Māyā = Mithyā in the Prasthāna-traya

[V Subrahmanian]

namah śaṅkarāya

Māyā = Mithyā in the Prasthāna-traya

The Prasthāna-traya — the “threefold canon” — represents the three authoritative sources for understanding paratattva (the Supreme Reality):

1. Upaniṣad-prasthāna,

2. Bhagavadgītā-prasthāna, and

3. Brahmasūtra-prasthāna.

Of these, the first — the Upaniṣads — is the original and foundational source for the other two. The Upaniṣads are apauruṣeya (not of human origin), while the other two are universally accepted as authored by Vedavyāsa.

In all these three prasthānas, the word Māyā occurs, and wherever it occurs, either directly or indirectly, it conveys the meaning of Mithyā — the unreal or dependent reality.

---

Upaniṣad Prasthāna

Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad:

प्रपञ्चो यदि विद्येत निवर्तेत न संशयः ।
मायामात्रमिदं द्वैतमद्वैतं परमार्थतः ॥

“If the universe truly existed, it would cease through knowledge — no doubt about it.
But in truth, this dvaita, duality is merely Māyā; the ultimate reality is Advaita (non-dual).”

---

Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (2.5.19):

रूपं रूपं प्रतिरूपो बभूव तदस्य रूपं प्रतिचक्षणाय ।
इन्द्रो मायाभिः पुरुरूप ईयते युक्ता ह्यस्य हरयः शता दशेति ॥

Īśvara, desiring that the world may know Him, assumes innumerable forms by His Māyā, appearing as the manifold universe.

Why must these forms be Mithyā? Because they are perceptible through the senses — and the senses, along with the mind, are products of Avidyā.
The Ātman is truly not the body, yet through ignorance, one identifies the body as oneself. Since the senses belong to the body, the objects perceived by them are Mithyā.

This same truth is declared in the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam:

 (7.2.48)

यथा मनोरथः स्वप्नः सर्वमैन्द्रियकं मृषा ॥

“Just as a manoratha (daydream or waking imagination) and a svapna (dream) are unreal, so too all that is perceived through the senses — this entire phenomenal world — is unreal.”

---

Bhagavadgītā Prasthāna

Bhagavadgītā 7.14:

दैवी ह्येषा गुणमयी मम माया दुरत्यया ।
मामेव ये प्रपद्यन्ते मायामेतां तरन्ति ते ॥

Śrī Kṛṣṇa says:
“This divine Māyā of Mine, constituted of the guṇas — sattva, rajas, and tamas — is exceedingly difficult to transcend.
Yet those who take refuge in Me — in My Ātma/Brahma-svarūpa — they cross over this Māyā.”

And again He declares:

Bhagavadgītā 5.29:

भोक्तारं यज्ञतपसां सर्वलोकमहेश्वरम् ।
सुहृदं सर्वभूतानां ज्ञात्वा मां शान्तिमृच्छति ॥

“One who knows Me — the enjoyer of all sacrifices and austerities, the great Lord of all worlds, the friend of all beings — attains śānti (peace, i.e., mokṣa).”

Here, peace is had through knowledge implies that bondage (saṁsāra) arises through ignorance (ajñāna).
The cause of saṁsāra is Māyā, and Māyā is dispelled by jñāna — hence it is jñāna-nivartyam.

That which is negated by knowledge is known as Mithyā.
For instance, when one mistakes a rope for a snake due to ignorance, the snake appears real; but upon gaining knowledge of the rope, the snake disappears along with the ignorance which caused it — proving that it was Mithyā.

Similarly, Māyā too is Mithyā.
When there is no knowledge of the Paramātman, Māyā manifests as the world.
With the dawn of Brahma-jñāna, it vanishes.

Thus, in the Gītā-prasthāna also, the mithyātva (illusory nature) of Māyā is firmly established. The verses cited are but one example.

---

Sūtra Prasthāna

Brahmasūtra (3.2.3):

मायामात्रं तु कार्त्स्न्येनानभिव्यक्तस्वरूपत्वात् ॥

This sūtra occurs in the discussion on dreams (svapna-vicāra).
All dream experiences — events, objects, and persons — are Māyāmātra, that is, Mithyā.

The Śrīmad Bhāgavatam cited earlier (under the Upaniṣad-prasthāna) also declares the mithyātva of dreams.

---

Thus, in all three prasthānas — Upaniṣad, Gītā, and Brahmasūtra — the word Māyā is consistently used in the sense of Mithyā.

This interpretation aligns perfectly with Advaita Vedānta alone; for other schools, it proves highly inconvenient, which is why they are compelled to impose forced and strained meanings upon the term.

Om Tat Sat

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

Namaste Sri Subbuji

>Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (2.5.19):

>रूपं रूपं प्रतिरूपो बभूव तदस्य रूपं प्रतिचक्षणाय ।
>इन्द्रो मायाभिः पुरुरूप ईयते युक्ता ह्यस्य हरयः शता दशेति ॥

>Īśvara, desiring that the world may know Him, assumes innumerable forms by His Māyā, appearing as the manifold universe.

>Why must these forms be Mithyā?

Here, mAyA is not the same as mithyA, though both are closely related.

Here, mAyA is the Shakti of Ishwara. mithyA is the result of mAyA. mAyA produces the mithyA forms. It is a cause and effect relationship. 

Best Regards

Kalyan

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, 14 Oct, 2025, 12:15 am Kalyan Chakravarthy, <kalyanchakr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Sri Subbuji

>Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (2.5.19):

>रूपं रूपं प्रतिरूपो बभूव तदस्य रूपं प्रतिचक्षणाय ।
>इन्द्रो मायाभिः पुरुरूप ईयते युक्ता ह्यस्य हरयः शता दशेति ॥

>Īśvara, desiring that the world may know Him, assumes innumerable forms by His Māyā, appearing as the manifold universe.

>Why must these forms be Mithyā?

Here, mAyA is not the same as mithyA, though both are closely related.

Here, mAyA is the Shakti of Ishwara. mithyA is the result of mAyA. mAyA produces the mithyA forms. It is a cause and effect relationship. 

Dear Kalyan ji, 

I agree with you. Shankaracharya's commentary for this:

इन्द्रः परमेश्वरः मायाभिः प्रज्ञाभिः नामरूपभूतकृतमिथ्याभिमानैर्वा न तु परमार्थतः, पुरुरूपः बहुरूपः, ईयते गम्यते — एकरूप एव प्रज्ञानघनः सन् अविद्याप्रज्ञाभिः ।

He says there's a mithya abhimana  involved in Ishwara creating those forms. And such a creation is not absolutely real. 

In other words the forms he created are not real, maayika; their purpose being solely to point to the Nirvishesha Brahman underlying them. 

In a Gaudapada karika Bhashyam Shankara cited this line and explains:

‘इन्द्रो मायाभिः’ (बृ. उ. २ । ५ । १९) इत्यभूतार्थप्रतिपादकेन मायाशब्देन व्यपदेशात् । ननु प्रज्ञावचनो मायाशब्दः ; सत्यम् , इन्द्रियप्रज्ञाया अविद्यामयत्वेन मायात्वाभ्युपगमाददोषः । मायाभिः इन्द्रियप्रज्ञाभिरविद्यारूपाभिरित्यर्थः । ‘

The Maya word used in the Shruti, Shankara says indicates the srushti is not something that really happened. There's a meaning 'perception' to the word Maya. Shankara considers that too and explains the sense perceptions are avidya based and hence maaya and therefore his and the Shruti using the term maya is quite appropriate. 

As a corollary we see Shankara equating Maya with Avidya, a blend rarely seen. Here Ishwara's Shakti is involved and the avidya perception is also there. 

Regards 

subbu 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/82d5c165-5392-49ad-8808-0225aab75f19n%40googlegroups.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

Here, mAyA is not the same as mithyA, though both are closely related.

• Yes in the above mAya is NOT mithya, shankara explained mAya as anirvachaneeya.  mAya is anirvachaneeya because it happens only when both the kAraNa and the kArya or shakti and shakta are simultaneously perceived either by pratyaksha or through the shAstra. Shankara gives the example of foam/water example for this.  OTOH, mithyA is related to the wrong perception of an object (mithyA sarpa dashana in the existing rajju). The difference between the two can be understood clearly from the cause-effect non-difference relation which has been highlighted by bhAshyakAra when driving home the point mruttiketyeva satyaM.  And it is also to be noted that  wherever the bhAshyakAra talks about anirvachaneeyatvam of nAma rUpaa, he is invariably referring only to this ambiguity in the description whether it is brahman only or different from it.

Here, mAyA is the Shakti of Ishwara. mithyA is the result of mAyA. mAyA produces the mithyA forms. It is a cause and effect relationship. 

• Yes mAya is Ishwara shakti and Ishwara is shakta and these shakti and shakta is ananya ( shakti shaktimatOH ananyatvAt, .. One who knows nAma rUpa svarUpa, knows it only as the cause. Though it appears in a special form like pot, jar, pitcher etc., it is known to be the clay/cause in the light of the shAstra. This is anirvachaneeya aspect of mAya.  mAya kArya is the aashraya for perceiving the mithya nAma rUpa….like rope is the Ashraya for wrongly perceiving the snake. 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

Dear Bhaskarji, Namaste

Indro mAyAbhiH....mAyA is tRtIyA vibhakti, bahu vachana. 

I wonder why bahu vachana is used for mAyA here.

Best Regards

Kalyan

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 2:20 PM Kalyan Chakravarthy <kalyanchakr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Bhaskarji, Namaste

Indro mAyAbhiH....mAyA is tRtIyA vibhakti, bahu vachana. 

I wonder why bahu vachana is used for mAyA here.

Dear Kalyan ji,

This is a good question. Upon looking up the Anandagiri gloss and Sureshwara's Vartika, I understand: 

Brahman, with a view to enable itself to be known, entered into all bodies. And all the inhabitants of the bodies are endowed with ignorance of their true nature. And being outward turned, their sense organs perceive only the outside objects. Since the ignorances are many and the perceptions are also many, the plural in the perceptions is used: māyābhih.  Even though the ultimate consciousness is one and indivisible, due to the ignorance, it is seen as many like the one sun is seen as many reflections.  Shankara himself clarifies that it is not a real creation.  So, it is a kind of drishti srishti involving every jiva. We are reminded of: सर्वाणि रूपाणि विचित्य धीरः नामानि कृत्वा अभिवदन् यदास्ते  of the Purusha Suktam. And the Nrsimha Tapini says explicitly: That One Ishwara, though undeluded, appears as though deluded, in the various bodies into which he has entered as jivas. While commenting on the Purusha Suktam, Sayana cites the Nrsimha tapini. 

So, taking all these inputs, the plural in triteeyaa is explained as above: Ishwara, through the medium of many ignorant perceptions, took on many forms (of objects of the world). If you have the time you can look up the Anandagiri for both Brih.up. bhashya and the Mandukya Karika bhashya. This study reveals that the gloss is perfectly loyal to the Bhashya.        

रूपं रूपं प्रति ह्येष प्रतिरूपो बभूव ह ।।
देहं देहं प्रविष्टः संस्तद्देहाकारतामगात् ।। १२६ ।।

मायाभिः प्रत्यगज्ञानैर्यदि वाऽनृतबुद्धिभिः ।।

गम्यते पुरुरूपोऽज्ञैरेकोऽपि जलसूर्यवत् ।। १२७ ।। 

warm regards

subbu

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/e11261cc-9b04-4a93-b6ab-a70faabb341cn%40googlegroups.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Indro mAyAbhiH....mAyA is tRtIyA vibhakti, bahu vachana. 

 

Ø     It is parabrahman’s powers (supernatural powers one can say)…he is sarvashakta, sarvajna, sarvavyaapi, he is aNu, reNu, truNa, kAshta, whatever seen is nothing but him.  through his mAyOpAdhi ( not definitely with avidyOpAdhi) he can appear like many.  ajAyamAno bahudhA vidhAyate, satyanchAnrutaMcha satyamabhavat yadidaM kiMcha…says shruti.  And definitely it has nothing to do with individual jeeva’s and their own different types of ajnAna.  Even if you see the Rigveda mUla mantra harayaH, Shata, dasha etc. we will come to know that it is just indra (parabrahman) through his magical powers pururUpa iyate.  mAya cannot be equated with avidyA to make the ridiculous comments like brahman (indra) avidyA through his avidyA taking the forms of somany 😊 Here mAyA is mUlaprakruti which is nothing but parameshwara shakti-s (or different facets of his mAyA).  mAya is parAparaprakruti-s of Ishwara, sometimes it is subservient to brahman, it is nitya (like Ishwara) as his shakti, it is anirvachaneeya,  sometimes this mAya (nAma rUpa) is avidyAkruta also like seeing the nAma and rUpa of snake due to our avidyA/adhyAsa  and finally it is non-different from brahman. 

 

• Some basic questions that arise in the Advaita vedAnta with regard to brahman’s srushti or brahman itself appearing as many, or how does the one (undivided tattva) give rise to the many? Or how can ekamevAdviteeya Chaitanya brahman create an achetana jada jagat out of itself ? or how the kArya (jada) is connected to the kAraNa (Chaitanya) that is so completely opposed to it in its very nature” etc. etc. . are answered in our shAstra by introducing the magical power or the special kind of power i.e. mAyA which is quite subtle and ananya with real.  And this attribution of shakti to brahma in srushti prakaraNa noway going to affect the brahma ekatvaM as bhAshyakAra concluded in geeta bhAshya and svayaM Krishna also clarified : mama svarUpabhUtA madeeya mAyA, sA shaktiH brahmaiva ahaM shakti shaktimatOH anayatvAt…And this shakti is mUlaprakruti (avyAkruta shakti) which was / is / ever there in brahman before srushti, during its sthiti and after dissolution…so mUlaprakruti in its svarUpa brahman only.  yA mUlaprakrutiH abhyupagamyAt tadeva cha nO  brahma (vide sUtra bhAshya). 

 

• From all this it is quite evident that one cannot equate mAya with avidyA…mAyA is maNgala and avidyA is anishtA one is IshwarAdheena or Ishwara shakti another is a disease in jeeva through which he suffers.