"The Doctrine of Maya" by Prof. Prabhu Dutt Shastri

[putran M]

Namaskaram, 

Great resource: https://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/THE-DOCTRINE-OF-MAYA.pdf

I just finished reading till the end of Chapter 1. He gives references to the word maya in various grammatical forms in the Vedas, Upanishads and the Brahma Sutra bhashyas, and his thoughts on the conveyed meanings. I went to some of the texts I have with me and read the relevant passages.

thollmelukaalkizhu

[putran M]

Great resource: https://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/THE-DOCTRINE-OF-MAYA.pdf

I just finished reading till the end of Chapter 1. He gives references to the word maya in various grammatical forms in the Vedas, Upanishads and the Brahma Sutra bhashyas, and his thoughts on the conveyed meanings. I went to some of the texts I have with me and read the relevant passages.

Not however endorsing the typical academic date or order fixing for the scriptures that he espouses, which likely is opposed to traditional viewpoint.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I just finished reading till the end of Chapter 1. He gives references to the word maya in various grammatical forms in the Vedas, Upanishads and the Brahma Sutra bhashyas, and his thoughts on the conveyed meanings. I went to some of the texts I have with me and read the relevant passages.

 

Ø     Kindly let us know whether this scholar have spoken anything about avidyA=mAya when he is citing the meanings and grammatical forms.  If yes, had he quoted any justification for this conclusion?? 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

[putran M]

Namaskaram Bhaskar-ji,

The book was published in 1911. I did find a few mentions of avidya in the latter parts of the book but failed to particularly note them (and think they were mentioned in the sense of ignorance). Will pay more attention henceforth.

At least till Chapter 1, he was mainly focused on noting primarily the usage of maya in the scriptures and bhashyas, and that too with reference to literature preceding and till Shankara. But he did have this:

" From Sarikara s time downward the phraseology of the Vedanta was more and more settled technic ally, and even modern writers on the Vedanta use the word " maya " in the same sense of " illusion " which was so clearly brought out by Sankara. After his time there has not been any desire to change the meaning of the term by a different usage. Hence it will hardly be of much use to examine the later Sanskrit texts on the Vedanta in order to find out the word " maya." In the first place, it is exceedingly difficult to do so, since the later litera ture is so varied, vast and undefined in extent ; secondly, the later Vedanta is in many cases mixed with the ideas of the Sankhya, Buddhism, etc. ; and thirdly, even if we were to succeed in collecting all the more important modern works on pure Vedanta and were to collate the passages containing " maya " in a similar way, it would scarcely be of any profit, since, as we have already said, the modern usage of the term is in no way different from that of Sankara. A glance through such works as the Pancadati, the Veddntasdra, the Veddntaparibhasd, the Atma bodha, the Vivekacuddmani, etc., will amply endorse this fact. We may, therefore, safely close our sur vey of the meanings of the term when we have come down to Sarikara s time."

So, a bit confusing since he says the later Vedanta is in many cases mixed with Sankhya etc. but also thinks the term maya is fundamentally used in the same way as Sankara. It would be fair to say he did not anticipate the conflict over the word avidya that came after SSS, otherwise might have written a second treatise on "Doctrine of Maya vs Avidya in Advaita Vedanta".

I also noted a couple of his BSB references for maya also had or hinted at avidya. (Not arguing for their equivalence, just making note.)

------------------

BSB I.iii.19: "The theme of this Sariraka text is this: The supreme Lord is but one - unchanging, eternal, absolute Consciousness; but like the magician He appears diversely through Maya, otherwise known as Avidya (ignorance)**. Apart from this there is no other Consciousness as such."

Swami Gambhirananda **: Ratnaprabha makes no distinction between Maya and Avidya, though it is admitted that the juxtaposition of the two terms implies a difference between the two powers of Maya - of covering and disturbing - which fact may give rise to different terminology. But others would maintain that Maya refers to cosmic nescience and Avidya to individual ignorance. [Refer to https://www.kamakoti.org/kamakoti/articles/Preceptors%20of%20Advaita%20-%2030.html]

BSB I.iv.3: "Should we admit some primal state as an independent cause of the world, we shall be opening the door for the theory of Pradhana as the cause. But this primal state is held by us to be subject to the supreme Lord, but not as an independent thing. That state has to be admitted, because it serves a purpose. Without that latent state, the creatorship of God cannot have any meaning, inasmuch as God cannot act without His power (of Maya), and without that latent state, the absence of birth for the freed souls cannot be explained.

Why?

Because liberation comes when the potential power (of Maya) is burnt away by knowledge. That potential power, constituted by nescience [is sanskrit word Avidya here?], is mentioned by the word unmanifest. It rests on God, and is comparable to magic. 

This thing, that is avyakta, ... sometimes it is called Maya as in, "Know Maya to be Nature and the master of Maya to be the great God" (Sv. IV. 10). That Maya is surely unmanifest, for it can neither be ascertained as real nor as unreal..."

-----------------------------

thollmelukaalkizhu

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6581D78F63E9B708441DB82484129%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

------------------

BSB I.iii.19: "The theme of this Sariraka text is this: The supreme Lord is but one - unchanging, eternal, absolute Consciousness; but like the magician He appears diversely through Maya, otherwise known as Avidya (ignorance)**.

The Author had given this quote:

“ eka eva paramesvarah kutastha-nityo vijnanadhatur

avidyayaa maayayaa maayaavivad anekadhaa vibhaavyate.”

(On i. 3. 19).

So my guess at actual translation would be “through/by avidya, through maya, like a magician, diversely He appears.”

thollmelukaalkizhu

[suresh balaraman]

Could Maya be delusional

Could Avidya be no knowledge?

Suresh Balaraman

On Nov 29, 2022, at 8:46 AM, putran M <putr...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-qe0eNs5qbYH7CzTwn3Xf3emnn2vUYuKH91Tz6vLY6cKg%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Suresh-ji,

As per this book, 

Quote (Pg 30-31)

  To sum up : we have seen that the word " maya " meant in Rig Veda (i) Supernatural power, mysterious will-power, wonderful skill, and that the idea of the underlying mystery being more emphasized later on, it came to mean in Atharva Veda (2) Magic, illusion. And, further, we saw that in the Brahmanas and the Upanisads also it meant (3) illusion, and that this meaning was more and more fixed subsequently, till in the time of Sankara it was established beyond doubt. The sense of " illusion " may easily be found to exist in form even in the Vedic usage of the term, e.g., where in the R.V. it meant " power or skill " it always meant "supernatural" or "wondrous" power and not the ordinary physical power. The idea of mystery or " wonder " always was present, and it is this very element that in its developed form gives the sense of " illusion " or " appearance." The idea of " magic " in A.V. formed a link between the old meaning of " supernatural power " and the modern one of " appearance " or " illusion." As we have, already pointed out, " maya " has been viewed principally from two aspects (1) As the principle of creation maya as a cause corresponding to the sense of sakti (wondrous power), or (2) As the phenomenal creation itself maya as an effect corresponding to the sense of " illusion," " appearance,"

Unquote   

So, in the effect sense, maya would correspond better to illusion or appearance; and going by the word, avidya would correspond better with lack of knowledge, ignorance and consequent delusion. My understanding is that the debate in the recent threads is with regard to whether and how these terms can be or were used in shastra and bhashya in a cause sense in connection with Brahman. 

thollmelukaalkizhu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/B781DF61-11BA-4597-AAB6-92582904F472%40yahoo.com.

[suresh balaraman]

🙏🕉️

Suresh Balaraman

On Nov 29, 2022, at 10:00 AM, putran M <putr...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-pWEPFBgKDGwzPB2%2BYMEe%2B233yyfLnqzfDaELSXe%2BSgLQ%40mail.gmail.com.