, therefore, which the
19:21
Speaker 1: word is assigned in the rig Veda are power that
19:24
Speaker 1: is projna, literally knowledge, and deception that is kapata or vankena,
19:30
Speaker 1: meaning fraud. The above examination of the various passages in
19:35
Speaker 1: which the word occurs has shown us that wherever it
19:37
Speaker 1: means power, the idea of mystery necessarily goes with it.
19:41
Speaker 1: That is, it does not mean any physical power, but
19:45
Speaker 1: mysterious power of the will, which we would translate into
19:48
Speaker 1: such Sanskrit expressions as sinkle pashakti meaning the power of
19:52
Speaker 1: intention or will, or ichishukti meaning the power of desire.
19:58
Speaker 1: In rig Veda three fifty three eight, for instance, Indra
20:02
Speaker 1: is spoken of as assuming many different forms, and this
20:05
Speaker 1: is not done by his physical power, but simply by
20:08
Speaker 1: his wonderful and extraordinary will power, that is unacaarapagrahanna sammarthia,
20:13
Speaker 1: meaning the capacity to take on many forms. He wills
20:18
Speaker 1: that he may assume such and such forms, and it
20:20
Speaker 1: is realized. Hence Indra is very frequently termed Mayen, meaning
20:24
Speaker 1: the possessor of maya. In the vedicims, certain mysterious things
20:30
Speaker 1: or results are produced by this mysterious will power, and
20:33
Speaker 1: these results, being extraordinary by their very nature, may be
20:36
Speaker 1: said to set it not the ordinary human understanding, which,
20:40
Speaker 1: because of its inherent limitations, is apt to be deceived
20:43
Speaker 1: by such phenomena. Hence the idea of mystery being common
20:48
Speaker 1: to both these meanings, it is quite easy to understand
20:51
Speaker 1: the transition from the idea of mysterious willpower to that
20:55
Speaker 1: of deception. In fact, the two ideas interpenetrate each other
21:00
Speaker 1: so much so that it seems to us rather a
21:02
Speaker 1: forced distinction to make when we speak of the transition. Still,
21:06
Speaker 1: distinctions are to be made, especially when they help us
21:09
Speaker 1: toward a clearer understanding of that which is really beyond them.
21:13
Speaker 1: We may, however, note here in passing, that where Indra
21:16
Speaker 1: is spoken of as assuming various forms, it appears that
21:19
Speaker 1: the singers of the hymns and the Indians of the
21:21
Speaker 1: Vedic age in general, were not unaware of a distinction
21:24
Speaker 1: between the one and the many, of the possibility of
21:27
Speaker 1: the one becoming the many, and of the latter being
21:29
Speaker 1: a deceptive creation of a mysterious power. This inference seems
21:33
Speaker 1: to us to be reasonable and valid. The fact is
21:37
Speaker 1: very important, as we shall have the opportunity to speak
21:40
Speaker 1: more of it later. Here we cannot do anything more
21:43
Speaker 1: than simply mention it, since we are now concerned only
21:46
Speaker 1: with the meanings of the word, so far as it
21:48
Speaker 1: can be determined by a collation of ancient texts in
21:51
Speaker 1: a more or less chronological order. Now, the word does
21:55
Speaker 1: not occur so often in the Yege of Veda. The
21:57
Speaker 1: Veda of sacrificial formulas, and the sama Veda the Veda
22:01
Speaker 1: of melodies. This cannot surprise us in any way. These
22:06
Speaker 1: two vedas contain mostly the hymns of the rig Veda,
22:09
Speaker 1: which are adapted and arranged to suit their particular functions,
22:13
Speaker 1: as well as some new hymns. In the Yeja Veda,
22:16
Speaker 1: all ideas are subservient to sacrifice, yajna and its various
22:20
Speaker 1: elaborate ceremonies, while in the sama Veda, chanting or singing
22:24
Speaker 1: the hymns is the chief function. The rig Veda is
22:28
Speaker 1: the chief source of these two vedas, which, along with
22:30
Speaker 1: its form, what is known as trevidya meaning triple knowledge.
22:35
Speaker 1: The comparative absence of the word maya from the yeger
22:38
Speaker 1: Veda and the sama Veda does not affect our examination,
22:41
Speaker 1: as the rig Veda can be safely taken as an
22:44
Speaker 1: index to the ideas and views of the ancient Indians
22:46
Speaker 1: of that age. It was not very long before these
22:50
Speaker 1: two vedas sprang into existence to be ranked with the
22:53
Speaker 1: rig Veda as to their importance and authority in the
22:55
Speaker 1: tradition of the Aryans. In fact, these three vedas seemed
23:00
Speaker 1: to have been brought into existence almost simultaneously, though it
23:03
Speaker 1: must be admitted that it took a considerably long interval
23:06
Speaker 1: of time to give them the shape in which they
23:08
Speaker 1: are found at present, that is, as a complete set
23:11
Speaker 1: of books. The Atharva Veda was added to the Triple
23:14
Speaker 1: Knowledge much later. The fact has been amply proved by
23:18
Speaker 1: a critical examination of both external and internal evidence. It
23:23
Speaker 1: is not for us to enter into the question here.
23:26
Speaker 1: The Atharva Veda represents a different state of civilization of
23:29
Speaker 1: society from that described in the rig Veda, and we
23:33
Speaker 1: are satisfied to note that the word maya is not
23:35
Speaker 1: missing from it altogether. The word occurs in ten books
23:39
Speaker 1: only in sixteen hymns, and twenty times. In all, The
23:44
Speaker 1: basic form maya occurs only once. The instrumental singular mayaya,
23:49
Speaker 1: meaning by means of maya, occurs most frequently, namely eight times.
23:55
Speaker 1: Mayana meaning of the one possessing maya, occurs three times,
24:00
Speaker 1: and maya and maya twice each. Other forms which occur
24:04
Speaker 1: only once are may Maya, Mayabi, and Mayi. From the
24:10
Speaker 1: very nature of the contents of the Atharva Veda, it
24:13
Speaker 1: is easy to judge the meaning of the word maya
24:15
Speaker 1: as used in it. Here, the mysterious or magical element
24:19
Speaker 1: of the power spoken of in the rig Veda is
24:21
Speaker 1: more emphasized, and there hardly seems any scope for doubting
24:25
Speaker 1: the meaning. It means magic throughout and is even translated
24:30
Speaker 1: as illusion, the great controversial word in our subject by
24:34
Speaker 1: the scholar Whitney. The two passages in which it is
24:37
Speaker 1: rendered so are found in the well known mystic him
24:40
Speaker 1: extolling the viraj, the cosmic form of the universe. For example,
24:44
Speaker 1: in atharva Veda ten twenty two, the azuris that is,
24:48
Speaker 1: the demonic forces called to her o illusion, that is,
24:52
Speaker 1: maya come. It may also be stated by the way
24:57
Speaker 1: that several passages in the atharva Veda are taken direct
25:00
Speaker 1: from the rig Veda. Now we have seen so far
25:03
Speaker 1: that maya in the rig Veda means a wondrous or
25:06
Speaker 1: supernatural power, an extraordinary skill, and that the supernatural element
25:11
Speaker 1: is more strongly emphasized in the atharva Veda, where it
25:14
Speaker 1: means magic and hence illusion. With regard to the word
25:18
Speaker 1: occurring in the Brominas, that is, the ancient prose commentaries
25:22
Speaker 1: on the Veda kymns, it would be useless for us
25:26
Speaker 1: to enter into details here. The truly philosophical treatises, which
25:30
Speaker 1: are of fundamental importance for our purpose are the final
25:34
Speaker 1: portions of the Braminas, called the Upanishads, meaning sitting down near,
25:38
Speaker 1: that is, receiving secret teaching from a master. But before
25:42
Speaker 1: we take up the Upanishads proper, we may quote a
25:45
Speaker 1: few references from the Brominas too, by way of the
25:48
Speaker 1: stalai palakanyaya, that is, the maxim of the cooking pot
25:52
Speaker 1: and the boiling rice. By finding one grain well cooked,
25:57
Speaker 1: we infer the same with regard to all the others.
25:59
Speaker 1: The conditions of the whole class may be inferred from
26:02
Speaker 1: that of a part, if the whole is made up
26:04
Speaker 1: of homogeneous and similar parts. The vagison a semida, one
26:09
Speaker 1: of the recensions of the yeger Veda, contains the forms maya, mayam, mayaya,
26:14
Speaker 1: and mayam, and the commentator Mahittera gives the words prejna
26:18
Speaker 1: meaning intelligence and budhi meaning intellect or discernment, as synonyms
26:23
Speaker 1: of maya. The iteria Brahmana has mayaya, mayam, mayavant meaning
26:30
Speaker 1: possessing maya, and mayevadra meaning possessing more Maya, where the
26:35
Speaker 1: word clearly means supernatural or magical skill. The form mayaya
26:40
Speaker 1: also occurs in the Tatarie of Brahmana, where as Seyana
26:44
Speaker 1: also adds it means by divine power. Further, the Shatapatha Brahmana,
26:50
Speaker 1: one of the most important Brahmana texts, two, contains the
26:53
Speaker 1: forms mayam, may and mayavant, where the word means supernatural power.
27:00
Speaker 1: The pank of Imsadi Brahmana also has the word mayaya
27:03
Speaker 1: in the same sense. Mayavant as an adjective is seen
27:07
Speaker 1: in the Iteria Brahmanah and in the Shatapatha Brahmanah. These
27:11
Speaker 1: typical examples are more than sufficient for our purpose, and
27:15
Speaker 1: we now hasten to quote references from the Upanishads and
27:18
Speaker 1: from the Bagavad Gida, meaning the Song of God, which
27:21
Speaker 1: may be termed the final Upanishad or the kernel of
27:24
Speaker 1: all the Upanishads. The Brahadoranayaka Upanishad, the oldest as well
27:30
Speaker 1: as the most important in many ways, contains the word mayabe,
27:34
Speaker 1: meaning by the powers of Maya. The Prashna Upanishad, meaning
27:39
Speaker 1: the Upanishad of Questions, has the word maya, where it
27:43
Speaker 1: is spoken of as a defect, along with jaimum meaning
27:46
Speaker 1: moral crookedness and anhridam meaning telling a lie. It is
27:50
Speaker 1: itself mithiak rupadosha, meaning the defect of hypocrisy or false conduct.
27:57
Speaker 1: The Schwedish Vater Upanishad has the word maya, where it
28:00
Speaker 1: means the great cosmic illusion. In his commentary on the passage,
28:04
Speaker 1: Shunkara adds that it signifies the whole world as a
28:07
Speaker 1: sum total of pleasure, pain, delusion, and so on, and
28:10
Speaker 1: also uses forms of the word where the primordial matter
28:13
Speaker 1: of the Sonkia philosophy is spoken of as maya, and
28:17
Speaker 1: further where the great Lord is called Mayen, meaning the
28:21
Speaker 1: master of Maya, and is said to create the universe
28:23
Speaker 1: only by his mayashakti, meaning the power of illusion. Among
28:28
Speaker 1: the later Upanishads to the word occurs in Nrisamataupaniu Panishad
28:32
Speaker 1: and Unrisimhattapaniu Panishad, both devoted to the lion headed form
28:36
Speaker 1: of Vishnu. The term meyamatrum, meaning nothing but maya or
28:41
Speaker 1: mere illusion, appears in these texts repeatedly. As these and
28:46
Speaker 1: other minor Upanishads are not easily available, we give the
28:49
Speaker 1: following quotations. All of these passages describe Maya as the
28:53
Speaker 1: power that envelopes all things, as the force that makes
28:56
Speaker 1: the soul behave as if diluted, and as the principle
28:59
Speaker 1: through which the entire apparent world, the waking state, the
29:02
Speaker 1: dreaming state, and deep sleep is declared to be nothing
29:05
Speaker 1: but illusion. In the Kulico Panishad meaning the Crown Upanishad,
29:11
Speaker 1: Maya is spoken of as Vicaragannum, meaning the mother of transformations,
29:16
Speaker 1: Ashtarapam meaning having eight forms, ajam meaning unborn, and throuvam
29:22
Speaker 1: meaning constant, and is described as bringing about the existence
29:26
Speaker 1: of the phenomenal world. The Sarvapanisatsa, meaning the essence of
29:31
Speaker 1: all the Upanishads, inquires into the meanings of four fundamental terms,
29:36
Speaker 1: the individual self, the supreme Self, the self, and Maya,
29:41
Speaker 1: and answers that Maya is beginningless, that it is found
29:44
Speaker 1: in both valid and invalid means of knowledge, that it
29:47
Speaker 1: is neither existent nor non existent, nor both, and that
29:50
Speaker 1: when one attempts to describe it it eludes description. Yet
29:53
Speaker 1: when one does not attempt to describe it, it seems
29:56
Speaker 1: to be there, And so it is said to be black.
29:58
Speaker 1: Shanisunya meaning devoid of defining characteristics. The Ramapravatipania Upanishad, which
30:05
Speaker 1: is one of the sectarian Upanishads, speaking of Rama and
30:08
Speaker 1: Sida as the primordial matter and the cosmic spirit, uses
30:12
Speaker 1: maya in the sense of the creative power through which
30:14
Speaker 1: the divine descends into human form, and in the sense
30:17
Speaker 1: of the knowledge of illusion as a path to liberation.
30:20
Speaker 1: The Gopic and Dana Upanishad and the Krishna Upanishad speak
30:24
Speaker 1: of maya as threefold, as invincible ajaya meaning unconquerable, as
30:30
Speaker 1: the power of Vishnu that deludes the entire world, and
30:33
Speaker 1: as the body of illusion assumed by the Lord. In
30:37
Speaker 1: all these passages, maya means appearance or delusion. We are
30:41
Speaker 1: consciously using these two words as synonyms here. The same
30:45
Speaker 1: sense is further found in the Cavola Upanishad, meaning the
30:49
Speaker 1: Upanishad of absolute aloneness or liberation, and in the Matri
30:52
Speaker 1: Upanishad meaning the Upanishad of friendship, where the world is
30:56
Speaker 1: described as being like the illusory city of the Gondharfs,
31:01
Speaker 1: the celestial musicians, or like a magic show. One of
31:05
Speaker 1: the most brilliant and important works on Advadism, that is,
31:08
Speaker 1: the philosophy of nonduality is gadapitus Korekas, meaning philosophical verses
31:14
Speaker 1: on the Manducchia Upanishad. These are divided into four parts,
31:19
Speaker 1: firstly Agama meaning tradition or scripture, secondly Bytathia meaning unreality,
31:26
Speaker 1: thirdly advida meaning nonduality, and fourthly aladasanti, meaning the quenching
31:32
Speaker 1: of the firebrand. Each of these is regarded as a
31:36
Speaker 1: separate Upanishad of the subject matter of this important work.
31:40
Speaker 1: We shall have occasion to speak in chapter two, but
31:43
Speaker 1: here we may only point out that the word maya
31:46
Speaker 1: is here also used in the same sense of appearance
31:49
Speaker 1: or delusion. In one passage, however, it means supernatural power.
31:54
Speaker 1: The Korekas contain sixteen passages altogether in which the word
31:58
Speaker 1: maya occurs. The world is likened to a world of
32:02
Speaker 1: dreams and to illusion, both of which are false. The
32:06
Speaker 1: cosmic illusion, under the influence of which the individual feels
32:09
Speaker 1: as if asleep, is spoken of as beginningless. The duality,
32:14
Speaker 1: that is, the multiplicity of which the world is composed
32:17
Speaker 1: is declared to be mere illusion. May A matrimidem vedom
32:20
Speaker 1: at vedem paramartheta, meaning this duality is nothing but maya.
32:24
Speaker 1: Nonduality is the ultimate truth. In one passage, Maya is
32:29
Speaker 1: said to be the lord's own wondrous power spamaya, meaning
32:33
Speaker 1: by his own maya. Here the sense of such a
32:36
Speaker 1: supernatural power is maintained, but as will be shown presently,
32:41
Speaker 1: the two ideas are closely allied to each other. The
32:44
Speaker 1: sense of illusion is a natural development of the idea
32:47
Speaker 1: of such a power. Maya is spoken of as the
32:50
Speaker 1: Lord's great illusion, by which he himself deludes. The waking
32:54
Speaker 1: world is said to have no more substantiality than a
32:57
Speaker 1: dreaming world or a fatam organa mirage. The so called
33:02
Speaker 1: objective existences in this world are declared false and mere
33:06
Speaker 1: creations of the ottman's maya, that is, of the soul's
33:09
Speaker 1: own avidya, meaning ignorance. The differences and the plurality are
33:14
Speaker 1: said to be due to mere illusion. It is further
33:17
Speaker 1: discussed how the world is created not from non being,
33:20
Speaker 1: but from being not in reality, but as it were.
33:24
Speaker 1: The empirical existence of the world is granted like the
33:27
Speaker 1: one granted to an illusory elephant produced by a conjurer.
33:32
Speaker 1: Maya is said to have no real existence at all.
33:35
Speaker 1: The creation and destruction of worldly objects is described as maya,
33:39
Speaker 1: an appearance seeming true only in the realm of appearance.
33:43
Speaker 1: The seeming duality is spoken of as mere vignan ameya,
33:46
Speaker 1: meaning made of consciousness alone, and the waking and dreaming
33:50
Speaker 1: states are compared in this regard. The same sense is
33:54
Speaker 1: observed in the great epic the Mahabarata, meaning the Great
33:57
Speaker 1: Tale of the Barada Dynasty, in set several passages where
34:01
Speaker 1: Maya appears as a conjuring power, as the power of delusion,
34:04
Speaker 1: and as a term for a celestial woman or nymph.
34:08
Speaker 1: Now we come to the bag of ad Gida, which
34:10
Speaker 1: is the finest gem in our New Testament of the Upanishads,
34:13
Speaker 1: and which contains the essentials of all our philosophy. In
34:17
Speaker 1: verse four six, the word at maamayah is used, meaning
34:22
Speaker 1: by the Maya of the self or by his own
34:24
Speaker 1: will power. Here it means will power. In verse seven fourteen,
34:29
Speaker 1: we read davi hiisha ganame mama maya durityaya mam ive
34:34
Speaker 1: ye propadiat mayamet aan tarrenti te, meaning this divine Maya
34:38
Speaker 1: of mine made of the three qualities called gunnis, that is,
34:42
Speaker 1: the fundamental strands of nature is hard to overcome, but
34:46
Speaker 1: those who take refuge in me alone cross beyond this Maya.
34:50
Speaker 1: Here it means illusion, which, being dependent on God, is
34:54
Speaker 1: spoken of as divine. In verse seven fifteen, the word
34:59
Speaker 1: may tkapatag nana is used, meaning those whose wisdom has
35:03
Speaker 1: been carried away by Maya. Here to the same sense
35:06
Speaker 1: of illusion. In verse eighteen sixty one, yenturadani Mayaya, meaning
35:12
Speaker 1: mounted on a machine by Maya, describes how all beings
35:15
Speaker 1: are made to revolve as if mounted on a mechanism
35:17
Speaker 1: by the power of illusion. Here too, it means the
35:20
Speaker 1: great elusive power. Now let us turn to the system
35:24
Speaker 1: of the Vedanta, properly so called as one of the
35:27
Speaker 1: six systems or schools of Indian philosophy. The sutras, that
35:32
Speaker 1: is aphorisms, are condensed formulas which constitute this system are
35:36
Speaker 1: called the Brahma Sutras or the Vedanta Sutras, and are
35:39
Speaker 1: five hundred and fifty five in number. The word maya, however,
35:44
Speaker 1: occurs only in one of these three two three, which
35:48
Speaker 1: runs may matrium two carts nina anebhiviachtis bearipath, meaning it
35:54
Speaker 1: is nothing but maya in its entirety because its true
35:57
Speaker 1: nature is not fully manifest. Where speaking of the nature
36:01
Speaker 1: of a dream, the dream world is pronounced to be
36:03
Speaker 1: mere illusion. The scholar Max Muller seems to be incorrect
36:07
Speaker 1: when he says that the word need not mean more
36:10
Speaker 1: than a dream. In that case, the sutra would mean
36:13
Speaker 1: that the dream world is a dream, which hardly makes sense. Doubtless,
36:18
Speaker 1: the word means illusion here, as it is quite in
36:21
Speaker 1: keeping with the spirit of the preceding two sutras, which
36:24
Speaker 1: also bear on the same subject of the unreality of
36:27
Speaker 1: the dream world. The most important, authoritative and popular, as
36:32
Speaker 1: well as the oldest commentary on the Vedanta sutras is
36:35
Speaker 1: the one by Shankara called the a Sheraraka Bashia, meaning
36:38
Speaker 1: the Commentary on the Embodied Self. This commentary has been
36:43
Speaker 1: so much respected that it forms a part and parcel
36:46
Speaker 1: of the technical system of the Vedanta together with the sutras.
36:50
Speaker 1: Of the intrinsic merit of Shankara's commentary, or of its
36:53
Speaker 1: relation to the Brahma sutras, we shall have occasion to
36:56
Speaker 1: speak later on. Suffice it to say here that the
36:59
Speaker 1: term maya is found in the commentary fifteen times, and
37:03
Speaker 1: it invariably has the sense of delusion. In one passage,
37:07
Speaker 1: Shankara uses the word maya vin meaning a juggler or conjurer,
37:12
Speaker 1: describing how a supreme spiritual being, one who is eternally
37:15
Speaker 1: pure consciousness itself appears through a vidya meaning ignorance, and
37:20
Speaker 1: through maya like a juggler, in many forms. In another passage,
37:25
Speaker 1: Shankara says e ka eva paramesh for a kodistanitya vijnan
37:30
Speaker 1: aeditor aviadjyaya mayaya mayavad anakatavvipaviate, meaning the one supreme Lord alone,
37:36
Speaker 1: immovable and eternal. The substratum of consciousness is perceived in
37:40
Speaker 1: multiple ways, through ignorance and through maya like a conjurer.
37:44
Speaker 1: Further passages describe maya as a mahasashapti, meaning a great
37:49
Speaker 1: deep sleep in which the world is immersed, as that
37:52
Speaker 1: which is aviacta meaning unmanifest, as the force by which
37:56
Speaker 1: a conjurer spreads out the world, as that which, like
38:00
Speaker 1: a conjurer's display, does not truly touch him in past,
38:03
Speaker 1: present or future because it has no real substance, And
38:07
Speaker 1: as the illusion by which the apparent diversity of elephants,
38:10
Speaker 1: horses and other creatures is produced merely by a suppression
38:14
Speaker 1: of the conjurer's own true nature. It is true beyond
38:17
Speaker 1: doubt that shang Kara means by maya nothing but illusion.
38:22
Speaker 1: From Shankara's time downward, the phraseology of the Vedanta was
38:26
Speaker 1: more and more settled technically, and even modern writers on
38:29
Speaker 1: the Vedanta used the word maya in the same sense
38:32
Speaker 1: of illusion which was so clearly brought out by Shankara.
38:36
Speaker 1: After his time, there has not been any desire to
38:38
Speaker 1: change the meaning of the term by a different usage. Hence,
38:42
Speaker 1: it will hardly be of much use to examine the
38:44
Speaker 1: later Sanskrit literature on the Vedanta in order to find
38:47
Speaker 1: the word maya. In the first place, it is exceedingly
38:51
Speaker 1: difficult to do so, since the later literature is so varied, vast,
38:55
Speaker 1: and undefined in extent. Secondly, the later Vedanta is in
38:59
Speaker 1: many case mixed with the ideas of the Sonkia philosophy, Buddhism,
39:03
Speaker 1: and so on. And Thirdly, even if we were to
39:07
Speaker 1: succeed in collecting all the more important modern works on
39:10
Speaker 1: pure Vedanta and were to collate the passages containing maya
39:13
Speaker 1: in a similar way, it would scarcely be of any prophet, since,
39:17
Speaker 1: as we have already said, the modern usage of the
39:20
Speaker 1: term is in no way different from that of Shangkara.
39:24
Speaker 1: A glance through such works as the Pankadashi meaning the
39:27
Speaker 1: fifteen Chapters, the Venisara meaning the essence of Vedanta, the
39:32
Speaker 1: Vedanta Parabasha meaning the definition of Vedanta, the Atmaboda meaning
39:37
Speaker 1: self knowledge, and the vivicachutaminy meaning the crest jewel of
39:40
Speaker 1: discernment will amply confirm this fact. We may therefore safely
39:46
Speaker 1: close our survey of the meanings of the term when
39:48
Speaker 1: we have come down to Shankara's time. Apart from its
39:52
Speaker 1: philosophic use, the word maya is used in modern classical
39:56
Speaker 1: Sanskrit to convey other ideas as well. It means a
40:00
Speaker 1: female juggler. Again, it means deception, fraud, kapata, or hypocrisy chadma,
40:08
Speaker 1: for example in the Mahabarata in the line meaning let
40:11
Speaker 1: both of them serve the teacher without any deception. It
40:15
Speaker 1: also means illusion in an unphilosophical sense, that is, in
40:20
Speaker 1: an ordinary way, free from the technical shade of the
40:22
Speaker 1: philosophical idea, for example in the Ragavamsha meaning the dynasty
40:28
Speaker 1: of Ragu, we find the line meaning you have been
40:31
Speaker 1: tested by me through creating an illusion. The word is
40:34
Speaker 1: also used sometimes as a proper name. The Buddha's mother
40:38
Speaker 1: was called Maya full name Maya Devi, meaning the goddess Maya,
40:43
Speaker 1: as one of the Buddhas names recorded in the ancient
40:45
Speaker 1: dictionary amer Kosha is made of Ajuda, meaning son of
40:49
Speaker 1: the goddess Maya. Even at the present day in India,
40:53
Speaker 1: some girls are actually named Maya Devi, Mayavetai, or Mayakore.
40:58
Speaker 1: The chief reason why they are so named is that
41:00
Speaker 1: they are looked upon as auspicious if their name means
41:03
Speaker 1: wealth or a bringer of wealth, everything bearing on wealth
41:06
Speaker 1: being supposed to be auspicious. In India, almost all names
41:11
Speaker 1: mean something definite. Most of them are derived from the
41:13
Speaker 1: designations of some gods or goddesses. It is supposed that
41:18
Speaker 1: if a girl is named Maya, she will ever be
41:20
Speaker 1: abounding in riches. This idea of riches leads us to
41:25
Speaker 1: the next meaning of the word, which is the goddess
41:27
Speaker 1: of wealth called Lakshmi. Lakshmi is the presiding deity of wealth,
41:32
Speaker 1: and her presence is always desired by the Hindus. Every
41:36
Speaker 1: year in the month of Ashvina, there is a special
41:38
Speaker 1: festival observed called the Da Pamela, meaning a row of lamps,
41:42
Speaker 1: as on that day, every Hindu light's a number of lamps,
41:45
Speaker 1: generally of clay, arranged in long rows in all parts
41:49
Speaker 1: of his house, especially outside. A special traditional story of
41:54
Speaker 1: Lakshmi is recited and it is hoped that the goddess
41:57
Speaker 1: of wealth will come to all those who love light
42:00
Speaker 1: and not darkness. The word also sometimes means mere wealth,
42:05
Speaker 1: which is especially noticeable in modern works in Hindi and Punjabi.
42:10
Speaker 1: In the Sonkia system, Maya is identified with procrity, meaning
42:14
Speaker 1: primordial matter or nature, as the source of the universe,
42:18
Speaker 1: with the distinct difference that in the Sonkia system property
42:21
Speaker 1: is real. It is the equilibrium of the three qualities
42:25
Speaker 1: goodness of Satpha meaning purity and luminosity, Rajas meaning passion
42:31
Speaker 1: and activity, and tamas meaning inertia and darkness. It is
42:36
Speaker 1: also called pridana, meaning the primary substance. It has a
42:41
Speaker 1: real and independent existence and brings about the evolution of
42:44
Speaker 1: the whole world, in company with Purusha meaning the cosmic
42:48
Speaker 1: spirit or pure consciousness. In other words, the Sonkia system
42:53
Speaker 1: is based on an out and out dualism. This dualism
42:56
Speaker 1: is questioned and finally resolved by the Vedanta in so
42:59
Speaker 1: far as its property is transformed into maya and parushia
43:03
Speaker 1: into Brahmin, meaning the absolute or ultimate reality, and so
43:07
Speaker 1: the mutual opposition of the two is destroyed. The word
43:11
Speaker 1: maya is derived from the root ma, meaning to measure
43:15
Speaker 1: mayd and aya iti that is that by which something
43:18
Speaker 1: is measured, meaning thereby, as tradition has it, that elusive
43:22
Speaker 1: projection of the world by which the immeasurable Brahmin appears
43:25
Speaker 1: as if measured the same route, further gives the sense
43:29
Speaker 1: of to build, leading to the idea of appearance or delusion. Sayana,
43:34
Speaker 1: in his commentary on Rigveda one eleven seven, derives the
43:39
Speaker 1: word from the same root meaning to measure. Further On,
43:43
Speaker 1: while explaining the instrumental form mayaya in rig Veda three
43:47
Speaker 1: twenty seven seven, he derives it from the root ma,
43:51
Speaker 1: meaning to know or to measure, adding that maya signifies
43:55
Speaker 1: either the knowledge of the object of the ritual or
43:57
Speaker 1: the means by which the ritual is measured, is understood
44:01
Speaker 1: or performed. We are inclined to say that this derivation
44:05
Speaker 1: of Psianas is a little far fetched. Another rather fanciful derivation,
44:10
Speaker 1: giving the meaning correctly nonetheless, is maya equals Ma plus yea,
44:16
Speaker 1: that is that which is not, meaning that which truly
44:20
Speaker 1: is not but still appears to be. This, however, is
44:24
Speaker 1: merely an interesting derivation without any principles of etymology. Another
44:29
Speaker 1: way to derive it would be that which shows itself,
44:32
Speaker 1: that which appears to our view without having any real existence.
44:36
Speaker 1: This would be from the root Ma, meaning to show. Hence,
44:40
Speaker 1: the conception of maya as the causal will power that
44:44
Speaker 1: is ichishakti or projna may be derived from ma meaning
44:50
Speaker 1: to know, and as the effectual state of the world,
44:52
Speaker 1: as illusion from ma meaning to measure, to build, and
44:56
Speaker 1: so on. To sum up, we have seen that the
44:59
Speaker 1: word maya meant in a rig Veda firstly supernatural power,
45:04
Speaker 1: mysterious will power, wonderful skill, and that the idea of
45:07
Speaker 1: the underlying mystery being more emphasized later on, it came
45:11
Speaker 1: to mean in the atharva Veda secondly magic and illusion.
45:16
Speaker 1: And further we saw that in the Brahminas and the
45:18
Speaker 1: Upanishads also it meant thirdly illusion, and that this meaning
45:23
Speaker 1: was more and more fixed subsequently till in the time
45:26
Speaker 1: of Shankari was established. Beyond doubt, the sense of illusion
45:30
Speaker 1: may easily be found to exist in embryo even in
45:33
Speaker 1: the Vedic usage of the term. For example, where in
45:36
Speaker 1: the rig Veda it meant power or skill, it always
45:39
Speaker 1: meant supernatural or wondrous power and not ordinary physical power.
45:45
Speaker 1: The idea of mystery or wonder was always present, and
45:48
Speaker 1: it is this very element that, in its developed form,
45:52
Speaker 1: gives the sense of illusion or appearance. The idea of
45:56
Speaker 1: magic in the Atharva Veda formed a link between the
45:59
Speaker 1: old meaning of supernatural power and the modern one of
46:02
Speaker 1: appearance or illusion. As we have already pointed out, Maya
46:07
Speaker 1: has been viewed principally from two aspects. Firstly as the
46:11
Speaker 1: principle of creation, Maya as a cause corresponding to the
46:15
Speaker 1: sense of shakti meaning wondrous power, or secondly as the
46:20
Speaker 1: phenomenal creation itself Maya as an effect corresponding to the
46:24
Speaker 1: sense of illusion, appearance and so on. This short summary,
46:29
Speaker 1: we hope will suffice as an introduction to the conception
46:32
Speaker 1: of Maya. In the following chapter, the meaning of the
46:36
Speaker 1: term having been discussed, we will now attempt to trace
46:39
Speaker 1: the development of the theory of Maya from Vedic times
46:41
Speaker 1: down to Shankaras, when its usage was finally settled, limiting
46:45
Speaker 1: ourselves to the system of the Vedanta proper. If we
46:48
Speaker 1: were to attempt to trace the conception of Maya or
46:51
Speaker 1: its alternative conceptions in other systems, it would lead us
46:54
Speaker 1: out of our present scope. We hope, however, to be
46:58
Speaker 1: able sometime in the near future, to write a separate
47:01
Speaker 1: treatise on this doctrine with special reference to its place
47:03
Speaker 1: in modern Hindu philosophy and its analogies in other Eastern
47:07
Speaker 1: and Western religions and philosophies. For the present, we have
47:11
Speaker 1: to confine ourselves mainly to the historical view of the
47:13
Speaker 1: conception of Maya within the system of the Vedanta. Chapter two,
47:18
Speaker 1: Development of the Conception of Maya. After a brief philological
47:23
Speaker 1: survey of the word Maya, we now turn to the
47:25
Speaker 1: idea itself. The word and the idea are not to
47:29
Speaker 1: be confused, since such a confusion is productive of various
47:32
Speaker 1: false assumptions as to the doctrine of maya in relation
47:35
Speaker 1: to its place in Indian thought. There are not a
47:38
Speaker 1: few who boldly allege that the doctrine is distinctively of
47:41
Speaker 1: a late origin and growth, an afterthought or a subsequent
47:44
Speaker 1: suggestion of some of the later Vedantins, that is, followers
47:49
Speaker 1: of the Vedanta philosophy of a purely idealistic temperament. The
47:54
Speaker 1: idea of maya, they pretend, is wholly wanting in the
47:57
Speaker 1: earlier philosophical treatises of the Hindu, namely the Upanishads and
48:01
Speaker 1: so on. Without anticipating any discussion on this point, we
48:06
Speaker 1: may only state that such thinkers seem to us to
48:08
Speaker 1: be entirely mistaken. Hence, our main thesis in this chapter
48:13
Speaker 1: will be to show, with the aid of suitable authoritative
48:16
Speaker 1: quotations from our philosophical literature, that the idea of maya
48:20
Speaker 1: is very old, certainly older than the word maya. The
48:23
Speaker 1: word in its usual sense, of course, occurs for the
48:26
Speaker 1: first time in the Schwetish Vater Upanishad for ten, but
48:30
Speaker 1: the idea may be traced to the later stage of
48:32
Speaker 1: the Vedic civilization. We shall endeavor to show that the conception,
48:37
Speaker 1: though not in a systematic and organic form, is already
48:41
Speaker 1: found in the rig Veda and the Upanishads. Philosophy as
48:45
Speaker 1: reflective thought, that is, the thinking consideration of things, did
48:49
Speaker 1: actually begin with things. That is to say, the first
48:52
Speaker 1: germs of philosophy began to appear with an attempt to
48:55
Speaker 1: explain the concrete realities in the environment, namely the universe.
49:00
Speaker 1: A yearning was noticeable in the human breast to comprehend
49:03
Speaker 1: the source of all existence, and as all higher development
49:08
Speaker 1: is from the concrete to the abstract, thought two followed
49:11
Speaker 1: the same course, and after passing through the stages in
49:14
Speaker 1: which the different forces of nature or various other elements
49:17
Speaker 1: such as water, air, fire, and so on, began to
49:20
Speaker 1: be imagined as the chief source of all existences, the
49:23
Speaker 1: point was reached where the many was found to yield
49:26
Speaker 1: no satisfactory explanation of its being, and the desire was
49:30
Speaker 1: felt to know the mystery the underlying unity. With the
49:34
Speaker 1: advance in thought, the principle of unity attracted more and
49:37
Speaker 1: more attention, so much so that as early as in
49:40
Speaker 1: rig Veda I one hundred and sixty four hecam sad
49:43
Speaker 1: viporabahood of Dante, meaning the wise speak of the one
49:46
Speaker 1: being under many names. The multiplicity was felt to be
49:49
Speaker 1: due to a mode of speech, only not real in itself,
49:52
Speaker 1: only the one having real existence. The innumerable Vedic gods
49:57
Speaker 1: began thus to be conceived as not at war with
49:59
Speaker 1: one another, but only as manifestations of one god. Monotheism
50:04
Speaker 1: conquered polytheism in its exclusive sense. The last book of
50:09
Speaker 1: the rig Veda is particularly rich in philosophical hymns, many
50:13
Speaker 1: of which strike a chord of the same sentiment of
50:15
Speaker 1: unity underlying diversity. The bold speculation of the ancient Vedic
50:20
Speaker 1: people is picturesquely portrayed in Rigveda ten one hundred and
50:23
Speaker 1: twenty nine, one of the earliest records known of an
50:26
Speaker 1: attempt at explaining the cosmogonic mystery by grasping the idea
50:29
Speaker 1: of unity. It is one of the most sublime and
50:33
Speaker 1: exalted hymns in the rig Veda, both from the philosophical
50:36
Speaker 1: and the literary standpoints, and is a true index to
50:39
Speaker 1: the early mystic thought of the Hindus. To a somewhat
50:42
Speaker 1: prejudiced mind, it may appear as a mere conglomeration of
50:45
Speaker 1: contradictions and a piece of abstract sophistry, but it is
50:49
Speaker 1: one of the finest songs that any literature may be
50:52
Speaker 1: proud of Deusin describes it as the most remarkable monument
50:57
Speaker 1: of the oldest philosophy, and has translated it into German.
51:01
Speaker 1: As the hymn is very important for our purpose, we
51:04
Speaker 1: give our own translation as follows Rigveda ten one hundred
51:09
Speaker 1: and twenty nine. Then was neither being nor non being,
51:13
Speaker 1: no realm of air, no sky beyond what enveloped all,
51:17
Speaker 1: where in whose care were waters there the deep abyss
51:23
Speaker 1: twas neither death nor life immortal. No night was there,
51:26
Speaker 1: no day's appearance. The one, in its spontaneity, did airless
51:30
Speaker 1: breathe beyond it not was in existence? Darkness was there
51:35
Speaker 1: at first by darkness covered the world was ocean without distinction,
51:39
Speaker 1: But a pregnant germ lay hidden in shell, the one
51:42
Speaker 1: engendered by force of heat. Within it at first arose desire,
51:46
Speaker 1: which was the primal seed of mind, the root of
51:49
Speaker 1: being in non being. Sages, searching by wisdom in the heart,
51:52
Speaker 1: discovered when like a ray there being, they spread what
51:56
Speaker 1: was below what was above seed bear were there great
52:01
Speaker 1: powers to spontaneity beneath an effort above? Who knows? In sooth?
52:07
Speaker 1: Who here can tell? Whence it became? Whence this creation
52:13
Speaker 1: the gods came later than its creation. So who can
52:16
Speaker 1: tell whence all this arose from whom arose this whole creation,
52:21
Speaker 1: whether he produced it or not, he who in highest
52:23
Speaker 1: Heaven surveys it he knows it well, or even not he.
52:27
Speaker 1: This marks the beginnings of philosophical thought in India. The
52:31
Speaker 1: same conception of the basal unity of the world afterwards
52:35
Speaker 1: gave rise to Greek philosophy. In the Eliatic monism, Xenophones
52:40
Speaker 1: started his polemic against the anthropomorphism in popular Greek religion,
52:43
Speaker 1: and was the first among Greek thinkers to declare all
52:46
Speaker 1: is one. A little later, Promenides, too, developed as his
52:50
Speaker 1: chief principle the same idea of the essential oneness of
52:53
Speaker 1: being in thought. We point out this fact simply to
52:57
Speaker 1: show that it was quite natural and legitimate that the
52:59
Speaker 1: Vedic poe should begin their philosophical speculation with their yearning
53:03
Speaker 1: to comprehend the underlying unity of the world. That the
53:07
Speaker 1: yearning was natural is amply shown by almost exactly the
53:10
Speaker 1: same tendencies being found in other philosophies, especially in that
53:13
Speaker 1: of Greece. As in Greece, so in India. Philosophy was
53:18
Speaker 1: born as the child of wonder Garbi, who has done
53:22
Speaker 1: a good deal of useful work in the Sonkia, that is,
53:25
Speaker 1: the ancient Indian philosophical system based on a strict dualism
53:29
Speaker 1: of matter and spirit, has unfortunately failed to realize the
53:33
Speaker 1: spirit in which the above him was composed by the
53:36
Speaker 1: vedic Arians, and finds in it, as well as in
53:38
Speaker 1: other philosophical hymns in the rig Veda unclear and self
53:42
Speaker 1: contradictory trains of thought. We fail to perceive any such contradictions.
53:47
Speaker 1: The various explanations are in themselves demanded by the very
53:51
Speaker 1: mysterious nature of the problem. It may be remarked in
53:55
Speaker 1: passing that the being and non being spoken of in
53:57
Speaker 1: the hymn do not stand in antithesis, as they do
54:00
Speaker 1: in early Greek philosophy. On the contrary, they are one,
54:03
Speaker 1: though they are two from our way of looking at them.
54:06
Speaker 1: The undeveloped state known as karnavasta, that is, the state
54:11
Speaker 1: of being a cause or the unmanifest potential state, is
54:14
Speaker 1: spoken of as non being. It does not mean the
54:17
Speaker 1: negation of being, while the manifested state is called by
54:20
Speaker 1: the name of being. This also explains why being is
54:24
Speaker 1: said to be born of non being in Rigveda ten
54:27
Speaker 1: seventy two two three, and the root of the former
54:30
Speaker 1: is discovered in the latter, as we saw in ten
54:33
Speaker 1: one hundred and twenty nine four. There might appear many
54:37
Speaker 1: such contradictions implied in the use of terms, but they
54:40
Speaker 1: are only seeming contradictions and vanish as soon as the
54:42
Speaker 1: real reconciliation by a vasta, meaning a proper ordering or
54:47
Speaker 1: settlement is made out. Now, after attaining a consciousness of
54:52
Speaker 1: the oneness of all things, the next step was naturally
54:55
Speaker 1: a quest after the nature of this unity. An attempt
54:58
Speaker 1: is made to determine it in rigas Veda ten one
55:01
Speaker 1: hundred and twenty one, where after describing the majesty and
55:04
Speaker 1: wonder of the vast network of creation, the poet at
55:07
Speaker 1: last names Projapati, meaning Lord of creatures, as the unknown God,
55:12
Speaker 1: the ultimate unity of all creation. Projapati, then thou there
55:17
Speaker 1: is no other who holds in his embrace the whole creation.
55:21
Speaker 1: This idea of Projapati is subsequently transformed under the name
55:24
Speaker 1: of Brahmin, the absolute Reality or Atman the universal Self
55:29
Speaker 1: in the Upanishads. However, in another vedachim Rigveda ten ninety
55:35
Speaker 1: we see the same power attributed to Parusha, meaning the
55:39
Speaker 1: cosmic person or spirit whom we believe is one with
55:42
Speaker 1: Projapati in general conception, and in Rigveda ten eighty one
55:47
Speaker 1: and eighty two to Vishvikarmen, meaning the all maker. In
55:51
Speaker 1: Rigveda ten seventy two, the same functions are referred to
55:55
Speaker 1: brahmin Aspidi, meaning the lord of sacred speech. Rominaspide, like
56:00
Speaker 1: a smith, together forged this universe when gods existed, not
56:04
Speaker 1: as yet then being from non being did arise later on.
56:09
Speaker 1: Prajapati is identified with the creating word the Greek logos
56:14
Speaker 1: in Rigveda ten one hundred and twenty five, and with
56:18
Speaker 1: the sacrifice and the year as principles of the world
56:21
Speaker 1: in rig Veda ten one hundred and ninety. We here
56:25
Speaker 1: insert the former in our own translation, as it is
56:27
Speaker 1: one of the typical hymns of the rig Vedas speculation
56:30
Speaker 1: and is important for our purpose. Rigveda ten one hundred
56:35
Speaker 1: and twenty five. The goddess Vak, that is the goddess
56:39
Speaker 1: of sacred speech. I wander with the Rudras and the Vasus,
56:43
Speaker 1: with the Odiphius and the vish devas that is all
56:48
Speaker 1: the gods. I support both Maitra and Varana, Indra and Agne,
56:52
Speaker 1: and the Ashvins too. I support Soma swelling with juice.
56:57
Speaker 1: I support Fashtra, Pushan and Baga. Tis I who give
57:00
Speaker 1: wealth to the zealous offerer, to the sacrificer who presses Soma.
57:05
Speaker 1: I am the Queen, the shower of riches, the knowing
57:08
Speaker 1: first of the worshiped ones. Me have the gods in
57:11
Speaker 1: many forms displayed me, living everywhere and entering all things
57:16
Speaker 1: through me. He eats food, who sees, who breathes? Who
57:19
Speaker 1: hears what's spoken? Not knowing me, they stay by me.
57:24
Speaker 1: Hear Thou of fame, I tell thee what's not easy
57:27
Speaker 1: to know. It is I myself who declare this truth,
57:31
Speaker 1: agreeable to gods and men alike. I make him powerful
57:34
Speaker 1: whom I love him. A brahmin, that is, a priest
57:37
Speaker 1: and scholar, a seer, a sage. It's I who bend
57:41
Speaker 1: the bow for Rudra, that his arrow may strike the
57:44
Speaker 1: foe of the sacred order. It's I who fight for
57:46
Speaker 1: my people's sake. It's I who have entered both heaven
57:49
Speaker 1: and earth. I create the father that is jioush the
57:53
Speaker 1: sky God first on the world's summit. My birthplace is
57:58
Speaker 1: in the waters in the ocean. Then I into all
58:00
Speaker 1: things existing, enter and touch yonder heaven with my body.
58:04
Speaker 1: It's I who blow forth like the wind, spreading into
58:07
Speaker 1: being all that exists beyond the sky, beyond this earth.
58:11
Speaker 1: So great have I, by my glory become. The unity
58:15
Speaker 1: of existence could not be more simply and emphatically pronounced
58:18
Speaker 1: than in these hymns. When the goddess vac says in
58:22
Speaker 1: Stanza three, me have the gods in many forms displayed
58:25
Speaker 1: me living everywhere and entering all things, she repeats the
58:29
Speaker 1: same thought we have already referred to, which again is
58:31
Speaker 1: expressed by the seer de Gatamus while praising Agne, the
58:34
Speaker 1: fire god of the one existence. The sages speak in
58:38
Speaker 1: diverse ways rig Veda I, one hundred and sixty four,
58:42
Speaker 1: and the same thought was later on brought out by Yaska,
58:46
Speaker 1: who lived about the fifth century before the Common era.
58:50
Speaker 1: The one Otman is sung in many ways Nerukta seven five.
58:55
Speaker 1: Some of the other Vedic hymns in which this conception
58:58
Speaker 1: of the underlying unity of being is brought out are
59:00
Speaker 1: Rigveda ten eighty one, eighty two, ninety and one hundred
59:04
Speaker 1: and twenty one, which we can only refer to rather
59:06
Speaker 1: than translate here. All this clearly shows that this idea
59:11
Speaker 1: of unity is as old as the Vedic civilization, and
59:14
Speaker 1: that the ancient Indian seers were quite aware of the
59:16
Speaker 1: oneness of being and gave a poetic expression to the
59:19
Speaker 1: same thought in many beautiful strains. It is needless to
59:23
Speaker 1: multiply instances from the other three Vedas, since the rig
59:26
Speaker 1: Veda is the chief source of these, and is in
59:28
Speaker 1: itself the oldest and most important one. Most of the
59:32
Speaker 1: hymns of the other vedas are bodily transferred from the
59:35
Speaker 1: rig Veda and arranged in different ways to meet the
59:37
Speaker 1: spirit and requirements of each. We may, however, note in passing,
59:42
Speaker 1: that the same idea of the unity of being is
59:44
Speaker 1: discovered in the following stanzas from the Atharva Veda. Aditi
59:48
Speaker 1: is heaven, Aditi, atmosphere Aditi, mother, she father, she son.
59:53
Speaker 1: All the gods are Aditi, the five races. Aditi is
59:56
Speaker 1: what is born, Aditi what is to be born? Arva
1:00:00
Speaker 1: Veda seven six one. Whoever know the Brahmin in man,
1:00:05
Speaker 1: they know the most exalted one. Whoever know the most
1:00:08
Speaker 1: exalted one, and whoever know Projapati, whoever know the chief Brahmin,
1:00:12
Speaker 1: they know also accordingly the Scamba, that is, the cosmic
1:00:16
Speaker 1: pillar or framework of the universe. The great being Yiksha,
1:00:21
Speaker 1: that is, a mysterious cosmic entity, is absorbed in ascetic
1:00:25
Speaker 1: fervor in the midst of the world, on the surface
1:00:27
Speaker 1: of the waters in it are set whatever gods there
1:00:30
Speaker 1: are as the branches of a tree around the trunk
1:00:34
Speaker 1: Atharva Veda ten seven seventeen and thirty eight. What moves,
1:00:40
Speaker 1: flies and stands, breathing, not breathing, and winking. That universal
1:00:45
Speaker 1: form sustains the earth, that combined becomes one only Atharva
1:00:50
Speaker 1: Veda ten eight eleven. Prajapati goes about within the womb unseen,
1:00:56
Speaker 1: yet is manifestly born Atharva Veda ten eight thirteen. Knowing
1:01:02
Speaker 1: the soul free from desire, wise immortal, self existent, satisfied
1:01:07
Speaker 1: with the essence, not deficient in any respect, one is
1:01:11
Speaker 1: not afraid of death Atharva Veda ten eight forty four.
1:01:17
Speaker 1: They call him Indra Mitra Varena Agne. Likewise, he is
1:01:21
Speaker 1: the heavenly winged eagle. What is one the sage's name.
1:01:24
Speaker 1: Variously they call him agne Yama Matterishman atharva Veda nine
1:01:30
Speaker 1: ten twenty eight. These typical passages point to a continuation
1:01:35
Speaker 1: of the same idea in the atharva Veda. The Brahminas,
1:01:39
Speaker 1: that is, the exegetically treatises on the sacred hymn collections
1:01:43
Speaker 1: being mainly guided by the revealed scriptures the Shriti meaning
1:01:48
Speaker 1: that which is heard the directly revealed sacred canon, and
1:01:51
Speaker 1: starting with the object of making explicit what is implicitly
1:01:54
Speaker 1: implied in the sacred hymns, may naturally be supposed not
1:01:58
Speaker 1: to swerve from the general spirit of the latter. What
1:02:01
Speaker 1: is already explicit in the hymns is sometimes only emphasized
1:02:04
Speaker 1: in these treatises. The transition from the earlier thought of
1:02:08
Speaker 1: the hymn collections to that of the Brahmanas may be noticed,
1:02:11
Speaker 1: for instance, in Rigveda ten eighty one, where the question
1:02:15
Speaker 1: is asked, which was the tree, which was the wood
1:02:18
Speaker 1: of which they hewed the earth in heaven. This question
1:02:21
Speaker 1: is repeated in the text of the Tataria Brahmana and
1:02:24
Speaker 1: is followed by the answer Brahman was the tree the
1:02:27
Speaker 1: wood from which they hewed the earth in heaven. The
1:02:31
Speaker 1: conception of Prajapati and of Porussia is also developed in
1:02:34
Speaker 1: the agisone Semida and the Tatari of Brahmana. The simple
1:02:38
Speaker 1: note of unity is also sounded, for instance in the
1:02:41
Speaker 1: Shatapatha Brahmana for two two one servum hi i am Atma,
1:02:46
Speaker 1: meaning this soul is everything. We are, however, mainly concerned
1:02:51
Speaker 1: with the Upanishads, which are as a rule of final
1:02:54
Speaker 1: portions of the Brahmanas. The word Upanishad is derived from
1:02:59
Speaker 1: the root sad meaning to sit, with the prepositions upa
1:03:03
Speaker 1: meaning near, and ni an intensifier meaning very, and conveys
1:03:08
Speaker 1: the sense of that which is imparted to a pupil
1:03:10
Speaker 1: when he sits very near his teacher, hence secret doctrine.
1:03:15
Speaker 1: The Upanishads may therefore be said to embody the esoteric
1:03:18
Speaker 1: doctrines of the Vedas. They mostly contain philosophical expositions, elucidations
1:03:25
Speaker 1: and discussions on some Vedic passages, and by themselves form
1:03:28
Speaker 1: a more or less complete and comprehensive philosophical system, which
1:03:32
Speaker 1: is the kernel of the whole of the later philosophy.
1:03:35
Speaker 1: Their idealism is the groundstone of the later Vedanta. They
1:03:39
Speaker 1: are canonical, and quotations from them are held by tradition
1:03:42
Speaker 1: to be ever complete and self sufficient, requiring no further support.
1:03:47
Speaker 1: They are final authorities. The general trend of their thought
1:03:52
Speaker 1: is towards a thorough going monism, that is the view
1:03:55
Speaker 1: that all reality is ultimately one, which in its germinal
1:03:58
Speaker 1: form existed even in the vain As we have shown above.
1:04:02
Speaker 1: Their fundamental formula may be expressed in a well known
1:04:05
Speaker 1: two line verse Brahma satyam jug and mithia jivo brahmivan epera,
1:04:10
Speaker 1: meaning Brahman is the reality. The universe is false, The
1:04:14
Speaker 1: individual self is Brahman, nothing else. In other words, there
1:04:19
Speaker 1: is only one reality, call it Brahman or Ottman what
1:04:22
Speaker 1: you will, and the world around us, which appears so real,
1:04:25
Speaker 1: is not so. This is the central thought which has
1:04:29
Speaker 1: been so admirably expanded and developed in various ways in
1:04:32
Speaker 1: the Upanishads, and what we call the doctrine of Maya
1:04:35
Speaker 1: is nothing more than an attempt to explain this fact
1:04:38
Speaker 1: in detail, to show how it is impossible for the
1:04:40
Speaker 1: world to be anything more than an appearance as distinguished
1:04:43
Speaker 1: from reality, which strictly speaking, is only Brahman. We now
1:04:48
Speaker 1: come to one of the most important parts of our
1:04:50
Speaker 1: present subject, namely the development of the theory of Maya
1:04:53
Speaker 1: through the Upanishads down to Shankara. We may remark at
1:04:57
Speaker 1: the outset that the theory may be enunciated in two ways. Firstly,
1:05:01
Speaker 1: that the world is an illusion or appearance, and secondly
1:05:05
Speaker 1: that the only reality is they Aatman. These two statements
1:05:09
Speaker 1: mean the same thing, so that the passages which emphasize
1:05:12
Speaker 1: the statement that the Yatman is the only reality mean
1:05:15
Speaker 1: most transparently that all else, that is, everything other than
1:05:18
Speaker 1: the Yatman, namely the world and so on, is not real.
1:05:23
Speaker 1: The Upanishads, when read through without any guiding principle, seem
1:05:27
Speaker 1: to bristle with startling contradictions. The world is described as
1:05:31
Speaker 1: pervaded by the Yatman, and it is said that all
1:05:34
Speaker 1: this is Brahman, while at the same time it is
1:05:36
Speaker 1: asserted that the world is unreal. Again, it is declared
1:05:39
Speaker 1: that the Aughtman created the world, while yet it is
1:05:42
Speaker 1: true that there is no world besides Brahman. All such
1:05:46
Speaker 1: and other statements would perhaps baffle all attempts at explanation.
1:05:49
Speaker 1: If only we looked at the external aspect, and some
1:05:52
Speaker 1: readers of Upanishads may, consequently, with great impatience, pronounce these
1:05:56
Speaker 1: books to be nothing but a mass of crude contradictions.
1:06:00
Speaker 1: But it is not so. There is to be traced
1:06:03
Speaker 1: within the Upanishads a certain development or degeneration from another
1:06:07
Speaker 1: point of view of pure idealism. In the bright Eranayako
1:06:12
Speaker 1: Panishad are found certain passages, chiefly in the first four chapters,
1:06:16
Speaker 1: which are connected with the discourse of the great sage Yajnovalkia,
1:06:20
Speaker 1: and which furnish the oldest idealistic conception. As far as
1:06:23
Speaker 1: we know, Yajnovalkia's standpoint is purely metaphysical. He was the
1:06:29
Speaker 1: leader of the sages, and he is said to have
1:06:31
Speaker 1: quite realized his identity with brahmin One seems to be
1:06:35
Speaker 1: carried away by the simple force of his lofty utterances,
1:06:39
Speaker 1: which appear to be poured out from the very depths
1:06:41
Speaker 1: of his heart after a thorough realization of the truths.
1:06:43
Speaker 1: They contain. His dialogues with his wife Metrei and with
1:06:47
Speaker 1: the King Janaka appeal to us as the clearest denunciations
1:06:51
Speaker 1: of the true standpoint of idealism, which, on account of
1:06:53
Speaker 1: its extremely monistic conception cannot be surpassed a more thorough
1:06:57
Speaker 1: going monism, being on the face of it impossible. The
1:07:01
Speaker 1: burden of the whole throughout is that the Atman is
1:07:04
Speaker 1: the only reality, which at once implies that the world
1:07:07
Speaker 1: is not real. We shall now examine some of these
1:07:10
Speaker 1: passages in order to give a more concrete idea of
1:07:13
Speaker 1: the general position maintained by the old idealist. The following
1:07:18
Speaker 1: is from Brighthoranayaka Upanishad two four five. The Atman is
1:07:23
Speaker 1: to be seen, heard, understood, meditated upon metre. By seeing, hearing, understanding,
1:07:30
Speaker 1: and realizing the Yatman, all this world is known. This
1:07:34
Speaker 1: is repeated again in four five six. The same idea
1:07:39
Speaker 1: is expressed by means of three similes of the drum,
1:07:43
Speaker 1: the konk shell, and the lyre. As By holding fast
1:07:46
Speaker 1: the drum, the konk shell, the lyre when they are
1:07:49
Speaker 1: being beaten, all their sounds are as it were caught together.
1:07:53
Speaker 1: So by knowing the Atman, all is known, that is
1:07:56
Speaker 1: all worth knowing becomes already known. When these in instruments
1:08:00
Speaker 1: are being sounded, one cannot hear anything else and is
1:08:03
Speaker 1: confused in the multiplicity of the sounds. But on taking
1:08:06
Speaker 1: possession of the instruments the source of all the sounds,
1:08:09
Speaker 1: one seems to have mastered the discord and to have
1:08:11
Speaker 1: found the key to it all. So is the Atman
1:08:14
Speaker 1: the key to the all, namely the universe. When the
1:08:17
Speaker 1: Atman is known, then there is nothing else that is
1:08:19
Speaker 1: worth knowing. The multiplicity perishes, and the unity asserts its sway.
1:08:24
Speaker 1: A most remarkable passage, which in the clearest phraseology, endorses
1:08:28
Speaker 1: the conception of Maya, is found in brahe Oranayaka two
1:08:32
Speaker 1: four fourteen. It runs thus in translation, for where there
1:08:37
Speaker 1: is duality, as it were, there sees another another thing,
1:08:41
Speaker 1: There smells another another thing, There hears another another thing,
1:08:45
Speaker 1: There speaks another of another thing, There thinks another of
1:08:48
Speaker 1: another thing, There knows another another thing. But where all
1:08:52
Speaker 1: has become nothing but the atman, there, how can one
1:08:55
Speaker 1: smell anything, how see anything, how hear anything, how speak
1:08:59
Speaker 1: of anything, how think of anything? How know anything? By
1:09:03
Speaker 1: what shall one know him? By whom one knows all this?
1:09:06
Speaker 1: By what shall one know the knower? The word giva,
1:09:10
Speaker 1: meaning as it were, is important Here where there is
1:09:14
Speaker 1: duality as it were, shows that duality which refers to
1:09:17
Speaker 1: the multiplicity Nanatva in the world is unreal. In other words,
1:09:24
Speaker 1: it is only an appearance. The conception of subject and
1:09:27
Speaker 1: object is only possible when each of them has at
1:09:30
Speaker 1: least a distinguishable existence. But when all this otherness is
1:09:34
Speaker 1: found to be false, that which was called the object disappears,
1:09:38
Speaker 1: and only the one oughtman remains as the knower. In
1:09:41
Speaker 1: that sense, even the word subject in the current sense
1:09:45
Speaker 1: would be inadmissible, since it is only a relative term.
1:09:48
Speaker 1: And when the object perishes, the idea of the subject
1:09:50
Speaker 1: also goes with it. The distinction is lost. That which
1:09:55
Speaker 1: was real remains as the one, and the unreal, which
1:09:58
Speaker 1: never did actually exist, is found to be a nullity.
1:10:02
Speaker 1: The Atman being itself the knower, the self luminous, the
1:10:05
Speaker 1: universal spirit, does not require any medium to be known.
1:10:10
Speaker 1: That is the idea which Yajnavalkia so simply and yet
1:10:13
Speaker 1: so forcibly conveys when he says, Vignato Remarkin of aganiat
1:10:18
Speaker 1: by what shall the Knower be known? Further on, Yajnavalkia,
1:10:23
Speaker 1: while instructing the sage a Shasta on the nature of
1:10:25
Speaker 1: the Yatman, says from bryhad Or Inayaka three for two
1:10:30
Speaker 1: in translation thou couldst not see the seer of sight,
1:10:33
Speaker 1: Thou couldst not hear, the hearer of hearing. Thou couldst
1:10:36
Speaker 1: not think the thinker of thought, Thou couldst not know
1:10:39
Speaker 1: the knower of knowing. This thy aughtman is within every being.
1:10:43
Speaker 1: All else is full of sorrow. Here it is shown
1:10:46
Speaker 1: how the Atman is so near within one's self that
1:10:49
Speaker 1: one does not need to go a long way to
1:10:51
Speaker 1: search for it. Those who go out to seek it
1:10:54
Speaker 1: anywhere else by external means never find it. The attempts
1:10:57
Speaker 1: at a rigid definition of Brahmin are all fud. This
1:11:01
Speaker 1: thought is like that of a popular tale so well
1:11:04
Speaker 1: known in India. A man had his little child on
1:11:07
Speaker 1: his shoulder and was strolling about in the street. All
1:11:11
Speaker 1: of a sudden, forgetting that he had the child with him,
1:11:14
Speaker 1: he began to proclaim in a loud voice throughout the city,
1:11:17
Speaker 1: I have lost my child. Who has seen it? Kindly
1:11:19
Speaker 1: let me know. At last, a passer by, observing his
1:11:23
Speaker 1: gross error, gave him a smart slap in the face
1:11:26
Speaker 1: and turned his eyes upward, when, to his utter surprise,
1:11:29
Speaker 1: he found that the lost child was still on him.
1:11:32
Speaker 1: So exactly is the atman always in us? In fact,
1:11:36
Speaker 1: we are never justified in saying in us, as truly speaking,
1:11:40
Speaker 1: it is ourself, Not it is in us. The latter
1:11:43
Speaker 1: would imply that we are different from the Yatman. The
1:11:47
Speaker 1: sage here declares therefore that this oughtman is the subject
1:11:50
Speaker 1: of all knowledge, hence unknowable. The categories of all knowledge
1:11:55
Speaker 1: break down when stretched with a view to their application
1:11:57
Speaker 1: to the Yatman. And as to all else, which is
1:12:01
Speaker 1: the other, the sage says auto yot artem, meaning all
1:12:05
Speaker 1: else is full of sorrow. This phrase is repeated again
1:12:09
Speaker 1: in three five one in a dialogue with Kehola. This
1:12:14
Speaker 1: other than the self, that is, the so called world,
1:12:17
Speaker 1: is again denied its reality in three eight eleven, where
1:12:21
Speaker 1: Yajnavalkia is instructing the philosopher Garghi in the Mysterious Lore
1:12:25
Speaker 1: of Brahman. In Bryhidoranayaka four for four, the simile of
1:12:30
Speaker 1: a goldsmith is employed, as he, by taking a bit
1:12:34
Speaker 1: of gold, molds it into various newer and more beautiful forms.
1:12:38
Speaker 1: So the Atman is supposed to create, through a vidya
1:12:42
Speaker 1: meaning ignorance or nescience, various forms such as the departed ancestors, pittrees,
1:12:48
Speaker 1: the celestial musicians, gondarvs, the gods Prajapati and Brahma. Here
1:12:54
Speaker 1: all the variety of forms is spoken of as avidya,
1:12:57
Speaker 1: hence unreal. A remarkable passage that lends decisive support to
1:13:02
Speaker 1: this pure idealism occurs in Brahadoranayaka four for nineteen. In translation,
1:13:09
Speaker 1: it is to be perceived by the mind alone. There
1:13:11
Speaker 1: is here no multiplicity whatever. Who sees here as it
1:13:16
Speaker 1: were many passes from death to death, that multiplicity, the
1:13:20
Speaker 1: characteristic of the universe is false. This is the high
1:13:23
Speaker 1: sounding note here, and it is still further emphasized by
1:13:26
Speaker 1: saying that he who sees, as it were a plurality
1:13:29
Speaker 1: actually existing is never saved, but is over and over
1:13:32
Speaker 1: subject to the pangs of birth and death. In this somemsara,
1:13:35
Speaker 1: meaning the cycle of worldly existence and repeated rebirth. The
1:13:39
Speaker 1: conception of Maya exhibits itself in such passages clearly. Here too.
1:13:45
Speaker 1: Attention may specially be drawn to the word giva as
1:13:48
Speaker 1: it were, which implies that the multiplicity is only in appearance. Truly,
1:13:53
Speaker 1: speaking this as it were should be supplied in almost
1:13:56
Speaker 1: all passages where the Upanishads speak of the other. It
1:14:00
Speaker 1: would be quite in keeping with the spirit of true idealism.
1:14:04
Speaker 1: This exactly is the highest and truest standpoint of the Upanishads.
1:14:09
Speaker 1: When they deny in such clear and distinct terms the
1:14:12
Speaker 1: existence of the many, it means that they refuse to
1:14:15
Speaker 1: concede any reality to the world. From that standpoint, the
1:14:18
Speaker 1: idea of the world being meaningless without all this nana
1:14:21
Speaker 1: meaning multiplicity, abstract the many, and you bring the world
1:14:26
Speaker 1: to a zero point. Nothing remains behind, all vanishes. All
1:14:31
Speaker 1: the words which we use in our every day life
1:14:33
Speaker 1: to express the various distinctions among objects or the many
1:14:37
Speaker 1: are mere abuses of our speech, since they are ill,
1:14:40
Speaker 1: spent or wasted. The many having no existence at all,
1:14:44
Speaker 1: only the one exists, and when that is known, all
1:14:47
Speaker 1: else is known, and the use of words breaks down.
1:14:51
Speaker 1: This idea is expressed in brighter Ranayaka four for twenty
1:14:55
Speaker 1: one in translation, knowing him alone, let the wise person
1:14:58
Speaker 1: form is understanding prejnaal. Let him not meditate on many words,
1:15:04
Speaker 1: for that is simply the fatigue of speech vach. This,
1:15:08
Speaker 1: in brief, is the spirit of Yagnovalkia's idealism. It may
1:15:12
Speaker 1: conveniently be viewed in three aspects. Firstly, the atman is
1:15:16
Speaker 1: the only reality. Secondly, the atman is the subject of
1:15:20
Speaker 1: knowledge in us. And thirdly, therefore the atman is itself unknowable.
1:15:26
Speaker 1: It may be pointed out that there is no contradiction,
1:15:28
Speaker 1: as many have been led to suppose in the statements.
1:15:31
Speaker 1: The aughtman is unknowable, and by knowing the aughtman all
1:15:35
Speaker 1: is known, or the atman alone is to be known.
1:15:38
Speaker 1: The word knowledge is used in two different aspects. The
1:15:42
Speaker 1: atman is unknowable when by knowledge is meant the synthesis
1:15:46
Speaker 1: of the subject and object, or when it is supposed
1:15:48
Speaker 1: that speech is able to describe the self the knower.
1:15:52
Speaker 1: The self can know the known or the objects, But
1:15:55
Speaker 1: how can the knower be known? The truth of the
1:15:58
Speaker 1: idea is not very different to grasp if one just
1:16:01
Speaker 1: reflects seriously for a moment. If all things are known
1:16:05
Speaker 1: only through the eye, by what can the eye itself
1:16:08
Speaker 1: be known? The fact of this self consciousness is ultimate
1:16:12
Speaker 1: in itself. Hence, in this sense the knower cannot be known,
1:16:16
Speaker 1: while at the same time no knowledge could be more
1:16:18
Speaker 1: sure than that of the knower the self. Here, knowledge
1:16:22
Speaker 1: is used in a higher and different sense, namely self
1:16:25
Speaker 1: realization or direct experience an a Phava. Even the greatest
1:16:30
Speaker 1: skeptic could not reasonably deny the existence of the high,
1:16:33
Speaker 1: and a higher knowledge of this self means the realization
1:16:36
Speaker 1: of the falsity of the knot self and of the
1:16:38
Speaker 1: oneness of the yachtman. The seeming paradox therefore disappears on
1:16:42
Speaker 1: a little deeper understanding. Now. This oldest, simplest and most
1:16:48
Speaker 1: thoroughgoing idealism is found chiefly in the brighteranayakou Panishad as
1:16:52
Speaker 1: shown above, but it is not totally displaced by later doctrines,
1:16:56
Speaker 1: and so appears scattered here and there among the others
1:16:58
Speaker 1: in the chief Wu Panishad as well. The doctrine of
1:17:02
Speaker 1: the sole reality of the yatman, and hence of the
1:17:04
Speaker 1: falsity of the world the many, has never been totally
1:17:07
Speaker 1: given up. Later on, certainly it has been gradually obscured,
1:17:13
Speaker 1: though at the same time shining through by its inherent
1:17:16
Speaker 1: light by the huge mass of more realistic or anti
1:17:19
Speaker 1: idealistic notions. Turning to the Shandogio Panishad, we at once
1:17:24
Speaker 1: meet with the famous dialogue between a Rouni and his
1:17:26
Speaker 1: son Schvedikidu. The son, having studied all the vedas for
1:17:31
Speaker 1: twelve years with his teacher returned to his father, a
1:17:33
Speaker 1: swollen headed young scholar. The father tested his knowledge by
1:17:38
Speaker 1: asking him if he knew anything about that by which
1:17:40
Speaker 1: all that is unheard becomes heard and the unknown becomes
1:17:43
Speaker 1: the known. The son, failing to answer, requests his father
1:17:47
Speaker 1: to explain this knowledge to him, and the Sajaruni teaches
1:17:50
Speaker 1: Schvedikidu by the following concrete example from Shandogio Panishad six
1:17:56
Speaker 1: one four in translation as O good one. By the
1:18:00
Speaker 1: knowledge of one ball of Earth, everything of the nature
1:18:03
Speaker 1: of earth is known. The change or modification is an
1:18:07
Speaker 1: extension of words a mere name. Only the earth is true.
1:18:11
Speaker 1: Here it is said that by knowing the one, the
1:18:13
Speaker 1: all is known, as all the forms into which clay
1:18:17
Speaker 1: is molded are known by knowing clay. So the manifold
1:18:19
Speaker 1: world is known by knowing the one atman. Since all
1:18:22
Speaker 1: reality is the atman, and the nanatman does not really exist,
1:18:26
Speaker 1: that many forms are merely the beginning of speech vaccaryaminum
1:18:31
Speaker 1: only a mere name namodeem without reality. The plurality is
1:18:36
Speaker 1: all a mere name, hence unreal. Some critics of the
1:18:40
Speaker 1: Vedanta discover in this passage a corroboration of the theory
1:18:43
Speaker 1: of Paranamavada, meaning the theory of real transformation, according to
1:18:47
Speaker 1: which the world is a genuine evolution or transformation of
1:18:50
Speaker 1: brahmin much as curd is a real transformation of milk.
1:18:55
Speaker 1: They contend that as the various things of Earth such
1:18:57
Speaker 1: as jars, pots, and so on, are transformations of the
1:19:01
Speaker 1: earth and not creations of the imagination, so the world
1:19:04
Speaker 1: is a development of a subtle reality. However, the passage
1:19:08
Speaker 1: seems to us to endorse the purely idealistic standpoint, making
1:19:12
Speaker 1: the world to use later philosophical terminology at vivarda meaning
1:19:16
Speaker 1: a mere appearance without real transformation, rather than a kivicara,
1:19:20
Speaker 1: meaning a genuine modification. The vivarda of a substance is
1:19:25
Speaker 1: simply its appearance, which in no way implies any alteration
1:19:29
Speaker 1: in the thing itself, while a chivicara is the transformation
1:19:32
Speaker 1: of the substance itself. To take a well known example,
1:19:36
Speaker 1: milk is substantially transformed into curd. One cannot discover any
1:19:40
Speaker 1: milk when it is changed into curd. But a jar
1:19:43
Speaker 1: of earth, even after becoming a jar, does not cease
1:19:46
Speaker 1: to be earth. It is earth inside and out, the
1:19:50
Speaker 1: idea of jar is simply due to the limitations of
1:19:53
Speaker 1: name and form, which are decidedly dependent on the mind. Similarly,
1:19:58
Speaker 1: when a rope is mistaken for a snake in the dark,
1:20:01
Speaker 1: the rope has not been transformed into a snake. The
1:20:04
Speaker 1: mind imposes the conception of the snake on the rope.
1:20:07
Speaker 1: The snake has no independent existence. Hence, the passage supports
1:20:12
Speaker 1: the idea of vivarda mere appearance, not of Vikara real transformation.
1:20:18
Speaker 1: In Shandojia six two one to two, where the process
1:20:22
Speaker 1: of creation is described from the empirical standpoint, the words
1:20:26
Speaker 1: ikeum eva a vitium the only one without a second
1:20:29
Speaker 1: ac cur pointing out the essential oneness of the Yatman. Again,
1:20:34
Speaker 1: in Shandojia seven twenty three one, we read in translation
1:20:39
Speaker 1: that which is the Bumah the great is happiness. There
1:20:42
Speaker 1: is no happiness in the small. Only the Bumah is happiness.
1:20:47
Speaker 1: The Bumah is therefore to be sought after. In this passage,
1:20:52
Speaker 1: Brahmin is spoken of as Bumah the great, and only
1:20:55
Speaker 1: he is said to be bliss. All that is not Brahman,
1:20:58
Speaker 1: that is not the Yatman is alpum, meaning small or
1:21:02
Speaker 1: little and misery, and the buma is defined as where
1:21:06
Speaker 1: none other sees, none other hears, none other knows, that
1:21:10
Speaker 1: is bumah, while the alpa the small, is defined as
1:21:14
Speaker 1: where another seas, another hears, another knows, that is alpa.
1:21:19
Speaker 1: The latter is declared to be perishable. The Tatariea Upanishad
1:21:24
Speaker 1: does not contain much on the subject. It is mainly
1:21:28
Speaker 1: concerned with the more realistic conception of the creation of
1:21:31
Speaker 1: the world from the Yatman. There is of course a
1:21:34
Speaker 1: famous passage on the unknowableness of the Yatman, whence words
1:21:37
Speaker 1: return with the mind without having reached it, Knowing the
1:21:40
Speaker 1: bliss of that brahmin one never fears two four and
1:21:44
Speaker 1: two nine. The Iteria Upanishad has very little to contribute
1:21:49
Speaker 1: to the subject. In one place three one to three,
1:21:54
Speaker 1: the Atman is defined as consciousness Prijnana, and then elephants, cows, men, trees,
1:22:01
Speaker 1: animals and so on are called the names namadhyane of consciousness,
1:22:07
Speaker 1: which is identified with Brahman Prajnan and Brahma meaning consciousness
1:22:11
Speaker 1: is Brahman. This means that all things exist only so
1:22:15
Speaker 1: far as they are my consciousness, which is a unity
1:22:18
Speaker 1: Hence the multiplicity, which seems to exist independent of my consciousness,
1:22:21
Speaker 1: is not real, but only a mere name. The Catho Panishad,
1:22:26
Speaker 1: one of the comparatively laid Upanishads, is one of the
1:22:29
Speaker 1: finest productions on the subject and contains many passages that
1:22:33
Speaker 1: are frequently quoted by modern Indian vedentists. It is attractive
1:22:37
Speaker 1: moreover owing to the peculiarly fascinating legend of Natchiketa, meant
1:22:41
Speaker 1: to expound the lore of the atman so as to
1:22:43
Speaker 1: be acceptable even to those who tire too soon of
1:22:45
Speaker 1: abstract conceptions and want something to color such notions. In
1:22:50
Speaker 1: one two five, the god of death points out to Natchiketa,
1:22:54
Speaker 1: how the ignorant, in their avidya, that is, their ignorance,
1:22:58
Speaker 1: follow one another like the bloom mind in translation, dwelling
1:23:02
Speaker 1: in the midst of darkness, wise in their own conceit,
1:23:05
Speaker 1: and taking themselves to be very learned, The ignorant go
1:23:08
Speaker 1: round and round, staggering to and fro, like blind men
1:23:12
Speaker 1: led by the blind. Such are the people who always
1:23:15
Speaker 1: look to the external and immediate aspect of things, and
1:23:18
Speaker 1: never look beyond imitating others blindly. They also imagine the
1:23:23
Speaker 1: not self to be the self, and such people, in
1:23:26
Speaker 1: their own ignorance, regard themselves as very learned pandatam and yumana,
1:23:30
Speaker 1: meaning fancying themselves to be scholars. Because self conceit is
1:23:34
Speaker 1: the index to shallowness of knowledge. The more one knows,
1:23:38
Speaker 1: the humbler one becomes. The most satisfactory. Passages, however, come
1:23:44
Speaker 1: later in Catha two one is almost identical with brighton
1:23:48
Speaker 1: Oranayaka four for nineteen, already quoted above from Katha two
1:23:54
Speaker 1: for ten in translation, what is here the same is
1:23:58
Speaker 1: in the next world, and what is in the next
1:24:00
Speaker 1: world the same is here. He who sees here as
1:24:03
Speaker 1: it were differences or the many, goes from death to
1:24:06
Speaker 1: death Here, as we have already seen, multiplicity is pronounced false.
1:24:12
Speaker 1: He who even imagines it to be true does not
1:24:14
Speaker 1: attain liberation. The same thought is stated in the next
1:24:18
Speaker 1: verse Catha two for eleven in translation, Only by the
1:24:22
Speaker 1: mind is this to be obtained. There is no multiplicity
1:24:27
Speaker 1: here whatsoever. He goes from death to death who sees
1:24:30
Speaker 1: any multiplicity here? Here? Again, the fact that there is
1:24:33
Speaker 1: no multiplicity whatever is particularly emphasized. Hence, the universe, which
1:24:38
Speaker 1: is the embodiment of this idea of multiplicity is false.
1:24:42
Speaker 1: The conception of the Ottoman is further explained in two
1:24:45
Speaker 1: five thirteen in translation Eternal of the transient Soul, of
1:24:50
Speaker 1: the souls, who, though one fulfills the desires of many
1:24:54
Speaker 1: the wise who perceive him residing in the self. To
1:24:57
Speaker 1: them belongs eternal peace, not to others. The passage distinguishes
1:25:02
Speaker 1: the eternal and changeless nature of the Atman from the
1:25:04
Speaker 1: transient nature of the world, adding that only those are
1:25:07
Speaker 1: saved who know the Atman, since that is the only
1:25:10
Speaker 1: true knowledge. The Swedish Vateru Panishad, composed still later and
1:25:15
Speaker 1: tinged with rather sectarian ideas, speaks of the whole cosmic
1:25:18
Speaker 1: illusion as capable of being removed vishvamyine of Riddy, meaning
1:25:24
Speaker 1: the cessation of the universal illusion by a true knowledge
1:25:27
Speaker 1: of the one God Haa. In one ten. Again in
1:25:31
Speaker 1: three eight, it is said that there is no other
1:25:33
Speaker 1: way of conquering death except by knowing the ever luminous Atman.
1:25:37
Speaker 1: In three ten it is said that only they who
1:25:40
Speaker 1: know the Atman, who is beyond the parushia, the cosmic spirit,
1:25:44
Speaker 1: formless and pure, attain immortality. All others forever plunge into misery.
1:25:50
Speaker 1: That the Atman in us is the subject of knowledge
1:25:53
Speaker 1: and is itself consequently unknowable is clearly brought out in
1:25:56
Speaker 1: three nineteen in translation, he knows what is to be known,
1:26:00
Speaker 1: but no one knows him. They call him the First,
1:26:03
Speaker 1: the Great Prussia. In six eight to twelve there is
1:26:07
Speaker 1: a beautiful description of the nature of the Yatman. In translation.
1:26:11
Speaker 1: There is no effect and no cause of him. No
1:26:13
Speaker 1: one is seen like unto him, or better, his high
1:26:17
Speaker 1: power is revealed as manifold, as inherent, acting as power
1:26:21
Speaker 1: and knowledge. There is no master of him in the world,
1:26:24
Speaker 1: no ruler of him, not even a sign of him.
1:26:27
Speaker 1: He is the Cause, the Lord of the lords of
1:26:29
Speaker 1: the organs, and there is of him neither parent nor lord.
1:26:33
Speaker 1: That only God who spontaneously covered himself like a spider
1:26:37
Speaker 1: with threads drawn from primordial nature. Pridana grant Us, the
1:26:41
Speaker 1: imperishable Brahman. He is the one God hidden in all beings,
1:26:46
Speaker 1: all pervading, the self within all beings, watching over all works,
1:26:50
Speaker 1: dwelling in all beings, the witness, the perceiver, the only
1:26:54
Speaker 1: one free from qualities. He is the one ruler of
1:26:58
Speaker 1: the many who are free from action, he who makes
1:27:00
Speaker 1: the one seed manifold the wise who perceive him within
1:27:04
Speaker 1: their self. To them belongs eternal happiness, not to others.
1:27:09
Speaker 1: An examination of the other Upanishads will also bear out
1:27:12
Speaker 1: that the conception of the sole reality of Brahmin is
1:27:14
Speaker 1: not missing in them. In some it is more strongly emphasized.
1:27:19
Speaker 1: In others, it is clouded over by more realistic tendencies.
1:27:23
Speaker 1: This extreme idealism, which refused to grant reality to the world,
1:27:27
Speaker 1: seemed to be rather too advanced for the ordinary understanding,
1:27:31
Speaker 1: which could not reconcile the fact that the world was
1:27:33
Speaker 1: there somehow or other, and could therefore not be explained
1:27:36
Speaker 1: away by being called unreal. The inherent empirical tendencies of
1:27:40
Speaker 1: our nature are too strong to be wholly conquered. Howsoever
1:27:44
Speaker 1: they may be subdued, they still rise up at some
1:27:46
Speaker 1: time and refuse to harmonize with the metaphysical standpoint. Moreover,
1:27:51
Speaker 1: to the majority who are not given to stepping beyond
1:27:54
Speaker 1: the boundaries of empirical understanding, such metaphysical speculations as are
1:27:58
Speaker 1: contained in the pure ideals of Yachnevalkia seem hardly to
1:28:02
Speaker 1: convey any meaning. Yet these minds are not totally to
1:28:05
Speaker 1: be ignored by the old sages. They must make room
1:28:08
Speaker 1: for some concession to the empirical consciousness, which refuses to
1:28:11
Speaker 1: part with the idea of the reality of the world.
1:28:15
Speaker 1: This could be done by granting the existence of the
1:28:17
Speaker 1: world and yet maintaining at the same time that the
1:28:20
Speaker 1: sole reality is the Atman. This was a sort of
1:28:23
Speaker 1: degeneration of idealism into pantheism with its doctrine. All this
1:28:27
Speaker 1: is Brahmin Schandojia three fourteen one. It may be observed
1:28:32
Speaker 1: that even in one and the same passage, both these
1:28:35
Speaker 1: tendencies are sometimes found mixed up together. The difference between
1:28:39
Speaker 1: the two views is rather subtle. The one idealism maintains
1:28:45
Speaker 1: that Atman alone is real and nothing else exists besides it,
1:28:49
Speaker 1: while the other pantheism holds that the world does exist,
1:28:52
Speaker 1: and yet it does not affect the principle of the
1:28:54
Speaker 1: sole reality of the Yatman, since the world itself is
1:28:57
Speaker 1: nothing different from the Yatman. Both are identical one with
1:29:00
Speaker 1: the other. The Atman is called the reality of this
1:29:04
Speaker 1: reality Satyasaya Satyam in Brahadaranayaka two one twenty. It is
1:29:10
Speaker 1: imminent in the world and pervades even the minutest particle.
1:29:14
Speaker 1: This view is strictly speaking untenable, yet to satisfy the
1:29:18
Speaker 1: gross and empirical instincts of human beings. This is the
1:29:21
Speaker 1: very idea that finds expression in the greater part of
1:29:24
Speaker 1: the Upanishads. As a whole. The idea is chiefly represented
1:29:28
Speaker 1: by the Shandogio Upanishad. The well known condensed word Tajjalan
1:29:33
Speaker 1: is significant in the following passage from the Shandilia Vidya,
1:29:37
Speaker 1: that is, the teaching of the sage Shandilia and means
1:29:40
Speaker 1: from Brahman is all this born tasmic Ja eight into Brahman.
1:29:44
Speaker 1: All this is reabsorbed Tasman laid, and in Brahmin, all
1:29:48
Speaker 1: this breathes tasmananity, meaning thereby that all in all is Brahman,
1:29:53
Speaker 1: from Shandojia three fourteen one. In translation, all this is Brahman.
1:30:00
Speaker 1: Let a man meditate on that as beginning, ending and
1:30:03
Speaker 1: breathing in it. Further on, Brahman is called the all affecting,
1:30:08
Speaker 1: all wishing, all smelling, all tasting, and all this Sandojia
1:30:12
Speaker 1: three fourteen two and four. Again in a very interesting
1:30:17
Speaker 1: narration in the sixth section Prapathaka, where the sage Attalaka
1:30:21
Speaker 1: teaches his son by means of the parables of honey streams,
1:30:25
Speaker 1: a large tree, the Niagrota tree, that is the Indian banyon, salt,
1:30:31
Speaker 1: a blind man traveling towards the Gandhara country, and so on.
1:30:35
Speaker 1: The atman is spoken of as penetrating the all that
1:30:38
Speaker 1: which is the subtile essence in it. All that exists
1:30:41
Speaker 1: has itself. It is the true, It is the self.
1:30:45
Speaker 1: And thou o shvedikitu art it Shandojia six eight to sixteen,
1:30:51
Speaker 1: repeated with the famous formula tat t fam aci, meaning
1:30:55
Speaker 1: that art thou. The following passages speak as eloquently in
1:30:59
Speaker 1: the same train of thought. From Sandojia seven twenty five two.
1:31:05
Speaker 1: Self is below, above, behind, before, right and left. Self
1:31:10
Speaker 1: is all this from Shandojia five thirteen one. The self
1:31:15
Speaker 1: which you meditate on is the vishvenara self called Vishvarupa,
1:31:19
Speaker 1: meaning the self of all beings the universal form from
1:31:24
Speaker 1: Shandojia eight seven one. Prajapati said, the self which is
1:31:28
Speaker 1: free from sin, freed from old, age, from death and grief,
1:31:32
Speaker 1: from hunger and thirst, which desires nothing but what is
1:31:35
Speaker 1: to be desired, imagines nothing but what is to be imagined,
1:31:40
Speaker 1: That it is which we must search out, That it
1:31:43
Speaker 1: is which we must try to understand. He who has
1:31:46
Speaker 1: searched out that self and has understood it, obtains all
1:31:49
Speaker 1: worlds and all desires. We only say that the Shandogio
1:31:53
Speaker 1: Panishad may be taken to be the chief representative of
1:31:56
Speaker 1: this stage of thought. It is of course found in
1:31:59
Speaker 1: almost all the other Upanishads as well, and contributes the
1:32:02
Speaker 1: largest bulk of the whole Upanashadic literature. Even the Brighthadanayaka Upanishad,
1:32:08
Speaker 1: which we have taken to be the chief exponent of
1:32:11
Speaker 1: pure idealism, contains many passages agreeing with the pantheistic conception,
1:32:15
Speaker 1: such as all this is Brahmin Brihaderanayaka two five two,
1:32:20
Speaker 1: and this Atman is the support of all creatures Brihadanayaka
1:32:24
Speaker 1: one for sixteen. The Tatariea Upanishad two says o M
1:32:30
Speaker 1: the sacred syllable is brahman o M is all this
1:32:33
Speaker 1: Tatariea one eight one. The Catho Panishad two has in
1:32:39
Speaker 1: him all worlds are set Katha two five eight the
1:32:44
Speaker 1: schweedish vater u Panishad, though fundamentally theistic, also contains passages
1:32:49
Speaker 1: like the all pervading atman, all faces, heads and necks, everywhere,
1:32:54
Speaker 1: hands and feet, and porussia is all this. It is
1:32:58
Speaker 1: not our object, however, to collect all such passages. Here
1:33:03
Speaker 1: for one of a better word, we have named this
1:33:05
Speaker 1: conception pantheism. The reason why the largest portion of the
1:33:09
Speaker 1: Upanishads is pantheistic in this sense is twofold. In the
1:33:14
Speaker 1: first place, it is not too abstruse to escape the
1:33:16
Speaker 1: understanding of those who take some pains to inquire into
1:33:19
Speaker 1: the knowledge of the yachtman. By not denying the existence
1:33:23
Speaker 1: of the world, it does not arouse the hostility or
1:33:26
Speaker 1: opposition of the general thinker. Secondly, it is not far
1:33:30
Speaker 1: from the real truth as given in pure idealism, for example,
1:33:33
Speaker 1: that of Yachnovalkia. Granting as it does a world, it
1:33:38
Speaker 1: boldly says that all is the y Aatman, that the only
1:33:41
Speaker 1: reality is the Yatman, even though the world may be
1:33:44
Speaker 1: taken to possess some kind of existence. In this way,
1:33:48
Speaker 1: for accommodating the real truth of the sole reality of
1:33:51
Speaker 1: the yachtman, and consequently the falsity of the world to
1:33:55
Speaker 1: the empirical consciousness, which refuses to part with the grosser
1:33:58
Speaker 1: conception of the world, an idea with which it has
1:34:01
Speaker 1: long been familiar. The idealist has to come down from
1:34:04
Speaker 1: his high pedestal and speak in words intelligible to people
1:34:07
Speaker 1: in general. He will, for the time being grant that
1:34:11
Speaker 1: there is a world, but will add that whatever is
1:34:14
Speaker 1: is the oatman. If we analyze this form of pantheism,
1:34:18
Speaker 1: we find that it is not far removed from the
1:34:20
Speaker 1: original idealism, since the oneness of the Yatman is still maintained,
1:34:24
Speaker 1: and all this diversity in the world is said to
1:34:26
Speaker 1: be only a name, depending on the Atman for its existence.
1:34:29
Speaker 1: And as the name is unreal, it follows that even
1:34:32
Speaker 1: this doctrine indirectly comes to the same truth. But a
1:34:36
Speaker 1: further abuse of the doctrine reduces it to what we
1:34:38
Speaker 1: may call the lower pantheism, according to which each and
1:34:41
Speaker 1: every material thing is also the Yatman. The horse is
1:34:45
Speaker 1: the oatman, the rider is the yatman, the table is
1:34:47
Speaker 1: the yatman, and so on, so that when a man
1:34:50
Speaker 1: kills a snake, the atman has killed the oatman would
1:34:53
Speaker 1: be the vulgar way of expression. We must carefully note, however,
1:34:57
Speaker 1: that this sort of pantheism is not the aescent doctrine
1:35:00
Speaker 1: of the Upanishads. It rests on a mere misunderstanding of
1:35:05
Speaker 1: the position, which implies that all is the Atman, since
1:35:08
Speaker 1: nothing can exist or have a sata meaning being or
1:35:12
Speaker 1: existence independent of the Yatman. When one has realized the
1:35:16
Speaker 1: true nature of the Yatman, such a man is called jivanmukdah,
1:35:20
Speaker 1: meaning one who is liberated while still alive, he does
1:35:23
Speaker 1: not see anything besides the Yatman. Such a man, being
1:35:27
Speaker 1: quite intoxicated with the true bliss anunda of the Yatman,
1:35:32
Speaker 1: will meet all questions by the word Atman. Others, who
1:35:36
Speaker 1: are still ignorant of their blindness deny that they are
1:35:39
Speaker 1: blind and consequently laugh at the spontaneous utterings of such
1:35:42
Speaker 1: a vedentist. As a matter of fact, there is a
1:35:45
Speaker 1: strange anomaly in such a knowledge of the Yatman. The
1:35:49
Speaker 1: human intellect is not made to grasp reality by its
1:35:52
Speaker 1: power of reason and by use of words. There are
1:35:55
Speaker 1: limitations and imperfections inherent in it. It breaks down the
1:36:00
Speaker 1: moment it attempts to go beyond a certain point its
1:36:03
Speaker 1: legitimate boundary. The ultimate reality refuses to be chopped up
1:36:07
Speaker 1: into bits. In order to fit in with the import
1:36:09
Speaker 1: of language. It is self illuminating, and to yield its
1:36:13
Speaker 1: meaning it demands our self consciousness, our living will, our
1:36:16
Speaker 1: whole self, our whole life, but not our speech, which
1:36:20
Speaker 1: is after all inadequate. As the Catho Panishad says Nisa
1:36:24
Speaker 1: Turkeina met Apenea, this knowledge cannot be reached by mere reasoning.
1:36:30
Speaker 1: In order fully to realize such truths, the intellect must
1:36:33
Speaker 1: transcend itself, which it cannot do. Hence it has to
1:36:37
Speaker 1: be content with its blurred and indistinct vision. But on
1:36:41
Speaker 1: the other hand, words have to be used for communicating truth,
1:36:44
Speaker 1: though the moment we use them we land ourselves on
1:36:47
Speaker 1: quicksands when we say, for example, the world is nothing
1:36:51
Speaker 1: but an appearance. Even so we use the term world,
1:36:54
Speaker 1: and in so doing do suppose it to exist. Hence,
1:36:59
Speaker 1: in the interpretation of the passages of the Upanishads, we
1:37:02
Speaker 1: must always confine our attention to the spirit underlying the
1:37:05
Speaker 1: text and to the motives which led the sages to
1:37:07
Speaker 1: unite various standpoints in one text, which may seem to
1:37:10
Speaker 1: be conflicting if looked at merely on the surface. The
1:37:13
Speaker 1: degeneration of pure idealism the kernel of the Upanishads, did
1:37:18
Speaker 1: not stop here. It went so far as to turn
1:37:21
Speaker 1: into ultra realism, and further on even into atheism, deism,
1:37:25
Speaker 1: and so on. The natural course for pantheism was to
1:37:29
Speaker 1: turn into what we may call creationism or cosmogonism. That is,
1:37:33
Speaker 1: the doctrine that God or the absolute created the world.
1:37:37
Speaker 1: The identity of the Atman and the world, though granted,
1:37:40
Speaker 1: was yet far from being transparent to many who had
1:37:43
Speaker 1: a craze for the concrete. They would argue, the Atman
1:37:46
Speaker 1: is one and the world is the many. How then
1:37:49
Speaker 1: could the Atman be one with the world. The notion
1:37:53
Speaker 1: of identity, therefore, not being transparent, lost its force and
1:37:57
Speaker 1: was supplanted by a still more empirical conception, namely that
1:38:00
Speaker 1: of causality, according to which the Atman is the cause
1:38:03
Speaker 1: and the world proceeds from it as an effect. This
1:38:07
Speaker 1: stage of thought prominently appears in the Tataria Upanishad, where
1:38:10
Speaker 1: the chief passages describe how from the Atman come ether, air, fire, water, earth,
1:38:16
Speaker 1: and all living beings. How he desired may I be many,
1:38:21
Speaker 1: and having created the world, entered into it. And how
1:38:24
Speaker 1: Brahmin is that from which all these beings are born,
1:38:27
Speaker 1: by which, when born, they live, and into which they
1:38:30
Speaker 1: finally enter Tatareea three one. Such ideas are also found
1:38:35
Speaker 1: scattered over almost all the other Upanishads. The most eloquent
1:38:39
Speaker 1: passage on the subject is the analogy of the spider
1:38:42
Speaker 1: and the sparks. Just as the spider goes forth from
1:38:46
Speaker 1: itself by means of its threads, and as from a
1:38:48
Speaker 1: fire the tiny sparks fly out, so from this Atman
1:38:51
Speaker 1: all the spirits of life spring forth, all worlds, all gods,
1:38:55
Speaker 1: all living beings Brighteterranayica two one twenty. The same illustrations
1:39:01
Speaker 1: are further set out at length in the Mundaco Panishad
1:39:05
Speaker 1: one one seven and two one one. The one notable
1:39:10
Speaker 1: point in this connection is that at this stage, the
1:39:12
Speaker 1: Atman who creates the world is identical with that who
1:39:14
Speaker 1: lives in it. Brahman is the Yatman, the universal self,
1:39:20
Speaker 1: the creator of the world, is not different from the
1:39:22
Speaker 1: individual self within each of us. Brahman is thus the
1:39:26
Speaker 1: psychic principle. It is not in any way divided into
1:39:30
Speaker 1: so many atmans but is present as a whole within
1:39:33
Speaker 1: each of us. It is not an aggregate of the atmans,
1:39:36
Speaker 1: but the whole of the Yatman. The well known Vedantic
1:39:39
Speaker 1: formulas tatvam Aci that art thou from Shendogia six eight
1:39:45
Speaker 1: seven and Aham Brahmasmi I am Brahmin from Brahidoranayaka one
1:39:52
Speaker 1: for ten amply corroborate this idea, keeping in view the
1:39:56
Speaker 1: remoteness of the age. When the authors of Upanishads breathe
1:39:59
Speaker 1: on this, it strikes us as something really wonderful to
1:40:02
Speaker 1: grasp this relation of identity between God and man so
1:40:05
Speaker 1: clearly as they did. This is a thought that will
1:40:09
Speaker 1: ever be one of the fundamental postulates of all future metaphysics.
1:40:13
Speaker 1: The same has been discovered in rather a circuitous way
1:40:16
Speaker 1: long after by Western thinkers as well. And we believe that,
1:40:19
Speaker 1: in spite of all the threats of materialistic, atheistic and
1:40:23
Speaker 1: pragmatistic movements, the present century witnesses here and there this
1:40:26
Speaker 1: one principle of the identity of the Atman with the
1:40:29
Speaker 1: absolute will ever remain unshaken. Take away this principle and
1:40:33
Speaker 1: you destroy all metaphysics worth the name. Now, the adaptation
1:40:38
Speaker 1: of the higher truth to the empirical understanding went still further.
1:40:42
Speaker 1: This identity of the creative principle with our inner self
1:40:45
Speaker 1: was not so attractive to hard headed men accustomed to
1:40:48
Speaker 1: look always to the external. They failed to understand how
1:40:52
Speaker 1: the great and infinite Brahman who created the world could
1:40:54
Speaker 1: be the same as the little otman within us of
1:40:56
Speaker 1: the size of a thumb and gushta matra. This necessitated
1:41:01
Speaker 1: a further concession to suit the innate empirical tendencies of
1:41:04
Speaker 1: such people. It was held that the atman who creates
1:41:08
Speaker 1: the world may be distinguished from that who is within us.
1:41:11
Speaker 1: The former was called the Paramatman, the great Atman or
1:41:15
Speaker 1: the Eshvara, meaning the governor or the lord, and the
1:41:19
Speaker 1: latter the Jivateman, the individual atman. Cosmogonism thus paved the
1:41:24
Speaker 1: way to theism. The distinction between the two atmans begins
1:41:28
Speaker 1: to appear in the Catho Panishad, and continues in some
1:41:31
Speaker 1: of the later Upanishads, even as early as in the
1:41:35
Speaker 1: Brihaderanaiako Panishad. Some tendencies towards this position are noticeable. At
1:41:40
Speaker 1: the bidding of this imperishable one o Gargi, Sun and
1:41:43
Speaker 1: moon are held asunder Brihadaranayaka three eight nine. And here
1:41:49
Speaker 1: within the heart is a cavity. Therein he dwells the
1:41:52
Speaker 1: Lord of the universe, the governor of the universe, the
1:41:55
Speaker 1: Chief of the universe. He is the bridge that holds
1:41:59
Speaker 1: asunder these worlds and prevents them from clashing together. Brighter
1:42:02
Speaker 1: Ranayaka four for twenty two. This is not yet theism,
1:42:07
Speaker 1: but a preparation to it. Real theism begins with a
1:42:11
Speaker 1: contrast between Brahmin and the individual self. This first appears
1:42:16
Speaker 1: in the Cathou Panishad, where the distinction between these two
1:42:19
Speaker 1: atmans is likened to that between light and shadow from
1:42:22
Speaker 1: Katha one three one in translation, the two enjoying the
1:42:28
Speaker 1: fruits of their good deeds, being lodged in the cavity
1:42:31
Speaker 1: of the seed of the Supreme. The knowers of Brahmin
1:42:33
Speaker 1: call shadow and light, as also do those who maintain
1:42:36
Speaker 1: five fires and have thrice propitiated the Natschikata fire. The
1:42:41
Speaker 1: chief exponent at this level of thought is the schwetish
1:42:43
Speaker 1: Vateru Panishad, in which though the original identity of Brahman
1:42:47
Speaker 1: and the individual atman is not denied. Yet a distinction
1:42:50
Speaker 1: is clearly drawn out in the following chief passage from
1:42:54
Speaker 1: Schwetish Vada four, five, six, and seven. In translation, there
1:43:00
Speaker 1: is an unborn one, a she goat, red white and black,
1:43:04
Speaker 1: that brings forth many creatures like herself. There lies an
1:43:08
Speaker 1: unborn he goat by her side. He enjoys her. Another
1:43:12
Speaker 1: he goat has enjoyed her and left her. Two birds,
1:43:16
Speaker 1: inseparable companions, cling to the same tree. One eats the
1:43:21
Speaker 1: sweet fruit, the other looks on without eating. On the
1:43:24
Speaker 1: same tree, a person is submerged and grieves diluted. But
1:43:29
Speaker 1: when he sees the other the lord contented and knows
1:43:33
Speaker 1: his glory, his grief passes away. These three verses are
1:43:37
Speaker 1: among the most celebrated in all Indian philosophy. The she
1:43:41
Speaker 1: goat with her three colors represents primordial nature procrity with
1:43:45
Speaker 1: its three qualities goodness of purity, passion, and inertia. The
1:43:51
Speaker 1: two birds on the tree represent the individual soul and
1:43:54
Speaker 1: the Supreme Self dwelling together in the body. The individual
1:43:58
Speaker 1: soul eats the fruit of its deeds. The supreme Self
1:44:02
Speaker 1: merely witnesses. When the individual soul realizes the supreme self
1:44:07
Speaker 1: beside it, it is freed from grief. Passages exhibiting a
1:44:11
Speaker 1: pantheistic and idealistic trend of thought are not wanting. In
1:44:14
Speaker 1: the upanish At. Also, these stages are set down side
1:44:18
Speaker 1: by side to suit the variety of human understanding. The
1:44:22
Speaker 1: type of theism we have indicated here, namely that which
1:44:25
Speaker 1: makes Brahmin a personal god and distinguishes him from the
1:44:27
Speaker 1: individual soul, is perhaps most acceptable to the masses. But
1:44:32
Speaker 1: we do not hesitate to call theism a lower conception
1:44:35
Speaker 1: than the pure idealism sketched above. We call it a
1:44:38
Speaker 1: mere pictorial way of representing a truth in a more
1:44:41
Speaker 1: concrete and simple way, to let it harmonize with the
1:44:44
Speaker 1: common understanding repulsed by abstract truths. But how long and
1:44:49
Speaker 1: how far could such a separation between the lord Ishbarah
1:44:52
Speaker 1: and the soul exist? The natural consequence was a further degeneration, which,
1:44:58
Speaker 1: in a clever way, solved the duel by striking out
1:45:01
Speaker 1: one of its components, namely the former. One had to
1:45:04
Speaker 1: give way, and the empirical instinct in man would rather
1:45:07
Speaker 1: believe in the existence of the soul than of the ishvara,
1:45:10
Speaker 1: which seemed more remote and was not directly witnessed by
1:45:13
Speaker 1: the soul in this struggle. Therefore, the conception of the
1:45:17
Speaker 1: paramatman was ousted. There remained only the individual soul named
1:45:24
Speaker 1: now the perusia meaning the person or the spirit, and
1:45:27
Speaker 1: the external real world called procrity meaning primordial nature. This
1:45:33
Speaker 1: is known as the Sonkia standpoint, and may be called
1:45:36
Speaker 1: atheism for one of a better word. It may also
1:45:40
Speaker 1: be added, very briefly that the progressive realism further manifested
1:45:43
Speaker 1: itself in two more aspects. The first was the denial
1:45:47
Speaker 1: even of the individual soul. The existence of the world
1:45:51
Speaker 1: could not be denied, since it is perceived, but one
1:45:55
Speaker 1: could doubt the reality of the soul. Let us call
1:45:59
Speaker 1: those who did so apsochists, that is, those who deny
1:46:02
Speaker 1: the soul. This denial of the soul and the belief
1:46:06
Speaker 1: in an external world only, which was more or less
1:46:08
Speaker 1: a stream of perceptions changing in momentary found its place
1:46:12
Speaker 1: in Buddhism. The second aspect was the furthermost degeneration into
1:46:16
Speaker 1: gross materialism, which would even rob Buddhism of all idealistic leanings.
1:46:22
Speaker 1: Only matter exists, and what is called mind is a
1:46:24
Speaker 1: mere product of it. Perception is the only way to knowledge,
1:46:29
Speaker 1: and all else is unreal. Such thoughts constituted the school
1:46:33
Speaker 1: of Chervaca, the ancient Indian materialists. Here we may stop
1:46:38
Speaker 1: so far as the degeneration of pure idealism is concerned.
1:46:41
Speaker 1: It was impossible for this degeneration to go further than
1:46:44
Speaker 1: the Chervacas, who are regarded as the extreme realists of
1:46:47
Speaker 1: Indian philosophy. The short account we have sketched above on
1:46:52
Speaker 1: this subject may perhaps seem to be a digression from
1:46:54
Speaker 1: our subject proper, but even if so, it is quite intentional,
1:46:58
Speaker 1: since we believe that it may help to present idealism
1:47:00
Speaker 1: in its relation to other stages of thought, most of
1:47:03
Speaker 1: which are themselves found in the Upanishads. So long as
1:47:07
Speaker 1: these are not viewed in their mutual relation and coherence.
1:47:10
Speaker 1: It is not to be wondered that one may accuse
1:47:12
Speaker 1: the Upanishads of manifest contradictions, but a general view of
1:47:17
Speaker 1: the way in which the basic truth of the Upanishads,
1:47:20
Speaker 1: the doctrine of the sole reality of Brahmin, degenerated or
1:47:23
Speaker 1: developed from another standpoint into the more realistic stages of
1:47:27
Speaker 1: thought in order to adapt itself to the empirical tendencies
1:47:31
Speaker 1: innate in all of us may bring home to us
1:47:33
Speaker 1: a better idea of the teachings of these treatises in general,
1:47:36
Speaker 1: and of the place of pure idealism, which may otherwise
1:47:40
Speaker 1: be named as the conception of Maya in Indian thought.
1:47:42
Speaker 1: As a whole. We shall presently see how the great
1:47:46
Speaker 1: Shankara synthesizes all these forms of thought into a single whole,
1:47:50
Speaker 1: in which each has a proper place beside the other,
1:47:53
Speaker 1: and how he saves the pure idealism by the help
1:47:55
Speaker 1: of the revealed scriptures as well as reason. But we
1:47:59
Speaker 1: must not anticipate him before we discuss his advadism, that is,
1:48:04
Speaker 1: his philosophy of non duality, and what he has to
1:48:07
Speaker 1: say on the theory of Maya. We have to refer
1:48:09
Speaker 1: to the philosophy of another great Evadist, Kadapada. This name
1:48:14
Speaker 1: is in no way to be identified with the author
1:48:16
Speaker 1: of a commentary on Ishwara Krishna's Sanki Karka, that is,
1:48:20
Speaker 1: the verse treatise on the Sonkia philosophy. The evadist Kadapada
1:48:25
Speaker 1: was the teacher of Govinda, the teacher of Shankara. He
1:48:28
Speaker 1: has left to us one of the most wonderful expositions
1:48:31
Speaker 1: of the fundamentals of Evadism called korekas on the Mendukia Upanishad,
1:48:35
Speaker 1: that is, philosophical versus commenting on the Mendukya Upanishad. The
1:48:41
Speaker 1: nature of our subject requires us to examine this work
1:48:44
Speaker 1: in some detail. The Koreka is divided into four parts,
1:48:48
Speaker 1: and has already observed. Each of these is looked upon
1:48:51
Speaker 1: as having the authority of an Upanishad. The four parts
1:48:55
Speaker 1: are named Agama meaning tradition or scripture, by Tathya meaning
1:49:00
Speaker 1: unreality or falsity, Advida meaning non duality, and a Ladashandi
1:49:05
Speaker 1: meaning the quenching of the firebrand. The first part, which
1:49:10
Speaker 1: in its subject matter is chiefly based on the Mendukio Panishad,
1:49:14
Speaker 1: discusses the nature and significance of the sacred syllable poem,
1:49:17
Speaker 1: and as it hangs mainly on the revealed scripture the Agama,
1:49:21
Speaker 1: it is called Agama. The second explains by means of
1:49:25
Speaker 1: argument how the world characterized as it is by duality
1:49:28
Speaker 1: is false vitathia, hence it is named Vitathia. In the
1:49:33
Speaker 1: third are refuted the accusations against the Advita view, and
1:49:36
Speaker 1: the real standpoint is maintained by reason, hence it is
1:49:40
Speaker 1: called avida. In the fourth are refuted all the arguments which,
1:49:44
Speaker 1: while attacking at Vadism themselves prove contradictory. And then a
1:49:48
Speaker 1: calm is restored and the final word is spoken on
1:49:51
Speaker 1: the sole reality of the Atman and the falsity of
1:49:53
Speaker 1: all else. This part is therefore aptly termed the Ladashandi.
1:49:58
Speaker 1: The extinction of a firebrand. As a stick burning at
1:50:01
Speaker 1: one end is waved round quickly in the air, it
1:50:04
Speaker 1: seems to create a circle of fire, a lot of
1:50:06
Speaker 1: chakra which does not really exist. So it is with
1:50:11
Speaker 1: the multiplicity only appearing but not existing really the sport
1:50:16
Speaker 1: known as the alta chakra. The firebrand circle is a
1:50:19
Speaker 1: very common sight in the streets of India where little
1:50:22
Speaker 1: boys play in the evening after having finished their daily
1:50:24
Speaker 1: school task. The first part, being based on the Upanishad,
1:50:29
Speaker 1: left Gadapada free to give an unchecked flight to his
1:50:32
Speaker 1: thoughts only in the other three parts. These are therefore
1:50:35
Speaker 1: more important for our purpose. We here give a brief
1:50:39
Speaker 1: summary of the Advadism of this great teacher, which is
1:50:42
Speaker 1: permeated with the conception of Maya boldly and truly Gadapada
1:50:46
Speaker 1: asserts the world does not exist in reality, hence this
1:50:50
Speaker 1: maya cannot be literally removed or destroyed. Even all this
1:50:54
Speaker 1: is mere appearance. In sooth, it is advida non duality.
1:51:00
Speaker 1: In other words, the metaphysical truth is that the world
1:51:03
Speaker 1: does not exist. The multiplicity is false, Hence, being not
1:51:07
Speaker 1: a reality, it does not stand in need of removal.
1:51:10
Speaker 1: Nobody ever made maya. It is not a reality. Hence
1:51:13
Speaker 1: it is meaningless to speak of it as to be removed.
1:51:17
Speaker 1: When the highest truth is realized, the illusion itself is destroyed.
1:51:22
Speaker 1: In the second part, Kadapada explains the unreality by Tathya
1:51:28
Speaker 1: of all multiplicity by showing that the world which people
1:51:30
Speaker 1: call real is no more real than a dream world.
1:51:34
Speaker 1: The two worlds are alike in this respect. The only
1:51:36
Speaker 1: difference is that the waking world is external while the
1:51:39
Speaker 1: dream world is internal. But as witnessed by the same self,
1:51:43
Speaker 1: they are the same, both being within the body. In
1:51:46
Speaker 1: a subtle form. Shankara explains this argument logically. Thus proposition,
1:51:52
Speaker 1: objects seen in the waking world are unreal reason because
1:51:57
Speaker 1: they are capable of being seen illustration like the objects
1:52:02
Speaker 1: seen in a dream. Argument, as in a dream the
1:52:05
Speaker 1: objects seen are false, so two. In waking, their capability
1:52:09
Speaker 1: of being seen is the same conclusion. Therefore, in the
1:52:13
Speaker 1: waking condition to the objects seen are false. Though on
1:52:17
Speaker 1: account of being internal and in a subtle condition, the
1:52:20
Speaker 1: phenomena of dream are different from those of waking, Yet
1:52:23
Speaker 1: the fact remains that their being seen and their consequent
1:52:26
Speaker 1: falsity of presentation are common to both. From an analysis
1:52:30
Speaker 1: of our experience, we find that what is nothing at
1:52:33
Speaker 1: the beginning and end is necessarily nothing at the middle. Two.
1:52:37
Speaker 1: For instance, the mirage is nothing in the beginning since
1:52:40
Speaker 1: it never was a real body of water, So two,
1:52:42
Speaker 1: it is nothing at the end since it never existed,
1:52:45
Speaker 1: hence it could not have any real existence in between.
1:52:49
Speaker 1: The objects of our waking experience are finally of the
1:52:51
Speaker 1: same class as the mirage, hence possess no independent existence whatever.
1:52:57
Speaker 1: It may be objected that the two phenomena in question
1:53:00
Speaker 1: are not quite similar. Consequently, to deduce the falsity of
1:53:03
Speaker 1: either from its similarity to the other is not valid.
1:53:07
Speaker 1: The objects seen in dreams are not copies of those
1:53:09
Speaker 1: seen in the waking condition. In dreams, one sees objects
1:53:13
Speaker 1: transcending the limits of experience. For instance, finding oneself with
1:53:18
Speaker 1: eight hands, sitting on an elephant with four heads, and
1:53:21
Speaker 1: so forth. But all this rests on a misunderstanding. That
1:53:26
Speaker 1: which is supposed to transcend the limits of experience in
1:53:29
Speaker 1: dreams is not an absolute reality in itself, but only
1:53:32
Speaker 1: a condition of the cognizer, conditioned by that state. Hence,
1:53:36
Speaker 1: as the rope mistaken for a serpent and the mirage
1:53:39
Speaker 1: being merely conditions of the cognizer are unreal. So the
1:53:43
Speaker 1: transcendent phenomena of dreams are only a result of the
1:53:46
Speaker 1: condition of the cognizer, and therefore unreal. It must be
1:53:50
Speaker 1: noted that it is only from a relative standpoint that
1:53:53
Speaker 1: dreams are spoken of as unreal and the waking condition
1:53:56
Speaker 1: is real. Truly speaking, both are unreal. Now if the
1:54:01
Speaker 1: whole of our experience, in both the waking and the
1:54:03
Speaker 1: dreaming conditions, is pronounced to be an illusion, while might
1:54:06
Speaker 1: an objector come forward to say, who is then the
1:54:09
Speaker 1: knower or creator of experience? If you say none, you
1:54:13
Speaker 1: at once destroy the reality of the yatman, which would
1:54:16
Speaker 1: be laying an axe at the very foot of all Vedanta.
1:54:20
Speaker 1: The aughtman, we reply, is the cognizer of experience. He
1:54:25
Speaker 1: is himself the cognizer, and the cognized he imagines himself
1:54:29
Speaker 1: by himself, that is, brings about the variety of experience
1:54:33
Speaker 1: by himself. It all subsists also in himself through the
1:54:37
Speaker 1: power of Maya. This is the last word of the
1:54:40
Speaker 1: Vedanta on this subject. Our waking experiences are as much
1:54:44
Speaker 1: an illusion as those of dreams, for the phenomena of
1:54:48
Speaker 1: dreams are, for the time being, as real as those
1:54:51
Speaker 1: of waking. The difference is not in the nature of
1:54:54
Speaker 1: any of these experiences. As such, it is caused only
1:54:58
Speaker 1: by the instruments of cognition. The Atman is the only reality.
1:55:03
Speaker 1: As the rope, whose nature is not known as such
1:55:05
Speaker 1: at that time, is imagined in the dark to be
1:55:08
Speaker 1: a snake, a line of water, a stick, or any
1:55:11
Speaker 1: one of numerous similar things, so is the Atman imagined
1:55:14
Speaker 1: to be the variety of experience, the individual soul, jieva,
1:55:18
Speaker 1: and the life force Prana and so on. All illusion
1:55:23
Speaker 1: vanishes when a complete knowledge of the rope is attained,
1:55:26
Speaker 1: so too is confirmed the right knowledge that all is one,
1:55:29
Speaker 1: namely the Atman. It is only the power of illusion
1:55:33
Speaker 1: which makes us imagine the Atman as the variety of
1:55:35
Speaker 1: numberless visible objects as dream and illusion, are entirely unreal
1:55:41
Speaker 1: though actually perceived. So is the cosmos an illusion, an
1:55:44
Speaker 1: unreality though experienced as real. Only the ignorant regards such
1:55:49
Speaker 1: illusions as real. The scriptural texts amply set forth the
1:55:54
Speaker 1: unreality of the cosmos. The absolute truth is that there is,
1:55:58
Speaker 1: as a matter of fact, no dissolution, no creation, none
1:56:02
Speaker 1: in bondage, no discipleship, none desirous of liberation, none liberated.
1:56:08
Speaker 1: In other words, when it is established that the aughtman
1:56:11
Speaker 1: alone is real, and all duality is an illusion, it
1:56:14
Speaker 1: follows that all that forms the subject of experience, whether
1:56:17
Speaker 1: derived from ordinary intercourse or from sacred texts, is mere
1:56:21
Speaker 1: illusion in the absolute sense of the word. Therefore, destruction
1:56:26
Speaker 1: is impossible, so to creation, and so on. The aughtman
1:56:32
Speaker 1: is ever free from all imaginations, and is never in
1:56:34
Speaker 1: relation to any conditions. He is the negation of the
1:56:38
Speaker 1: phenomenal because of his essential nature of unity. Having realized
1:56:43
Speaker 1: the aughtman, the wise man should be in the world
1:56:45
Speaker 1: like a block of inert matter, that is, being perfectly
1:56:48
Speaker 1: unmoved and unattached to the duality. In this way, though
1:56:53
Speaker 1: still being within the world, he will transcend it. This
1:56:57
Speaker 1: consciousness of the self realization of the Atman should never cease.
1:57:01
Speaker 1: The third part Advida begins with the idea that the Yatman,
1:57:05
Speaker 1: though appearing to give birth to the multiplicity of things
1:57:08
Speaker 1: all about us, is not in the least affected by
1:57:10
Speaker 1: any such thing. Multiplicity is only due to self imposed
1:57:15
Speaker 1: and imagined limitations. The individuation of the Atman into the
1:57:19
Speaker 1: individual souls jievas is not a process of division. For instance,
1:57:26
Speaker 1: the Atman, being indivisible and all pervading, may be compared
1:57:29
Speaker 1: to akasha, meaning ether or space. It is not different
1:57:34
Speaker 1: from the ether enclosed in a jar. The enclosure being destroyed,
1:57:37
Speaker 1: the limited space merges into the great space mahakasha. So
1:57:42
Speaker 1: is the Jiva merged in the Atman. On the dissolution
1:57:45
Speaker 1: of the self imposed adjuncts. Differences are only in form,
1:57:49
Speaker 1: capacity and name, but that does not imply any real
1:57:52
Speaker 1: difference in space itself. This illustration fully applies to the Jiva.
1:57:58
Speaker 1: As space interceptors by a jar is neither a part
1:58:01
Speaker 1: nor an evolved defect of universal space, so is the
1:58:04
Speaker 1: Jiva neither a part nor an evolved defect of the Yatman.
1:58:08
Speaker 1: The sacred scriptures praise the unity of the yatman demonstrated
1:58:11
Speaker 1: by reason and borne out by revelation, while they censure
1:58:14
Speaker 1: manifoldness or separateness. The separation between the jieva and the
1:58:19
Speaker 1: atman is only assumed and need only be taken in
1:58:21
Speaker 1: a metaphysical sense. Again, the distinctionless atman, eternal and unborn
1:58:27
Speaker 1: appears with distinctness under so many finite and mortal forms
1:58:31
Speaker 1: simply through maya. For if the distinctions were real, the
1:58:34
Speaker 1: immortal would in that case necessarily become mortal, which on
1:58:37
Speaker 1: the very face of it, is impossible, since a thing
1:58:40
Speaker 1: cannot be changed into anything of quite an opposite nature.
1:58:44
Speaker 1: The atman is, ever unborn in one it does not
1:58:47
Speaker 1: convert itself into the world of experience. If it did,
1:58:52
Speaker 1: it would go on taking birth after birth endlessly, thus
1:58:55
Speaker 1: precluding all possibility of liberation. The birth of worlds is
1:58:59
Speaker 1: possible only through maya. Nothing can be actually born of
1:59:03
Speaker 1: the yatman. It may only be supposed to give birth
1:59:06
Speaker 1: to things like the rope, to the snake, and so on,
1:59:09
Speaker 1: but not in reality. Again, a sat that is non
1:59:14
Speaker 1: existence cannot be taken as the cause or source of everything.
1:59:19
Speaker 1: The son of a barren woman is a concept without
1:59:21
Speaker 1: meaning never to be realized in reality or even in illusion.
1:59:26
Speaker 1: All duality is nothing but a creation of the mind,
1:59:29
Speaker 1: since it stands or falls with the mind. The fourth part,
1:59:33
Speaker 1: called the lad Ashanti, that is quenching the firebrand, is
1:59:37
Speaker 1: the final pronouncement of Gadapada, intended to destroy the illusion
1:59:40
Speaker 1: of the firebrand circle. The relation between cause and effect
1:59:45
Speaker 1: is examined, and it is shown how it breaks down
1:59:47
Speaker 1: while applying to the Yatman. Nothing is produced, either of
1:59:51
Speaker 1: itself or by something else, nor in fact, is anything produced,
1:59:55
Speaker 1: whether it be being, non being or both. The variest
1:59:59
Speaker 1: theory held by the viginant evidence, that is, the Buddhist
2:00:03
Speaker 1: idealists who hold that only consciousness exists and the nihilists
2:00:07
Speaker 1: are false. Those who maintain the reality of the world
2:00:11
Speaker 1: must not forget to realize that the world, being without
2:00:14
Speaker 1: a beginning, cannot in reason be shown to have an end.
2:00:17
Speaker 1: Nothing which is beginningless is non eternal. So also it
2:00:22
Speaker 1: is impossible to prove the eternity of salvation, realized only
2:00:25
Speaker 1: at the moment of its knowledge, and therefore having a beginning.
2:00:29
Speaker 1: That which is nothing at the beginning and at the
2:00:31
Speaker 1: end cannot exist in the present. Objects are all like
2:00:34
Speaker 1: ordinary illusions, though regarded as real thought, all peace and one,
2:00:39
Speaker 1: the ever unborn, immovable, and immaterial appears as admitting of
2:00:43
Speaker 1: creative motion and material existence. Thus neither is the mind produced,
2:00:48
Speaker 1: nor are the objects. Those who know this are never
2:00:52
Speaker 1: deluded into a false consciousness. As motion makes a firebrand
2:00:57
Speaker 1: appear straight, crooked, and so on, motion makes thought appear
2:01:01
Speaker 1: as perceiver, perceived, and the like. The firebrand is not
2:01:05
Speaker 1: itself affected by its appearance, and is ever unborn, its
2:01:08
Speaker 1: motion being unreal, so is thought unaffected by appearance, ever unborn,
2:01:13
Speaker 1: its apparent motion being an illusion. The appearances of the
2:01:17
Speaker 1: firebrand in motion are not brought into it from without,
2:01:20
Speaker 1: and they do not appear in any other place when
2:01:22
Speaker 1: it is at rest. So long as one has faith
2:01:25
Speaker 1: in causality, one sees the world eternally present. This faith
2:01:29
Speaker 1: being destroyed, the world is nowhere. Duality, consisting of subject
2:01:34
Speaker 1: and object, is a creation of the external senses. Those
2:01:38
Speaker 1: who always hold fast to duality never perceive the truth.
2:01:43
Speaker 1: The treatise ends with a salutation to the absolute, after
2:01:46
Speaker 1: having realized it, such an attitude being justified from the
2:01:49
Speaker 1: standpoint of relativity and experience. In this brief survey, we
2:01:54
Speaker 1: have attempted to show how the sage Cadapita establishes a
2:01:57
Speaker 1: thorough going monist's position, calling the whole world of experience
2:02:00
Speaker 1: as false as the dream world, analyzing the notions of
2:02:03
Speaker 1: existence and reality, refuting the idea of causality, and even
2:02:07
Speaker 1: giving a psychological genesis of appearances. The conception of Maya
2:02:12
Speaker 1: was by him developed into a more or less systematic whole,
2:02:15
Speaker 1: which was afterwards still further elaborated by Shankara. Without dwelling
2:02:20
Speaker 1: on Gadapita's idealism any further, we now pass on to
2:02:24
Speaker 1: the final synthesis of the doctrine in Shangkara. In passing,
2:02:28
Speaker 1: it may be observed that there is hardly any teacher
2:02:30
Speaker 1: of note between the times of Gadapada and Shangkara who
2:02:33
Speaker 1: contributed anything worth the name to the development of the
2:02:36
Speaker 1: idea of Maya. We purposely omit in this chapter the
2:02:40
Speaker 1: discussion of Batteryana sutras, that is, the Vedanta sutras, for
2:02:45
Speaker 1: reasons which are not without justification. The sutras as they stand,
2:02:50
Speaker 1: apart from Shangkhara's commentary or any other exposition of them,
2:02:53
Speaker 1: may hardly be said to yield one definite, fixed and
2:02:56
Speaker 1: indisputable interpretation, either in favor of or against any any
2:03:00
Speaker 1: doctrine of the Vedanta. Shankara, Ramanaj and many other expositors
2:03:05
Speaker 1: have respectively attempted to wield the sutras as weapons for
2:03:08
Speaker 1: the defense and support of their own interpretations. None of
2:03:12
Speaker 1: them is, on the face of it, open to reconciliation
2:03:15
Speaker 1: with the others. Personally, we are inclined to take Shangkhara
2:03:19
Speaker 1: as the best and most satisfactory exponent of Batteryana's views
2:03:22
Speaker 1: on the Vedanta problems. We do indorse the view that
2:03:26
Speaker 1: to shun Kara was handed down the tradition in its genuineness.
2:03:31
Speaker 1: As an interpreter of the Vedic tradition and the Vedanta
2:03:33
Speaker 1: of the Upanishads, shun Kara found himself in a difficult
2:03:37
Speaker 1: and peculiar situation. He observed, on the one hand, the
2:03:41
Speaker 1: different ways of explaining the problem of reality in these
2:03:44
Speaker 1: philosophical treatises, All of them as such could not be
2:03:47
Speaker 1: taken as ultimately true. Their seeming contradictions, even as such,
2:03:52
Speaker 1: could not be merely ignored. Yet, on the other hand,
2:03:56
Speaker 1: all these were to him based on the revealed scriptures
2:03:59
Speaker 1: the Vedic tradition, and hence revelations of the divine truth, which,
2:04:04
Speaker 1: by the force of his tradition he had to accept.
2:04:07
Speaker 1: He was thus, in a way, on the horns of
2:04:09
Speaker 1: a dilemma from which he found an escape with caution
2:04:11
Speaker 1: and wisdom. Acting quite in the spirit of all great
2:04:14
Speaker 1: synthesizers of thought, he asserted that knowledge is of two kinds,
2:04:19
Speaker 1: Para meaning higher, and apra, meaning lower. The former refers
2:04:24
Speaker 1: to the unqualified Brahmin and the latter includes all else.
2:04:28
Speaker 1: That is to say, paravidya higher knowledge means only the
2:04:33
Speaker 1: highest metaphysical Vedanta, such as is given in the pure
2:04:36
Speaker 1: idealism of Yajnovalkia, Ga Dapada and so on. The other
2:04:41
Speaker 1: parts of the Upanishads, which deal with more realistic or
2:04:44
Speaker 1: empirical views, as well as the whole ritual canon of
2:04:47
Speaker 1: the Vedas with its things commanded and forbidden under promise
2:04:50
Speaker 1: of reward and punishment. The law codes, smorties and so on,
2:04:55
Speaker 1: are all labeled as aprovidya lower knowledge. The thought that
2:05:00
Speaker 1: the empirical view of nature is unable to lead us
2:05:03
Speaker 1: to a final solution of the being of things was
2:05:05
Speaker 1: occupying the central position in Shankara's mind. This thought, as
2:05:10
Speaker 1: Dusan has so eloquently pointed out, is even the root
2:05:13
Speaker 1: of all metaphysics, so far as without it no metaphysics
2:05:17
Speaker 1: can come into being or exist. This thought is the
2:05:20
Speaker 1: great dynamic force in Shangkara, and it is this that
2:05:23
Speaker 1: led him to base the whole of his system, as
2:05:25
Speaker 1: reflected in the Sharia Kabashia, on the fundamental concept of
2:05:30
Speaker 1: the illusory nature of all our empirical and physical knowledge
2:05:33
Speaker 1: and the true nature of the higher metaphysics. That is
2:05:37
Speaker 1: the reason why he starts with an examination into the
2:05:40
Speaker 1: erroneous transference of the things and relations of the objective
2:05:43
Speaker 1: world to the inner soul, the self, which leads to
2:05:46
Speaker 1: the idea of avidya ignorance. His defining formulation, which forms
2:05:51
Speaker 1: the introduction to his epoch making book, gives in a
2:05:54
Speaker 1: way an idea of his whole system. He defines avidya
2:05:58
Speaker 1: as adasmin Tadbudha, meaning supposing a thing to be what
2:06:02
Speaker 1: it is not actually object vishaya and subject vishan. He
2:06:07
Speaker 1: says at the beginning of his work, indicated by the thou,
2:06:11
Speaker 1: the knatai and the eye are of a nature as
2:06:14
Speaker 1: opposed as are darkness and light. If it is certain
2:06:17
Speaker 1: that the being of the one is incompatible with the
2:06:19
Speaker 1: being of the other, it follows so much the more
2:06:22
Speaker 1: that the qualities of the one also do not exist
2:06:24
Speaker 1: in the other. Hence, it follows that the transfer superimposition
2:06:29
Speaker 1: at hyaca of the object denoted by the thou and
2:06:33
Speaker 1: its qualities to the pure spiritual subject indicated by the eye,
2:06:37
Speaker 1: and conversely the transfer of the subject and its qualities
2:06:40
Speaker 1: to the object, are logically false. Yet in mankind, this procedure,
2:06:45
Speaker 1: resting on a false knowledge, pairing together the true and
2:06:48
Speaker 1: the untrue, is in born or natural nicargica. They transfer
2:06:53
Speaker 1: the being in qualities of the one to the other,
2:06:55
Speaker 1: not separating object and subject although they are absolutely different,
2:07:00
Speaker 1: and so saying, for example, this am I, that is mine,
2:07:04
Speaker 1: and so on. This transference thus made the wise term
2:07:08
Speaker 1: pavidia ignorance, and in contradistinction to it, they call the
2:07:12
Speaker 1: accurate determination of the true nature of things vidya knowledge.
2:07:17
Speaker 1: All this goes to show that the final reason of
2:07:19
Speaker 1: the false empirical concept is to be sought in the
2:07:22
Speaker 1: nature of our cognitive faculty. Its cause is a wrong
2:07:26
Speaker 1: perception mithage non and emita, meaning arising from false knowledge.
2:07:30
Speaker 1: Its being is a wrong conception mithipratia arupa, meaning having
2:07:34
Speaker 1: the form of a false notion. We now proceed to
2:07:38
Speaker 1: an examination of some of the typical passages in Shangkara
2:07:41
Speaker 1: which sum up his whole position with respect to Maya.
2:07:45
Speaker 1: One of the most important passages which sums up Shankara's
2:07:48
Speaker 1: view that brahmin alone is the reality, is found in
2:07:51
Speaker 1: his commentary on Vedanta Sutras two one fourteen. The passage runs,
2:07:57
Speaker 1: in translation, the effect is this man manifold world, consisting
2:08:01
Speaker 1: of ether and so on. The cause is the highest
2:08:04
Speaker 1: brahmin of the effect. It is understood that in reality
2:08:07
Speaker 1: it is non different from the cause, that is, has
2:08:10
Speaker 1: no existence apart from the cause. How So, on account
2:08:15
Speaker 1: of the scriptural word origin, the word origin arimbana is
2:08:21
Speaker 1: used in connection with assimile in a passage undertaking to
2:08:24
Speaker 1: show how through the knowledge of one thing everything is known,
2:08:27
Speaker 1: namely shandoggio panishat six one for as o good one
2:08:32
Speaker 1: by one clod of clay, all that is made of
2:08:35
Speaker 1: clay is known, the modification being in name merely which
2:08:38
Speaker 1: has its origin in speech. While the truth is that
2:08:41
Speaker 1: it is clay merely. The meaning of this passage is
2:08:44
Speaker 1: that if there is known a lump of clay, which
2:08:46
Speaker 1: really and truly is nothing but clay, there are known thereby.
2:08:49
Speaker 1: Likewise all things made of clay, such as jars, dishes, pails,
2:08:54
Speaker 1: and so on, all of which agree in having clay
2:08:56
Speaker 1: for their true nature. For these modifications and effects are names.
2:09:01
Speaker 1: Only exist through or originate from speech only, while in
2:09:04
Speaker 1: reality there exists no such thing as a modification. In
2:09:08
Speaker 1: so far as they are names, they are untrue. In
2:09:12
Speaker 1: so far as they are clay, they are true. This
2:09:15
Speaker 1: parallel instance is given with reference to Brahmin. Applying the
2:09:19
Speaker 1: phrase vaccaramina, meaning having its support in speech. To the
2:09:23
Speaker 1: case illustrated by the instances quoted, we understand that the
2:09:26
Speaker 1: entire body of effects has no existence apart from Brahmin.
2:09:30
Speaker 1: We therefore must adopt the following view in the same
2:09:34
Speaker 1: way as those parts of ethereal space which are limited
2:09:37
Speaker 1: by jars and water pots are not really different from
2:09:40
Speaker 1: the universal ethereal space, and as the water of a
2:09:43
Speaker 1: mirage is not really different from the surface of the desert,
2:09:45
Speaker 1: for the nature of that water is that it is
2:09:47
Speaker 1: seen in one moment and has vanished in the next.
2:09:50
Speaker 1: And moreover, it is not to be perceived by its
2:09:52
Speaker 1: own nature, that is, apart from the surface of the desert.
2:09:57
Speaker 1: So this manifold world, with its objects of enjoy enjoyers
2:10:01
Speaker 1: and so on, has no existence apart from brahmin A
2:10:05
Speaker 1: little further, replying to the pluralists' objections that if we
2:10:08
Speaker 1: acquiesce in the doctrine of absolute unity, then firstly the
2:10:12
Speaker 1: ordinary means of right, knowledge, perception, and so on become
2:10:16
Speaker 1: invalid because the absence of manifoldness deprives them of their objects. Secondly,
2:10:22
Speaker 1: all the texts embodying injunctions and prohibitions will lose their
2:10:25
Speaker 1: purport if the distinction on which their validity depends does
2:10:28
Speaker 1: not really exist. And Thirdly, the entire body of doctrines
2:10:31
Speaker 1: which refer to final release will collapse if the distinction
2:10:35
Speaker 1: of teacher and pupil on which it depends is not real.
2:10:38
Speaker 1: Shankara says these objections do not damage our position because
2:10:43
Speaker 1: the entire complex of phenomenal existence is considered as true
2:10:46
Speaker 1: as long as the knowledge of Brahman being the self
2:10:48
Speaker 1: of all has not arisen, just as the phantoms of
2:10:51
Speaker 1: a dream are considered to be true until the sleeper awakes.
2:10:55
Speaker 1: For as long as a person has not reached the
2:10:57
Speaker 1: true knowledge of a unity of the self, so long
2:11:00
Speaker 1: it does not enter his mind that the world of effects,
2:11:02
Speaker 1: with its means and objects of right knowledge and its
2:11:04
Speaker 1: results of actions, is untrue. He rather, in consequence of
2:11:08
Speaker 1: his ignorance, looks on mere effects as forming part of
2:11:11
Speaker 1: and belonging to his self, forgetful of brahmin being in
2:11:14
Speaker 1: reality the self of all. Hence, as long as true
2:11:18
Speaker 1: knowledge does not present itself, there is no reason why
2:11:21
Speaker 1: the ordinary course of secular and religious activity should not
2:11:24
Speaker 1: hold on undisturbed. The case is analogous to that of
2:11:28
Speaker 1: a dreaming man, who, in his dream sees manifold things,
2:11:31
Speaker 1: and up to the moment of waking, is convinced that
2:11:33
Speaker 1: his ideas are produced by real perception, without suspecting the
2:11:36
Speaker 1: perception to be a merely apparent one. Here Shankara, by
2:11:41
Speaker 1: making use of appropriate analogies, endorses and develops the same
2:11:45
Speaker 1: metaphysical truth as was held by Yajnavalkia, Gadapada and so on.
2:11:50
Speaker 1: The unity of the self is the maxim and it
2:11:52
Speaker 1: is defended against the charge of stopping all possibilities of
2:11:55
Speaker 1: activity and exertion in the world. There are other similes
2:11:59
Speaker 1: used by shun Kara in describing the nature of Brahman.
2:12:03
Speaker 1: In his comments on two one nine, he says, we
2:12:08
Speaker 1: can quote other examples in favor of our doctrine. As
2:12:12
Speaker 1: the magician is not at any time affected by the
2:12:14
Speaker 1: magical illusion produced by himself because it is unreal. So
2:12:18
Speaker 1: the highest Self is not affected by the illusory visions
2:12:21
Speaker 1: of his dream. So the one permanent witness of the
2:12:23
Speaker 1: three states, the Highest Self, is not touched by the
2:12:27
Speaker 1: mutually exclusive three states. For that the Highest Self appears
2:12:31
Speaker 1: in those three states is a mere illusion, not more
2:12:34
Speaker 1: substantial than the snake for which the rope is mistaken
2:12:36
Speaker 1: in the darkness. On this point, teachers knowing the true
2:12:40
Speaker 1: tradition of the Vedanta, have declared, referring here to Gadapada,
2:12:44
Speaker 1: when the individual soul, which is held in the bonds
2:12:47
Speaker 1: of slumber by the beginningless maya awakes than it knows
2:12:50
Speaker 1: the eternal sleepless dreamless non duality. We see then that
2:12:54
Speaker 1: shann Kara makes use of some very appropriate similes, among
2:12:58
Speaker 1: which are firstly the rope and the snake. Secondly the
2:13:02
Speaker 1: magician or juggler Mayavin and his jugglery, thirdly the desert
2:13:07
Speaker 1: and the mirage, and fourthly the dreamer and the dream
2:13:12
Speaker 1: The last of these has been already made use of
2:13:14
Speaker 1: exhaustively by Gadapada. It has been shown that experiences of
2:13:19
Speaker 1: the waking condition are no less unreal than those of
2:13:21
Speaker 1: dream Both are illusions. Alike. Shangkara works out the same
2:13:27
Speaker 1: idea and leads us to see that the atman is
2:13:29
Speaker 1: not affected in any way by the assumed existence of
2:13:31
Speaker 1: the world. We may hold without any fear of contradiction that, firstly,
2:13:38
Speaker 1: the dream state is as real as the waking state
2:13:40
Speaker 1: so long as the dream lasts, That is, so long
2:13:43
Speaker 1: as the consciousness to distinguish the dream from the waking
2:13:46
Speaker 1: condition has not arisen. Secondly, but as the illusory nature
2:13:49
Speaker 1: of a dream is determined only on waking up, so too,
2:13:52
Speaker 1: on acquiring a knowledge of the yatman, the sole reality.
2:13:56
Speaker 1: The truth that the world is an illusion is clearly perceived.
2:14:00
Speaker 1: And Thirdly, it is only relatively speaking that we say
2:14:04
Speaker 1: the dream world is unreal and the waking world is real.
2:14:07
Speaker 1: Strictly speaking, both are unreal if the ultimate reality is
2:14:12
Speaker 1: nothing but the one otman. How is it that we
2:14:14
Speaker 1: perceive multiplicity here? How do we find so many individual
2:14:19
Speaker 1: souls jeevas? What is this differentiation due to? What is
2:14:24
Speaker 1: the principle of individuation? To all such questions, Shunkara answers
2:14:29
Speaker 1: with the aid of the theory of Maya. All these
2:14:32
Speaker 1: differences are only due to the imposition of name, nama
2:14:36
Speaker 1: and form Rupa, he says in the course of his
2:14:39
Speaker 1: exposition on two one fourteen, belonging to the Self, as
2:14:44
Speaker 1: it were, of the omniscient Lord, there are name and form,
2:14:47
Speaker 1: the creations of avidya ignorance, not to be defined either
2:14:51
Speaker 1: as being Brahmin nor as different from it. The germs
2:14:54
Speaker 1: of the entire expanse of the phenomenal world, called in
2:14:57
Speaker 1: the revealed scriptures and the law codes the power of
2:14:59
Speaker 1: a illusion Mayashakti or primordial nature procrity. Thus the Lord
2:15:06
Speaker 1: depends as lord upon the limiting adjuncts of name and form,
2:15:09
Speaker 1: the products of a vidya, while in reality none of
2:15:12
Speaker 1: these qualities belong to the Self, whose true nature is
2:15:15
Speaker 1: cleared by right knowledge from all adjuncts. Whatever in this manner,
2:15:19
Speaker 1: the Vidanta texts declare that for him who has reached
2:15:22
Speaker 1: the state of truth and reality. The whole apparent world
2:15:25
Speaker 1: does not exist again. On one three nineteen, refuting the
2:15:31
Speaker 1: view that the individual soul is not identical with the universal,
2:15:34
Speaker 1: Shunkara remarks, some are of opinion that the individual soul
2:15:38
Speaker 1: as such is real. To refute all these speculators who
2:15:42
Speaker 1: obstruct the way to the complete intuition of the unity
2:15:45
Speaker 1: of the self, this treatise on the embodied Self has
2:15:47
Speaker 1: been set forth, whose aim it is to show that
2:15:50
Speaker 1: there is only one highest Lord, ever unchanging, who is cognition,
2:15:54
Speaker 1: and who, by means of nestionens a Vidya manifests himself
2:15:59
Speaker 1: in various ways, just as a juggler appears in different
2:16:02
Speaker 1: shapes by means of his magical powers. The difference of
2:16:05
Speaker 1: the individual soul and Brahman is also set forth as
2:16:08
Speaker 1: being only due to Avidya ignorance. A vidiocalputum locoprasidam jibabetum,
2:16:13
Speaker 1: meaning the difference of the Jiva from Brahman is an
2:16:16
Speaker 1: imagining of ignorance well known in the world. Shankara's greatness
2:16:21
Speaker 1: as a synthesizer of Advadism lay as we have already
2:16:24
Speaker 1: remarked in two things. First, in the important and useful
2:16:29
Speaker 1: distinction he drew between Para and apra Vidya higher and
2:16:33
Speaker 1: lower knowledge, which gave a rational explanation of all the
2:16:36
Speaker 1: so called conflicting statements in the Vedas. And secondly in
2:16:40
Speaker 1: his emphasis on the distinction between the empirical biovaherica and
2:16:44
Speaker 1: metaphysical paramarthica existence. This distinction is implicitly observed in the
2:16:51
Speaker 1: Upanishads and in Gadapidus Kuricas too, but nowhere is it
2:16:54
Speaker 1: more clearly and emphatically brought out than in Shankara. For instance,
2:16:59
Speaker 1: he remark marks in the course of his commentary, all
2:17:02
Speaker 1: empiric action is true so long as the knowledge of
2:17:05
Speaker 1: the self is not reached, just as the action in
2:17:08
Speaker 1: dreams before waking takes place. As long, in fact, as
2:17:12
Speaker 1: the knowledge of unity with the true self is not reached,
2:17:15
Speaker 1: one does not have a consciousness of the unreality of
2:17:18
Speaker 1: the procedure connected with standards and objects of knowledge and
2:17:21
Speaker 1: fruits of works. But every creature under a designation of
2:17:25
Speaker 1: I and mine mistakes mere transformations for the self and
2:17:28
Speaker 1: for characteristics of the self, and on the other hand,
2:17:31
Speaker 1: leaves out of consideration their original Brahmin selfhood. Therefore, before
2:17:36
Speaker 1: the consciousness of identity with Brahmin awakens all worldly and
2:17:40
Speaker 1: Vedic actions are justified. This fact is often ignored, and
2:17:45
Speaker 1: consequently the Vedanta is charged with fostering inaction, pessimism, and
2:17:49
Speaker 1: leading finally to a zero point. Such objections are simply
2:17:53
Speaker 1: due to a misunderstanding of passages like these. The spirit
2:17:57
Speaker 1: of such passages is exactly analogous to Kant's axiom that
2:18:01
Speaker 1: the transcendental ideality of the world does not exclude its
2:18:04
Speaker 1: empirical reality, which Shankara closes our survey of the doctrine
2:18:09
Speaker 1: of Maya. The theory as held today is in no
2:18:12
Speaker 1: way conflicting with the views of Shankara. After having been
2:18:16
Speaker 1: made the object of polemics from different quarters, this theory
2:18:19
Speaker 1: was again revived with full force and vigor, though it
2:18:22
Speaker 1: has never been dead in its influence By modern writers
2:18:25
Speaker 1: on the Vedanta, the same ideas of Gadapada and Shankara
2:18:29
Speaker 1: were still further elaborated, though the style of expression became
2:18:33
Speaker 1: more and more labored and technical. In all parts of
2:18:37
Speaker 1: India are still found in large numbers people who, after
2:18:40
Speaker 1: having thoroughly studied the various schools of Indian philosophy, acquire
2:18:44
Speaker 1: a peculiar attachment to the Vedanta, especially to the Advida
2:18:47
Speaker 1: nondual school of Shankara. The doctrine of Maya is the
2:18:52
Speaker 1: foundation stone on which they rear the whole superstructure of
2:18:55
Speaker 1: their philosophy of life. The religion of the cultured Indians
2:18:59
Speaker 1: in modern times is identical with their philosophy, which has
2:19:02
Speaker 1: two aspects. Exoterically, that is, in its outward form, it
2:19:08
Speaker 1: is monotheistic, with the belief that the one Aptman manifests
2:19:12
Speaker 1: itself in various forms which are taken as sodanas, meaning
2:19:16
Speaker 1: means or disciplines or symbols of attaining the Atman. This
2:19:21
Speaker 1: is the lower aspect of the two Esoterically, that is,
2:19:25
Speaker 1: in its inner and more profound form, Monotheism has no
2:19:28
Speaker 1: place to hold since it is not the final truth.
2:19:31
Speaker 1: The only metaphysical reality of the absolute sat cit and
2:19:37
Speaker 1: Ananda meaning being, consciousness and bliss, is held to be
2:19:41
Speaker 1: no other than the Self, and all exertions are directed
2:19:44
Speaker 1: towards realizing this very fact. The conception of Maya has
2:19:48
Speaker 1: comforted many a perplexed mind. As one unpublished Sanskrit manuscript
2:19:53
Speaker 1: puts it in translation, how is it possible to explain
2:19:57
Speaker 1: the manifold simultaneous manifestations of the appsence being nothing but
2:20:01
Speaker 1: being consciousness and bliss without having recourse to Maya. Chapter
2:20:07
Speaker 1: three objections to the doctrine within the Vedanta. Among the
2:20:12
Speaker 1: many objections that have been from time to time urged
2:20:15
Speaker 1: against the doctrine of Maya by Indian thinkers not belonging
2:20:18
Speaker 1: to Sankara's school, and by various other writers of the
2:20:21
Speaker 1: East and the West, most are based on a mere
2:20:23
Speaker 1: misunderstanding of the real significance and the correct attitude of
2:20:26
Speaker 1: the doctrine. As we propose to show presently, it is
2:20:30
Speaker 1: not our purpose here to take into account all such objections,
2:20:34
Speaker 1: first because some of them are merely childish and destroy
2:20:37
Speaker 1: themselves in their very annunciation, and secondly because it falls
2:20:40
Speaker 1: outside our scope. We will chiefly discuss those that lie
2:20:44
Speaker 1: within the sphere of the Vedanta proper viz. Those that
2:20:47
Speaker 1: have been raised by some of the other Vedantic schools,
2:20:50
Speaker 1: and shall subsequently weigh briefly the principal theories commonly held
2:20:53
Speaker 1: up today in order to rebut the doctrine. The Vedanta
2:20:57
Speaker 1: system easily divides itself into fours schools. These are represented
2:21:02
Speaker 1: chronologically by Sankara, Ramanuch, Madva, and Volaba, and their four
2:21:07
Speaker 1: corresponding types of interpretation are known as idvida nondualism, visisted
2:21:12
Speaker 1: Veda qualified non dualism, dvida dualism, and suchidvida pure nondualism.
2:21:19
Speaker 1: Each of these schools presents a different type of thought
2:21:22
Speaker 1: on the problem of the relation between the absolute and
2:21:24
Speaker 1: the universe, and each attempts to give its own interpretation
2:21:27
Speaker 1: of the principal passages of the Upanishads and of Batteryanas
2:21:31
Speaker 1: Sutras to suit its own preconceived plan of ideas. The
2:21:35
Speaker 1: existence of these different schools within the Vedanta needs no apology.
2:21:40
Speaker 1: It is vain to expect all the Vedentists to conform
2:21:43
Speaker 1: to the absolute rationalistic type of Sankara, or to the
2:21:46
Speaker 1: theistic type of Ramanuch, or to the other types. Variety,
2:21:50
Speaker 1: which is no less true of human nature than of
2:21:52
Speaker 1: the external world demanded a variety in the philosophic and
2:21:56
Speaker 1: religious beliefs, and such diversity, at least in types or group,
2:22:00
Speaker 1: will ever prevail. It is an idle dream to expect
2:22:04
Speaker 1: that at a certain time the world will have one
2:22:06
Speaker 1: form of religion or will think in one set groove
2:22:09
Speaker 1: of thought. These four schools in the Vedanta represent four
2:22:13
Speaker 1: stages of the development of thought, which carry with them
2:22:15
Speaker 1: the philosophic and religious beliefs. Our whole personality enters into
2:22:21
Speaker 1: the formation of our philosophic or religious systems, and each
2:22:24
Speaker 1: of us accepts the one and rejects the other in
2:22:26
Speaker 1: so far as it is in harmony or otherwise with
2:22:29
Speaker 1: its cognitive experiences or general interests. The psychological process of
2:22:34
Speaker 1: selection or choice is ever going on in our everyday life,
2:22:37
Speaker 1: in all its activities. Hence, it is not in any
2:22:40
Speaker 1: way a drawback in the Vedanta that it split itself
2:22:43
Speaker 1: up into four systems. This analysis was essential for a
2:22:47
Speaker 1: final synthesis in tracing the development of the conception of Maya.
2:22:52
Speaker 1: We have already described in brief the main features of
2:22:55
Speaker 1: Sankaris school. To recapitulate very briefly, we may add that
2:22:59
Speaker 1: the whole of its centers round the theory of Maya. Hence,
2:23:03
Speaker 1: its characteristics may be summed up as one that the
2:23:07
Speaker 1: only true existence is that of Brahman, two, that Brahman
2:23:11
Speaker 1: is identical with the Yatman self. Three that the universe
2:23:16
Speaker 1: is Maya, having only a phenomenal or relative existence. Max
2:23:21
Speaker 1: Muller seems to have been a little surprised judging by
2:23:24
Speaker 1: his observations on Sankara. The entire complex or phenomenal existence
2:23:29
Speaker 1: is considered as true so long as the knowledge of
2:23:32
Speaker 1: Brahman and the self of all has not arisen, just
2:23:35
Speaker 1: as the phantoms of a dream are considered to be
2:23:37
Speaker 1: true until the sleeper awakes and says. But it is
2:23:40
Speaker 1: very curious to find that though Sankara looks upon the
2:23:43
Speaker 1: whole objective world as the result of neshens, he nevertheless
2:23:46
Speaker 1: allows it to be real for all practical purposes via
2:23:49
Speaker 1: a haaratham. But as we have already pointed out above,
2:23:54
Speaker 1: there is nothing to be surprised at in this conception.
2:23:57
Speaker 1: That was the only way one could reconcile the seeming
2:24:00
Speaker 1: reality of the world with the idea of the absolute reality.
2:24:04
Speaker 1: To deprive the world totally of all relative reality, even
2:24:08
Speaker 1: for practical purposes, would be to propose a doctrine that
2:24:11
Speaker 1: would soon destroy itself, since it will not in any
2:24:13
Speaker 1: way explain the problem, but will simply ignore it. Moreover,
2:24:18
Speaker 1: in this respect, Sankara's views were exactly similar to those
2:24:22
Speaker 1: of Kant, who appeared on the world stage about one
2:24:24
Speaker 1: thousand years later, Kant, too, while strongly inveighing against the
2:24:29
Speaker 1: dogmatism and skepticism of his times, by a thoroughgoing critical
2:24:33
Speaker 1: analysis of reason itself, came to the independent conclusion that
2:24:36
Speaker 1: the world, qualified as it is by time, space and causality,
2:24:40
Speaker 1: has no metaphysical reality, but none the less is an
2:24:43
Speaker 1: appearance that is is empirically real. We hold that whatever
2:24:49
Speaker 1: other weaknesses there may have been in Kant's system, his
2:24:52
Speaker 1: point was true beyond question. Many Hegelians of modern times
2:24:56
Speaker 1: have come forward with a well rayed attack against the
2:24:58
Speaker 1: fundamental doctrines of Cas, but unfortunately they have started with
2:25:02
Speaker 1: gratuitous premises, and consequently their criticisms have mostly missed the mark.
2:25:08
Speaker 1: Kant's things in themselves seem to them to stand opposed
2:25:11
Speaker 1: to phenomena, and so supposing a cleavage between the two worlds,
2:25:14
Speaker 1: they infer that it is impossible to bring these two
2:25:17
Speaker 1: into relation. The same criticism has been preferred against Sankara's
2:25:21
Speaker 1: conception of nerganaw Brahman unqualified absolute, corresponding to Kantz numena
2:25:26
Speaker 1: or Schopenhauer's will, and segunaw Brahman qualified absolute, the Ishwara
2:25:33
Speaker 1: corresponding to Kant's phenomena or the Vedantic idea of Maya,
2:25:37
Speaker 1: or Schopenhauer's fundamental conception of the unreality of the world
2:25:41
Speaker 1: when he says de veltist mean vorstellu. This short digression
2:25:45
Speaker 1: is meant simply to point out that Sankara's concession of
2:25:48
Speaker 1: phenomenal reality was not due to any aberration of his thought,
2:25:52
Speaker 1: but quite consonant with even the result of the modern
2:25:54
Speaker 1: critical philosophy of Kant and others. The point has been
2:25:59
Speaker 1: worked out in some day detail by Dusin in his
2:26:01
Speaker 1: Elements of Metaphysics. As we are now concerned with the
2:26:05
Speaker 1: examination of the main objections to the Maya theory, it
2:26:08
Speaker 1: is needless to dwell longer on its constructive side. We
2:26:12
Speaker 1: now give a summary of the other three schools in
2:26:14
Speaker 1: the Vedanta before dealing with the objections. The Ramanujas represent
2:26:19
Speaker 1: the theistic school of the Vedanta. They worship Vishnu as
2:26:23
Speaker 1: their brahmin, in opposition to sankaras nirgana Brahman, and denying
2:26:27
Speaker 1: that the deity is void of form or quality, regard
2:26:30
Speaker 1: him as endowed with all good and auspicious qualities and
2:26:34
Speaker 1: with a twofold form. The supreme Spirit, Paramatma or cause,
2:26:38
Speaker 1: and the gross one the effect, the universe or matter.
2:26:42
Speaker 1: Their doctrine is consequently known as visits at Veda or
2:26:46
Speaker 1: the doctrine of unity with attributes. Madava sums up the
2:26:50
Speaker 1: tenets of Ramanuj In the formula, three categories are established
2:26:55
Speaker 1: as sole not soul and Lord, or as subject, object
2:26:59
Speaker 1: and supreme. Ramanitch himself has furnished us with a summary
2:27:04
Speaker 1: of his main teachings. In the introduction to his Veentatica.
2:27:08
Speaker 1: He starts with what he calls the three primary and
2:27:10
Speaker 1: ultimate certainties known to philosophy, viz. One God, Hay universal soul,
2:27:18
Speaker 1: personal and intelligent two Soul c I T Individual intelligent,
2:27:26
Speaker 1: free matter, a sit non intelligent. Each of these three
2:27:32
Speaker 1: entities is distinct from the other. God, the supreme soul
2:27:35
Speaker 1: of the universe is distinct from the individual soul, which
2:27:38
Speaker 1: again is distinct from non intelligent matter. This difference is
2:27:42
Speaker 1: intrinsic and natural. The relation between God and the universe,
2:27:47
Speaker 1: matter and soul is that of cause and effect. Matter
2:27:51
Speaker 1: and soul form the body of God, which in its
2:27:53
Speaker 1: subtle condition is the universe in its causal state, and
2:27:56
Speaker 1: in its gross condition, the created universe itself. The individual
2:28:01
Speaker 1: soul enters into matter and thereby makes it live, and similarly,
2:28:06
Speaker 1: God enters into matter and soul and gives them their
2:28:08
Speaker 1: powers and their peculiar characters. The universe without God is
2:28:13
Speaker 1: exactly analogous to matter without soul. Brahmin, which is identified
2:28:18
Speaker 1: with Hari in this system, is regarded as having spagged abida,
2:28:21
Speaker 1: that is, differences within itself in its threefold aspects referred
2:28:25
Speaker 1: to above. It is imagined to be like a tree, which,
2:28:29
Speaker 1: though one, has differences within itself in the shape of
2:28:32
Speaker 1: its branches, et cetera. Madva, also known as Anindoturtha and Prinoprogna,
2:28:38
Speaker 1: in the thirteenth century proposed another system in the Vedanta,
2:28:42
Speaker 1: which he called Badvida. It is so called because he
2:28:46
Speaker 1: believed in the duality of ultimate principles, which he named
2:28:49
Speaker 1: the independent and the dependent. Difference was a real entity
2:28:53
Speaker 1: in itself. The relation of the individual to God, the
2:28:57
Speaker 1: supreme Lord, was that of a slave and master. The
2:29:00
Speaker 1: latter was the former's object of obedience. Maya is only
2:29:04
Speaker 1: the will of the Lord Vishnu. The grace of Vishnu
2:29:08
Speaker 1: is one only through the knowledge of his excellence, not
2:29:11
Speaker 1: through the knowledge of non duality. The whole world was
2:29:14
Speaker 1: manifest from the body of Vishnu. Volabah, the founder of
2:29:19
Speaker 1: another vishn of a school of the Vedanta, flourished in
2:29:22
Speaker 1: the fifteenth century and taught a non ascetic view of religion,
2:29:25
Speaker 1: deprecating all kinds of self mortification, which he said destroyed
2:29:29
Speaker 1: the body in which there lives a spark of the
2:29:31
Speaker 1: supreme spirit. According to him, the highest reality was Krishna,
2:29:36
Speaker 1: exempt from all qualities, eternal, self sufficient, and the supreme
2:29:41
Speaker 1: soul of the world. The creation of the world was
2:29:44
Speaker 1: by a process of evolution and involution. Krishna, being alone
2:29:49
Speaker 1: in the Geloca, as Wilson says, and meditating on the
2:29:52
Speaker 1: waste of creation, gave origin to a being of a
2:29:55
Speaker 1: female form endowed with the three gunas, and thence the
2:29:58
Speaker 1: primary agent in creation this was Prakrit or Maya. This
2:30:03
Speaker 1: account of Wilson is too scrappy and vague. As a
2:30:07
Speaker 1: matter of fact, there is a very scanty literature on
2:30:10
Speaker 1: the teachings of Voloba. The Sarvadarsanasagra has no place for it,
2:30:15
Speaker 1: and even Dusan following closely the plan of this book
2:30:18
Speaker 1: omits it altogether. From his History of philosophy. Max Muller
2:30:23
Speaker 1: two is quite silent on the subject. We shall not
2:30:26
Speaker 1: give here any detailed account of Voloba's doctrines, but we
2:30:30
Speaker 1: must state their essentials in so far as they affect
2:30:32
Speaker 1: the general conception of Maya. Voloba was preceded in his
2:30:36
Speaker 1: line of thought by Nimbarka and Vishnaswami. He attempted to
2:30:41
Speaker 1: purify the visitted Veda of Ramanuj and others. He said
2:30:45
Speaker 1: it was a contradiction in terms to suppose with Ramanuj
2:30:48
Speaker 1: that Brahman all cit intelligence should be an inseparable union
2:30:52
Speaker 1: with a sit non intelligent matter Jada. Brahman is sat
2:30:57
Speaker 1: existence cit consciousness, and Ananda bliss exhausts the possibility of
2:31:03
Speaker 1: all being and becomes whatever it wills by the evolution
2:31:06
Speaker 1: Averbhava and involution Tairabhava of its properties. Whereas Sankara explains
2:31:14
Speaker 1: the phenomena of the universe by Adhayasa superimposition Ramanaj by
2:31:18
Speaker 1: qualitative and inherent differences in Brahman Madva by manifestation of
2:31:22
Speaker 1: Brahman's body, Volaba does so by the process of evolution
2:31:26
Speaker 1: and involution of Brahman. After this very brief summary of
2:31:30
Speaker 1: the chief doctrines of the schools within the Vedanta. We
2:31:33
Speaker 1: come to Ramanoga's criticism of the theory of Maya. This
2:31:37
Speaker 1: is embodied in his greatest work, the Sripascia, a commentary
2:31:41
Speaker 1: on Batteryana's Brahmasutras. His exposition of the first Sutra occupies
2:31:46
Speaker 1: the largest space in his treatise, and this criticism appears
2:31:49
Speaker 1: under the same division. Ramanoj brings seven charges against the
2:31:53
Speaker 1: doctrine of Maya. We reproduce the gist of each in
2:31:58
Speaker 1: order with the criticism of our own one. The charge
2:32:01
Speaker 1: of ashri in a papaty What is the aushraa seat
2:32:05
Speaker 1: of Maya or a Vidya residing in What does it
2:32:09
Speaker 1: produce illusion? Surely not in the individual self, because the
2:32:14
Speaker 1: selfhood of the individual self is itself projected by a vidya.
2:32:17
Speaker 1: Neither could it reside in Brahmin, since he has the
2:32:20
Speaker 1: essential nature of self luminous intelligence, and is thus opposed
2:32:23
Speaker 1: to a vidya ignorance criticism. This objection rests upon a
2:32:29
Speaker 1: twofold misinterpretation. In the first place, Ramanuj starts with the
2:32:34
Speaker 1: idea that Maya or a Vidya is something real and
2:32:37
Speaker 1: consequently demands a seat for this illusion or ignorance. Avidya
2:32:43
Speaker 1: is decidedly not a reality. It is only the negation
2:32:46
Speaker 1: of Vidya or the obscuration of it. As the fire
2:32:50
Speaker 1: is latent in the wood, so is our godly nature,
2:32:53
Speaker 1: our spiritual principle hidden by the upedies limiting adjuncts. In
2:32:57
Speaker 1: the second place, Ramanuj makes an unwarranted differentiation between Brahman
2:33:02
Speaker 1: and the individual soul in stating the position of the Adveadin.
2:33:06
Speaker 1: He has no right to color it with his own conceptions. We,
2:33:10
Speaker 1: after Sankara, do not admit such a difference between the two.
2:33:15
Speaker 1: Brahman becomes the individual soul only by upedies, that is,
2:33:19
Speaker 1: self imposed limitations of manus, mind, ten senses, subtle body, karma,
2:33:25
Speaker 1: et cetera. These upedies may figuratively be spoken of as
2:33:29
Speaker 1: limiting the atman and resolving it into the two aspects
2:33:32
Speaker 1: of the highest Atman Brahman and the individual Atman. If therefore,
2:33:37
Speaker 1: we are pressed by Ramanuj to state the residence of Avidya,
2:33:40
Speaker 1: we may meet him by saying that it must, if
2:33:43
Speaker 1: at all conceived as such, reside in the upedes, the mind, manus,
2:33:48
Speaker 1: the senses, et cetera. As a matter of fact, this
2:33:53
Speaker 1: demand of Ramanuj seems to be unjustifiable and inadmissible. It
2:33:57
Speaker 1: wholly rests upon his supposition of the reality of a
2:34:00
Speaker 1: Vidya two, the charge of tyrod and anopopaty. The supposed
2:34:06
Speaker 1: ignorance cannot, as maintained by its upholders, conceal Brahman, whose
2:34:10
Speaker 1: essential nature is self luminosity. The concealment of luminosity means
2:34:15
Speaker 1: either a the obstruction of the origination of luminosity or
2:34:20
Speaker 1: b the destruction of existing luminosity. But as it is
2:34:24
Speaker 1: held that the luminosity of Brahmin is incapable of being
2:34:27
Speaker 1: a produced thing, the concealment of luminosity must mean the
2:34:30
Speaker 1: destruction of luminosity, which, in other words, amounts to the
2:34:34
Speaker 1: destruction of the essential nature of Brahmin. Criticism this objection
2:34:40
Speaker 1: is based upon Romanoga's losing hold of the real position
2:34:43
Speaker 1: of the upholders of Maya. Our ignorance is merely negative.
2:34:48
Speaker 1: It has no positive existence to be able to conceal
2:34:51
Speaker 1: anything else. In the strict sense, Brahmin is ever the
2:34:55
Speaker 1: same in its splendor and luminosity, but we fail to
2:34:58
Speaker 1: see it only through our own avidya, which can therefore
2:35:01
Speaker 1: in no way be said to be able to conceal
2:35:03
Speaker 1: Brahmin in the sense of destroying its luminosity. In the
2:35:07
Speaker 1: same way, if a follower of Ramanuje were to ask Kant,
2:35:11
Speaker 1: why do we not see the thing in itself dos
2:35:13
Speaker 1: ding and sich, he would at once reply because between
2:35:16
Speaker 1: that and ourselves are the intellectual forms upities of time,
2:35:20
Speaker 1: space and causality. Thus we are not explaining away the
2:35:25
Speaker 1: difficulty pointed out by Romanog when we say that we
2:35:28
Speaker 1: deny the concealment tyredana of Brahmin by ignorance a vidya
2:35:33
Speaker 1: three the charge of sverapenopopaty. What is the essential nature
2:35:38
Speaker 1: of a vidyal? As long as it is a thing
2:35:41
Speaker 1: at all, it must either have the nature of reality
2:35:43
Speaker 1: or of unreality. But it is not admitted to be
2:35:47
Speaker 1: a reality, and it cannot be an unreality for as
2:35:51
Speaker 1: long as a real misguiding error different from Brahmin himself
2:35:55
Speaker 1: is not admitted, So long it is not possible to
2:35:58
Speaker 1: explain the theory of illusion. If Brahmin himself have the
2:36:01
Speaker 1: character of the misguiding error, then owing to his eternity,
2:36:05
Speaker 1: there would be no final release to the individual self criticism.
2:36:10
Speaker 1: The whole difficulty is purely factitious. Certainly we do not
2:36:15
Speaker 1: admit the reality of Maya, but at the same time
2:36:18
Speaker 1: we do not hold that it is unreal. From the
2:36:20
Speaker 1: empirical standpoint as well. Empirically it is sad existing the
2:36:24
Speaker 1: world is, but it is Maya. Ramanuj is too anxious
2:36:29
Speaker 1: and tactful to corner us by his dilemmas. But as
2:36:32
Speaker 1: a rule these dilemmas have one of the two horns
2:36:34
Speaker 1: already broken, since he generally starts with self assumed premises
2:36:38
Speaker 1: and draws his own inferences from them. Most logically, of course,
2:36:44
Speaker 1: the question as to what is the cause of Maya
2:36:46
Speaker 1: is in the sense in which it is asked an
2:36:48
Speaker 1: illegitimate one. Causality is the general law in the world
2:36:53
Speaker 1: in Maya, but it has no warrant to transcend itself
2:36:56
Speaker 1: and ask what is the cause of Maya. The category
2:36:59
Speaker 1: only applies within the phenomenal world, and it once breaks
2:37:03
Speaker 1: down when stretched out of it. Everything within Maya has
2:37:06
Speaker 1: a cause, but Maya has no cause. The same fact
2:37:11
Speaker 1: would be stated by Kant in the words causality is
2:37:14
Speaker 1: the universal law of the empirical world. Hence the question
2:37:18
Speaker 1: as to causality being meaningless in the present context, we
2:37:21
Speaker 1: are not obliged to answer it again. When Ramanoch suggests
2:37:26
Speaker 1: that as long as a real misguiding error different from
2:37:29
Speaker 1: Brahmin is not admitted, so long it is not possible
2:37:32
Speaker 1: to explain the theory, the suggestion seems to us to
2:37:35
Speaker 1: convey hardly any meaning. Since the moment we grant a
2:37:38
Speaker 1: real existence to Maya, our whole theory falls with it.
2:37:41
Speaker 1: A real dualism between the two realities facing each other
2:37:45
Speaker 1: will be at once created, and this will in no
2:37:47
Speaker 1: way afford even the slightest explanation of the theory. We
2:37:52
Speaker 1: wonder how Romanitch himself would try to explain the theory
2:37:55
Speaker 1: even on these dualistic premises. The whole of this charge, therefore,
2:38:00
Speaker 1: is imaginary and feutile. For the charge of a nerviacania vnipapaty,
2:38:06
Speaker 1: the Advadan say that Maya is anovacania that is incapable
2:38:10
Speaker 1: of definition because it is neither an entity SAT nor
2:38:14
Speaker 1: a nonentity a SAT. To hold such a view is impossible.
2:38:19
Speaker 1: All cognitions relate to entities or non entities. And if
2:38:24
Speaker 1: it beheld that the object of a cognition has neither
2:38:26
Speaker 1: the positive characteristics of an entity nor the negative characteristics
2:38:30
Speaker 1: of a non entity, then all things may become the
2:38:32
Speaker 1: objects of all cognitions Criticism. This difficulty is couched in
2:38:38
Speaker 1: a very clever and catchy way. Yet the whole rests
2:38:42
Speaker 1: on a misconception, viz. The want of perceiving clearly what
2:38:45
Speaker 1: the tertium compressiones is. In each case, SAD and a
2:38:50
Speaker 1: SAT sound two contradictory conceptions. And to say that a thing,
2:38:54
Speaker 1: an object of cognition is neither SAT nor a SAD
2:38:57
Speaker 1: is not to say anything about it at all. But
2:39:00
Speaker 1: the thing is thought of in two wholly different aspects,
2:39:03
Speaker 1: and the tertium compersiones is not common to both. Maya,
2:39:07
Speaker 1: we say, is neither Sat nor a SAT, neither an
2:39:10
Speaker 1: entity nor a non entity. It is not SAT since
2:39:14
Speaker 1: the otman alone is real, and it is not as SAT,
2:39:17
Speaker 1: since it appears at least or in other words, maintains
2:39:20
Speaker 1: itself as an Eva as it were. Where is the contradiction? Now?
2:39:26
Speaker 1: Does not this very fact allow us to speak of
2:39:28
Speaker 1: Maya as something mysterious incapable of a strict definition? Five
2:39:33
Speaker 1: The charge of promaninipopaty. Is there any means by which
2:39:37
Speaker 1: this curious avidya is brought within the range of our cognition?
2:39:41
Speaker 1: It can neither be proved by perception nor by inference.
2:39:46
Speaker 1: Neither can it be established by revelation, as the scriptural
2:39:49
Speaker 1: passages can be explained otherwise criticism. In the light of
2:39:54
Speaker 1: what we have said above, this objection stands self condemned.
2:39:58
Speaker 1: When we do not believe in the real exis distance
2:40:00
Speaker 1: of maya, what logic is there in requiring us to
2:40:03
Speaker 1: prove the existence of it? If we had granted its reality,
2:40:07
Speaker 1: then indeed we could be called upon to name the
2:40:09
Speaker 1: source of its knowledge perception, inference, revelation, et cetera. However,
2:40:15
Speaker 1: to prove the validity of our conception, we do not
2:40:18
Speaker 1: require any martialed arguments or formal syllogisms. It is as
2:40:22
Speaker 1: clear as anything when we recall to our mind the
2:40:25
Speaker 1: nature of a vidya, which, as we have shown after Sankara,
2:40:28
Speaker 1: is an erroneous transfer of the things and relations of
2:40:31
Speaker 1: the objective world to the self in the strictest sense
2:40:33
Speaker 1: of the word. Further, Ramanaje examines a few scriptural passages
2:40:39
Speaker 1: and giving them another interpretation infers that all such passages
2:40:43
Speaker 1: can be so explained as not to corroborate the theory
2:40:45
Speaker 1: of a vidya. He might draw any meaning out of
2:40:49
Speaker 1: the few passages he has gone into, so long as
2:40:52
Speaker 1: he is bent upon showing the untenableness of Maya. But
2:40:54
Speaker 1: there still remains a large number of passages among which
2:40:57
Speaker 1: the metaphysics of Yachnevalkia occupy. Is a prominent place that
2:41:01
Speaker 1: defy all such attempts at a forced, far fetched and
2:41:04
Speaker 1: perverted interpretation. When we know that we are, in reality
2:41:08
Speaker 1: no other than the absolute Spirit, and that the Atman
2:41:11
Speaker 1: is the only reality, and yet we feel that we
2:41:13
Speaker 1: are different from the Absolute, and that the world in
2:41:16
Speaker 1: which we live, move and have our being is real
2:41:19
Speaker 1: to what shall we attribute this clash between our knowledge
2:41:21
Speaker 1: and feelings? Is it not a mystery? And what else
2:41:25
Speaker 1: could we say but that this is due to our ignorance,
2:41:28
Speaker 1: the erroneous transference spoken of above six the charge of
2:41:33
Speaker 1: nevardic canopopaty. This difficulty is in relation to the idea
2:41:38
Speaker 1: that the cessation of a vidya takes place solely by
2:41:40
Speaker 1: means of the knowledge, which has the attributeless Brahmin for
2:41:43
Speaker 1: its object. Brahmin is not without attributes and qualities, since
2:41:47
Speaker 1: there are many passages which prove that he is possessed
2:41:50
Speaker 1: of these. Moreover, the grammatical equations such as cat vam
2:41:55
Speaker 1: aci that art thou do not denote the oneness of
2:42:00
Speaker 1: any attributeless thing. They are not intended to give rise
2:42:03
Speaker 1: to the stultification of any illusion due to avidya, but
2:42:06
Speaker 1: they simply show that Brahman is capable of existing in
2:42:09
Speaker 1: two different modes or forms. The universe is the body
2:42:12
Speaker 1: of which Brahman is the soul. He is himself all
2:42:16
Speaker 1: the three entities God, soul and matter. Consequently, the knowledge
2:42:21
Speaker 1: which has an attributeless Brahman for its object is impossible
2:42:24
Speaker 1: and cannot be the complete knowledge of truth. And obviously,
2:42:29
Speaker 1: such an impossible knowledge of the oneness of the attributeless
2:42:32
Speaker 1: Brahman cannot be the remover of the avidya postulated by
2:42:35
Speaker 1: the Avadans criticism. The force of this objection lies mainly
2:42:40
Speaker 1: in the supposition that Brahman is not without attributes, and
2:42:43
Speaker 1: it is further pointed out by Romanagh that many passages
2:42:46
Speaker 1: of the shrild He prove this thesis. In the light
2:42:49
Speaker 1: of Sankaras Advida as briefly described in chapter two. We
2:42:53
Speaker 1: fail to see the force of this argument. To say
2:42:57
Speaker 1: that there are some scriptural passages bearing out the assert
2:43:00
Speaker 1: tion may equally be met by the counterproposition that there
2:43:02
Speaker 1: are also passages countenancing the attributelessness of Brahman. If then
2:43:07
Speaker 1: both these assertions neutralize each other from the scriptural point
2:43:11
Speaker 1: of view, one may well ask, what then is the
2:43:13
Speaker 1: real trend in purport of the Vedic thought. It seems
2:43:17
Speaker 1: to us that this question could not be better answered than
2:43:20
Speaker 1: by repeating the doctrine of Sankara when he attempted to
2:43:22
Speaker 1: synthesize the whole of the Shriti. By taking a wide
2:43:25
Speaker 1: conspectus of its purport, all passages which speak of the
2:43:29
Speaker 1: qualified Brahman may be placed under aprovidya lower knowledge, while
2:43:33
Speaker 1: Para higher will include only those that expound the metaphysical
2:43:37
Speaker 1: truth as it is. Brahman may from a lower standpoint
2:43:42
Speaker 1: be conceived as with attributes, but the ultimate truth remains
2:43:45
Speaker 1: that he is really without attributes. Besides, the conception of
2:43:50
Speaker 1: the absolute in the strict sense leaves hardly any room
2:43:53
Speaker 1: for the tributes. Impose any attributes, and you at once
2:43:57
Speaker 1: make the absolute non absolute, that is, destroy his very
2:44:01
Speaker 1: nature by making perichina limited, that which is a perikina
2:44:05
Speaker 1: without limits. Again, Ramanuj denies that the text cat Fameci
2:44:11
Speaker 1: denotes the oneness of the individual with the attributeless universal,
2:44:15
Speaker 1: and holds that it simply brings out Brahmin's capability of
2:44:18
Speaker 1: existing in two forms or modes. Now, this seems to
2:44:22
Speaker 1: us to be an ambiguous use of language. That Brahmin
2:44:25
Speaker 1: exists in two opposite forms will be meaningless if one
2:44:28
Speaker 1: of the forms were not supposed to be due to
2:44:30
Speaker 1: a vidya. How can a being exist in two contradictory forms?
2:44:36
Speaker 1: Sad and a sid are two opposite notions in the
2:44:38
Speaker 1: system of Romanoch, But he has not succeeded in reconciling
2:44:41
Speaker 1: their existence by merely saying that they are two modes
2:44:44
Speaker 1: of the absolute. To picture the universe as the body
2:44:48
Speaker 1: of Brahmin is after all a mere analogy, which hardly
2:44:51
Speaker 1: makes the matter even a shot clearer. Even by investing
2:44:54
Speaker 1: God with all auspicious attributes, How will Romanaje account for
2:44:58
Speaker 1: the existence of evil, moral or error psychological simply to say,
2:45:04
Speaker 1: as did Plato, that God is good, hence the universe
2:45:07
Speaker 1: must be good is no explanation, but a mere shirking
2:45:11
Speaker 1: of the question. Like Plato, romanoge uses many analogies and
2:45:15
Speaker 1: metaphors while speaking of Brahmin. But the Evadist cannot but
2:45:19
Speaker 1: take all these as mere mythical representations. Hence, with our
2:45:23
Speaker 1: denial of the qualified aspect of Brahman as a metaphysical
2:45:26
Speaker 1: truth is linked the denial of the impossibility of the
2:45:29
Speaker 1: knowledge which has an attributeless Brahmin for its object. A
2:45:33
Speaker 1: vidya being like darkness is itself expelled when light comes
2:45:37
Speaker 1: in Channana is the remover of echnana. As we have
2:45:41
Speaker 1: already pointed out above, the expression knowledge of Brahman is
2:45:45
Speaker 1: strictly inadmissible, since Brahman is itself knowledge Chnana. Of course,
2:45:50
Speaker 1: the term being used in the higher sense of pure consciousness.
2:45:54
Speaker 1: Seven the charge of niviridianipopaty. The removal of the advatan's
2:45:59
Speaker 1: hypothetical digs ignorance is quite impossible. The individual soul's bondage
2:46:04
Speaker 1: of ignorance is determined by karma and is a concrete reality.
2:46:09
Speaker 1: It cannot therefore be removed by any abstract knowledge, but
2:46:13
Speaker 1: only by divine worship and grace. Moreover, according to the
2:46:17
Speaker 1: advaetins the differentiation between the knower knowledge and the known
2:46:21
Speaker 1: is unreal, and even that knowledge which is capable of
2:46:24
Speaker 1: removing avidya has to be unreal and has to stand
2:46:27
Speaker 1: in need of another real removing knowledge criticism. Our struggle
2:46:32
Speaker 1: with karma is undoubtedly real so long as our consciousness
2:46:36
Speaker 1: of the true nature of Brahmin has not arisen. Karma
2:46:40
Speaker 1: its determinations and with it everything else is supposed to
2:46:43
Speaker 1: be real. But only so far. We have already quoted
2:46:47
Speaker 1: passages from Sankara, where he clearly and unequivocally makes this
2:46:51
Speaker 1: concession viavaherically, that is, from the practical or empiric point
2:46:55
Speaker 1: of view, as he calls it. It may therefore be
2:46:59
Speaker 1: called a concrete reality, but with the explicit understanding that
2:47:03
Speaker 1: such a reality is after all phenomenal. We do not
2:47:07
Speaker 1: hold the efficacy of karma in the case of one
2:47:09
Speaker 1: who has attained the knowledge of Brahman. Such a man,
2:47:12
Speaker 1: being free from all desires and motives all springs of action,
2:47:16
Speaker 1: is perry passu beyond the control of karma in so
2:47:19
Speaker 1: far as he is not creating any fresh and new
2:47:21
Speaker 1: karma for himself. The laws of karma are valid within
2:47:25
Speaker 1: the phenomenal, but in no way do they produce any
2:47:28
Speaker 1: real knowledge to the ottman, whose very nature forbids all
2:47:31
Speaker 1: such bondages. The idea of divine worship and grace may
2:47:35
Speaker 1: be supported for the sake of the ordinary minds unable
2:47:38
Speaker 1: to go round the higher path of pure knowledge, But
2:47:41
Speaker 1: surely the idea of grace et cetera is not an
2:47:45
Speaker 1: exalted conception. Truly speaking, grace is only possible when there
2:47:49
Speaker 1: is a direct and perfect communion, in other words, an
2:47:53
Speaker 1: identity between the two forms of consciousness. This fact, too,
2:47:59
Speaker 1: shows that the ultimate nature of man and God is consciousness.
2:48:04
Speaker 1: So long as our ignorance is not cast away by
2:48:06
Speaker 1: the acquirement of knowledge, which alone is capable of ousting
2:48:10
Speaker 1: its opponent, liberation is impossible. Without such a knowledge, mere
2:48:14
Speaker 1: devotion or deeds will never lead one to the same goal.
2:48:18
Speaker 1: As to the differentiation between the knower Nata knowledge Jnana
2:48:23
Speaker 1: and the known Nea, we have to repeat that the
2:48:27
Speaker 1: distinction is certainly fictitious in the absolute sense. It is
2:48:31
Speaker 1: made by us, and it is real for all our
2:48:33
Speaker 1: practical purposes. The metaphysical truth does not attempt to devour
2:48:38
Speaker 1: the world in its practical aspect, the knowledge removing a vidya.
2:48:42
Speaker 1: If we are at all to say removal of a
2:48:44
Speaker 1: vidya is not unreal, Unreal knowledge cannot destroy unreality. Knowledge
2:48:52
Speaker 1: in the lower sense of a relation between subject and
2:48:55
Speaker 1: object is of course unreal, but such knowledge is unable
2:48:58
Speaker 1: to give a death blow to a vidion. On the
2:49:01
Speaker 1: dawning of true knowledge, the artificial distinction between subject and
2:49:05
Speaker 1: object vanishes. By what shall we know the knower the
2:49:09
Speaker 1: subject of all knowledge, As was so forcibly asked by Yagnovalkia.
2:49:14
Speaker 1: These are, in brief the seven difficulties which Ramanaj perceived
2:49:18
Speaker 1: in the doctrine of Maya, as will appear from what
2:49:21
Speaker 1: we have said above. Ramanoja's criticism rests on the whole
2:49:25
Speaker 1: on a misunderstanding of the genuine advitas standpoint. All through
2:49:29
Speaker 1: he has been treating Maya as if it were a
2:49:31
Speaker 1: concrete reality, even perhaps existing in space, et cetera. We
2:49:36
Speaker 1: do not accuse him even because he attempted to reject
2:49:39
Speaker 1: Sankara's premises, but we fail to see his consistency when,
2:49:43
Speaker 1: even on his own premises he falls short of furnishing
2:49:46
Speaker 1: a really adequate explanation of the relation between God and
2:49:49
Speaker 1: the universe. His doctrine of divine grace, devotion, et cetera,
2:49:55
Speaker 1: is apt to appeal strongly to many Christian theologians, who
2:49:58
Speaker 1: will therefore naturally prefer his philosophy to that of Sankara.
2:50:02
Speaker 1: Be as it may to us, it seems evident that
2:50:05
Speaker 1: Sankara's analysis of reality went much further than Romanoges. The
2:50:10
Speaker 1: impersonal conception of the absolute we hold is truly personal
2:50:14
Speaker 1: if there is any real meaning in personality. This is
2:50:18
Speaker 1: how we will meet those who cannot hold any such
2:50:20
Speaker 1: doctrine to be the ultimate if it destroys the idea
2:50:23
Speaker 1: of the divine personality. Now coming to the objections of
2:50:27
Speaker 1: the prinoprogenas, who hold the absolute separateness of the individual
2:50:31
Speaker 1: soul and Brahmin, it is obvious that the general drift
2:50:34
Speaker 1: of their attacks must be directed against the Evadist's doctrine
2:50:37
Speaker 1: of the identity of the two the jiva individual soul,
2:50:41
Speaker 1: they say, being limited Perichina is distinct from Brahman. One
2:50:47
Speaker 1: of the followers of this school of Madva speaks of
2:50:49
Speaker 1: the Advatans in the following contemptuous and polemic fashion. There
2:50:54
Speaker 1: are certain disputants sunk in a sea of false logic,
2:50:57
Speaker 1: addicted to an evil way filled with a hundred imaginations
2:51:00
Speaker 1: of idle babble, deceive themselves in deceiving the world. Who
2:51:04
Speaker 1: say I am Brahmin, and all this universe also is Brahman,
2:51:07
Speaker 1: which is now shown to be an empty desire. If
2:51:11
Speaker 1: I and all this universe were Brahmin, then there would
2:51:14
Speaker 1: be an identity between thee and me. Thy wealth, sons
2:51:17
Speaker 1: and wife would be mine, and mine would be thine,
2:51:20
Speaker 1: for there would be no distinction between us. To show
2:51:23
Speaker 1: the futility of such arguments, it is sufficient only to
2:51:26
Speaker 1: state them as such. This criticism quite ignores Sankara's repeated
2:51:31
Speaker 1: warning that the ideal unreality of the world does not
2:51:33
Speaker 1: deprive it of its empiric reality, and in empiric reality
2:51:37
Speaker 1: all the distinctions are observed. The criticism is further couched
2:51:42
Speaker 1: in rather crude language. We are not surprised that a
2:51:45
Speaker 1: misunderstanding of the Advitas standpoint may lead one to urge
2:51:48
Speaker 1: such silly charges against it as are embodied in the
2:51:51
Speaker 1: quotation just noted. The school of Voloba has not entered
2:51:55
Speaker 1: into conflict with the theory of Maya, but it has
2:51:57
Speaker 1: pointed out the untenableness of romanogist Ramanuch, as we have seen,
2:52:03
Speaker 1: only qualified the original Advita, but Voloba thought of purifying
2:52:07
Speaker 1: it altogether. It could not be held that Brahman, which
2:52:11
Speaker 1: is all c T, should be an inseparable union with
2:52:14
Speaker 1: a cit. This would have been a contradiction in terms
2:52:17
Speaker 1: and would have soiled the doctrine of the Upanishads. Brahmin
2:52:21
Speaker 1: was therefore supposed to become by its will. Now, this
2:52:25
Speaker 1: tendency to question the validity of Ramanoja's standpoint went so
2:52:29
Speaker 1: far as to keep the school of Voloba away from
2:52:31
Speaker 1: discussing the theory of Maya. While Ramanuj made it a
2:52:35
Speaker 1: point to use all means at his disposal to bring
2:52:38
Speaker 1: the doctrine of Maya into discredit, and so too did Madva.
2:52:41
Speaker 1: After him, Volabah stood up to criticize Ramanuch. That is
2:52:45
Speaker 1: why we do not find any special charges preferred by
2:52:48
Speaker 1: him against Maya. Of course, this does not mean that
2:52:52
Speaker 1: he indorsed the theory, but simply that he did not
2:52:54
Speaker 1: meddle with the right or wrong of the question, and
2:52:57
Speaker 1: was content to establish his own views in reference to
2:53:00
Speaker 1: criticism of romanogs. Hence, we now pass on to an
2:53:04
Speaker 1: examination of some of the other objections which are not
2:53:07
Speaker 1: raised strictly within the Vedanta. Sankara has discussed at length
2:53:11
Speaker 1: the controversy between the Samkia and the Vedanta. In at
2:53:15
Speaker 1: Hyai he has established the main principles of Vedanta, and
2:53:19
Speaker 1: in at Hya III has attempted a thorough going inquiry
2:53:21
Speaker 1: into the various objections preferred by the sonkias, by Shushikas, Buddhists, Jinas, Pashupidas, pancuratras,
2:53:29
Speaker 1: et cetera. The physico theological proof is first taken up,
2:53:33
Speaker 1: and it is shown how the pridana non intelligent matter,
2:53:37
Speaker 1: an equilibrium of the three gunas, cannot evolve itself spontaneously
2:53:41
Speaker 1: into multiform modifications. An earth in jar, though springing from clay,
2:53:45
Speaker 1: does not itself come into existence without the cooperation of
2:53:48
Speaker 1: an intelligent being viz. The potter. From the impossibility of
2:53:54
Speaker 1: the orderly arrangement of the world and the impossibility of activity,
2:53:57
Speaker 1: a non intelligent cause of the world is not to
2:53:59
Speaker 1: be in Activity may of course belong to those non
2:54:03
Speaker 1: intelligent things in which it is observed, but in every
2:54:06
Speaker 1: case it results from an intelligent principle, because it exists
2:54:09
Speaker 1: when the latter is present and not otherwise, the motive
2:54:13
Speaker 1: power of intelligence is incontrovertible. It may be objected that
2:54:18
Speaker 1: on the Vedantic premises there is no room for a
2:54:20
Speaker 1: moving power, as in consequence of the non duality of Brahman,
2:54:23
Speaker 1: no motion is possible, But says Sankara, such objections have
2:54:28
Speaker 1: been refuted by pointing to the fact of the Lord
2:54:30
Speaker 1: being fictitiously connected with Maya, which consists of name and
2:54:34
Speaker 1: form presented by a Vidya. Hence motion can be reconciled
2:54:38
Speaker 1: with the doctrine of a non intelligent first cause. We
2:54:42
Speaker 1: cannot enter into this question at any length, since, as
2:54:45
Speaker 1: we have already said, as regards the nature of Brahman
2:54:48
Speaker 1: as the cause of the world, and the possibility or
2:54:51
Speaker 1: otherwise of assuming any other such cause, this conception of
2:54:54
Speaker 1: causality is not tenable in the purely idealistic sense, and
2:54:58
Speaker 1: the moment any such category is introduced, the absolute Brahman
2:55:02
Speaker 1: is conceived as phenomenal Maya fihida. After a careful criticism
2:55:07
Speaker 1: of the atomic theory of the Vaishishikas, Sankara proceeds to
2:55:11
Speaker 1: discuss the doctrine of the Buddhists. That doctrine, as he
2:55:15
Speaker 1: observes is presented in a variety of forms, due either
2:55:18
Speaker 1: to the difference of the views maintained by Buddha at
2:55:20
Speaker 1: different times, or else to the difference of capacity on
2:55:23
Speaker 1: the part of the disciples of Buddha. Three principal opinions may, however,
2:55:28
Speaker 1: be distinguished. One realists who maintain the reality of everything
2:55:35
Speaker 1: sarvicet At Bravada, Satrantikas and v. Pashikas. Two idealists who
2:55:41
Speaker 1: maintain the reality of thought only vijnan Avidins Yagakaras. Three
2:55:47
Speaker 1: nihilists who maintain that everything is shunya void, unreal shanyavidins Madhyamkas.
2:55:54
Speaker 1: The criticism of each of these is set forth with
2:55:57
Speaker 1: great perspicacity in Sankara, and it is needless for us
2:56:00
Speaker 1: to go over the same ground again. All this bears
2:56:03
Speaker 1: on our subject only indirectly. All the chief objections to
2:56:07
Speaker 1: Maya rest upon a misconception, viz. To take it as
2:56:12
Speaker 1: a reality. Even the criticism of Tibo in his introduction
2:56:16
Speaker 1: to the Vedantasutras rests upon the same sort of misconception.
2:56:20
Speaker 1: It is exceedingly difficult to free one's mind from a
2:56:23
Speaker 1: theistic bias when approaching the doctrine of Maya. In chapter two,
2:56:27
Speaker 1: we have attempted to show how the idea of maya
2:56:30
Speaker 1: existed much earlier than the word maya in the technical sense,
2:56:35
Speaker 1: and that in itself is a refutation of the main
2:56:37
Speaker 1: thesis of scholars like Tibo and others, who suppose that
2:56:40
Speaker 1: the conception of Maya was a late offshoot in the Vedanta,
2:56:43
Speaker 1: being specially fabricated by Sankara. On a future occasion, we
2:56:48
Speaker 1: hope to supplement the present treatment of Maya by an
2:56:50
Speaker 1: examination of the various analogies of the concept in the
2:56:53
Speaker 1: philosophy of the West and some other Eastern countries. It
2:56:57
Speaker 1: may also be possible to summarize critics the views of
2:57:00
Speaker 1: all the other systems of Indian philosophy on the question
2:57:03
Speaker 1: of the relation of the absolute to the universe. That
2:57:07
Speaker 1: will be a proper occasion for recapitulating a criticism of Buddhism, Jainism, Samkia,
2:57:12
Speaker 1: et cetera.