THE Doctrine of Maya - HolyBooks.com
THE Doctrine of Maya - HolyBooks.com THE Doctrine of Maya - HolyBooks.com
""""86 THE DOCTRINE OF MAYAknown as Aldta-cakra is a very common sight in thestreets, where littleboys play in the evening afterhaving finished their daily school-task.The firstpart, as already remarked, being basedon the Upanisad, Gaudapada could give an uncheckedflight to his thoughts only in the other three parts.These are therefore more important for our purpose.We here give a brief summary of the Advaitism ofthis great teacher, which ispermeated with the conception of Maya."Boldly and truly Gaudapada asserts the world doesnot exist in reality hence this; Maya cannot beliterally removed or destroyed even. All this ismere appearance, in sooth it is Advaita. In otherwords, the metaphysical truth is that the world doesnot exist, the multiplicity is false, hence being not areality it does not stand in need of removal (i. 17).Nobody ever MADE may a it is;not a reality,hence it ismeaningless to speak of it as to be removed." When the highest truth is realized theillusion itself isdestroyed (i. 18).In the second part Gaudapada explains the unreality (vaitathya) of all multiplicity by showingthat the world which people call real is no more realthan a dream-world. The two worlds are alike inthis respect, the only difference is that the wakingworldis external, while the dream-world is internal.But as witnessed by the same self they are the same,both being within the body in a subtle form (ii. i).Sankara explains this stanza logically thus
DEVELOPMENT OF ITS CONCEPTION 87Proposition (pratijna)Objects seen in the waking world are unreal,(jagraddrsyanam bhavanam vaitathyam.)Reason (hetu):Because they are capable of being seen,(d rsyamanatvat. )Illustration (drstanta):Like the objects seen in a dream,(svapnad rsy abhavavat . )Argument (hetupanayd) :As in a dream the objects seen are false, so too inwaking, their capability of being seen is the same.(Yatha tatra svapne drsyanam bhavanam vaitathyam tatha jagarite pi drsyatvam avisistam iti.)Conclusion (nigamana):Therefore in the waking condition too they (theobjects seen) are false (tasmaj jagarite pi vaitathyam smrtam iti).Though, on account of being internal and in asubtle condition, the phenomena of dream are different from those of waking, yet (the fact remains) thattheir being seen (drsyamdnatva) and their consequentfutility (or falsity, vaitathya) of presentation, arecommon to both. In ii.5 the same is finally enunciated.From an analysis of our experience we find thatwhat isnaught at the beginning and end is necessarily so at the middle too. For instance, themirage is nothing in the beginning, since it neverwas a mirage, so too it isnothing at the end, sinceit never existed ;hence it could not have anytertiary existence. The objects of our waking experience are finally of the same class as the mirage,
- Page 56 and 57: """36 THE DOCTRINE O
- Page 58 and 59: 38 THE DOCTRINE OF MAYAR.V. x. 129.
- Page 60 and 61: 40 THE DOCTRINE OF MAYAspoken ofin
- Page 62 and 63: "42 THE DOCTRINE OF MAYAthe wo
- Page 64 and 65: """44 THE DOCTRINE O
- Page 66 and 67: """"""
- Page 68 and 69: "48 THE DOCTRINE OF MAYAphical
- Page 70 and 71: "50 THE DOCTRINE OF MAYAwith g
- Page 72 and 73: "52 THE DOCTRINE OF MAYAsakmiy
- Page 74 and 75: """"""
- Page 76 and 77: """"""
- Page 78 and 79: """"58 THE DOCT
- Page 80 and 81: ("Vivarta6oTHE DOCTRINE OF MAY
- Page 82 and 83: """"62 THE DOCT
- Page 84 and 85: ""64 THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA
- Page 86 and 87: ""66 THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA
- Page 88 and 89: """68 THE DOCTRINE O
- Page 90 and 91: """"""
- Page 92 and 93: """"""
- Page 94 and 95: """"""
- Page 96 and 97: ""76 THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA
- Page 98 and 99: """"""
- Page 100 and 101: """8oTHE DOCTRINE OF
- Page 102 and 103: """""82 TH
- Page 104 and 105: "84 THE DOCTRINE OF MAYAus may
- Page 108 and 109: 88 THE DOCTRINE OF MAYAhence posses
- Page 110 and 111: ""90 THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA
- Page 112 and 113: 92 THE DOCTRINE OF MAYAeffect of dk
- Page 114 and 115: ""94 THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA
- Page 116 and 117: 96 THE DOCTRINE OF MAYAand meaning?
- Page 118 and 119: """"""
- Page 120 and 121: """"iooTHE DOCT
- Page 122 and 123: "102 THE DOCTRINE OF MAYAthe f
- Page 124 and 125: io4THE DOCTRINE OF MAYAeffects and
- Page 126 and 127: ""io6THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA
- Page 128 and 129: "io8THE DOCTRINE OF MAYAphatic
- Page 130 and 131: "How"noTHE DOCTRINE OF MA
- Page 133 and 134: CHAPTER IIIOBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRI
- Page 135 and 136: """OBJECTIONS WITHIN
- Page 137 and 138: """"""
- Page 139 and 140: ""OBJECTIONS WITHIN THE V
- Page 141 and 142: OBJECTIONS WITHIN THE VEDANTA 121Va
- Page 143 and 144: """""OBJEC
- Page 145 and 146: """"OBJECTIONS
- Page 147 and 148: OBJECTIONS WITHIN THE VEDANTA 127ab
- Page 149 and 150: """"OBJECTIONS
- Page 151 and 152: """"""
- Page 153 and 154: """""OBJEC
- Page 155 and 156: "OBJECTIONS WITHIN THE VEDANTA
DEVELOPMENT OF ITS CONCEPTION 87Proposition (pratijna)Objects seen in the waking world are unreal,(jagraddrsyanam bhavanam vaitathyam.)Reason (hetu):Because they are capable <strong>of</strong> being seen,(d rsyamanatvat. )Illustration (drstanta):Like the objects seen in a dream,(svapnad rsy abhavavat . )Argument (hetupanayd) :As in a dream the objects seen are false, so too inwaking, their capability <strong>of</strong> being seen is the same.(Yatha tatra svapne drsyanam bhavanam vaitathyam tatha jagarite pi drsyatvam avisistam iti.)Conclusion (nigamana):Therefore in the waking condition too they (theobjects seen) are false (tasmaj jagarite pi vaitathyam smrtam iti).Though, on account <strong>of</strong> being internal and in asubtle condition, the phenomena <strong>of</strong> dream are different from those <strong>of</strong> waking, yet (the fact remains) thattheir being seen (drsyamdnatva) and their consequentfutility (or falsity, vaitathya) <strong>of</strong> presentation, are<strong>com</strong>mon to both. In ii.5 the same is finally enunciated.From an analysis <strong>of</strong> our experience we find thatwhat isnaught at the beginning and end is necessarily so at the middle too. For instance, themirage is nothing in the beginning, since it neverwas a mirage, so too it isnothing at the end, sinceit never existed ;hence it could not have anytertiary existence. The objects <strong>of</strong> our waking experience are finally <strong>of</strong> the same class as the mirage,
Change language