On Maya (passage from Dakshinamurthi text)
20 views
Skip to first unread message
putran M
Jun 7, 2026, 1:34:03 AM (7 days ago) Jun 7
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Namaskaram,
Expressions such as Mayā (Avidya, Prakrit) are employed in respect of myself regarded as unknown]
On enquiry Maya is sublated. It is not established by any pramana. Sruti as referring to it is only an allusion and not a pramana; the purport of Sruti being the non-dual Brahman-Atman whose knowledge leads to the fruit viz., liberation and not Mayā in respect of the knowledge of which no fruit whatsoever is mentioned. It is mentioned only as a subsidiary in the context of Brahman knowledge. The experience 'I am ignorant' is not valid knowledge as it is that of
the ignorant, and not of the wise. The use of arthapatt clearly shows that due recognition has been given to the fact that it is sublated by knowledge and the citation of other pramanas like inference, Sruti etc., along with it is only to emphasize that it is not a negation, and to pave the way for the ignorant for recognising eventually that it is only Atman the Existence, that is thought of as Maya. Regarded as an entity apart from Atman it is a vikalpa, tuccha, a non-entity. Its use is in pointing to the non-dual Atman by negating itself.
This is from the treatise referenced by Subbu-ji: https://archive.org/details/wg880/page/n29/mode/2up I hope to read it fully but the following caught my attention and decided to copy-paste.
Pg 352-355
... Mayā which is responsible for the name and form pertaining to the world-picture is not apart from the Substratum In fact, whatever is
regarded as mayakārya-spacc, time or an object--when enquired into in the appropriate manner, is revealed to be Atman alone with no trace of name, form or even Mayã, they do not brook enquiry---they are vicärāsaha. This shows that it is Atman alone that is spoken of in
those terms. Says the Âtmapuräna-regarded as mayakārya-spacc, time or an object--when enquired into in the appropriate manner, is revealed to be Atman alone with no trace of name, form or even Mayã, they do not brook enquiry---they are vicärāsaha. This shows that it is Atman alone that is spoken of in
[Just as a tiny lad at sleep, unaware of his own body, sees by concoction a demon in himself and gets into throes of fear with senses agitated, likewise, though I am Atman, Existence, Consciousness, Bliss, yet being forgetful of my true nature, I have concocted Mäyā in myself. On the dawn of right knowl- edge aided by enquiry, she takes to her heels. In Me that is non- dual, she is always sublated. She is not in me as other than Myself, like the demon that is not there as apart from the lad.
Expressions such as Mayā (Avidya, Prakrit) are employed in respect of myself regarded as unknown]
5.7.6 Postulation of Maya for Prakriya
On enquiry Maya is sublated. It is not established by any pramana. Sruti as referring to it is only an allusion and not a pramana; the purport of Sruti being the non-dual Brahman-Atman whose knowledge leads to the fruit viz., liberation and not Mayā in respect of the knowledge of which no fruit whatsoever is mentioned. It is mentioned only as a subsidiary in the context of Brahman knowledge. The experience 'I am ignorant' is not valid knowledge as it is that of
the ignorant, and not of the wise. The use of arthapatt clearly shows that due recognition has been given to the fact that it is sublated by knowledge and the citation of other pramanas like inference, Sruti etc., along with it is only to emphasize that it is not a negation, and to pave the way for the ignorant for recognising eventually that it is only Atman the Existence, that is thought of as Maya. Regarded as an entity apart from Atman it is a vikalpa, tuccha, a non-entity. Its use is in pointing to the non-dual Atman by negating itself.
Like all else, it is also concocted in Atman and used in parlance. Regarded as the sakt of Atman it is responsible for duality and its knowledge Its use in the prakriya according to Vedanta is to set at rest all other prakriyas pertaining to creation, mentioned e.g., in the Soetäsoataropantsad (1-2) such as time, nature, law, chance, matter, etc. The Mandukyakärkä (2-19) which refers to various views of creation says that Atman is imagined as prana and other countless objects, and that this is due to Maya of the Self-effulgent by which It is (as it were) deluded.
Mayã comes up when Atman is seen from the point of view of parlance, with the mind entertaining the notions thereof, however tenuous they may be, such as multiplicity, time, order, difference, relations, change, action, process, Avidyā etc., which come up in its wake and are accommodated suitably in the Vedäntaprakriya.
--------------------------------------
thollmelukaalkizhu
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages