In the Shuddhadvaita Vedanta

 

The term Maya is one of the most important words in the history of Indian Thought. A critical examination of such terms from the earliest times to the modern period is both interesting and instructive. l It is here proposed to examine the concept of Maya in the Shuddhadvaita Vedanta of Vallabhacharya.

For the proper appreciation of Vallabhacharya's idea of Maya it is necessary to know the background against which he evolved his own Philosophy. The word Maya is as old as the Rigveda wherein it occurs about ninety times in connection with gods like Varuna. Indra, Pusan and Tvastr. It is used in different senses such as (1) the power of working wonders-creative genius. (2) mere Physical power, (3) wiles or tricks, witchcraft or sorcery or magic, and most rarely in the sense of illusion of course, not in the sense in which it was later on under- stood by Shankaracharya. The derivation of the word from vma "to create" naturally suggests that its primary meaning should have been 'Creative power,' and other senses might have developed from this original idea. The word is also used in Avesta in senses such as (1) wisdom or knowledge, and (2)

 

I. An admirable attempt is made by Dr.J. Gonda of the Utrecht University in connection with the words Brahman (Notes on Brahman, 1950) and Ojas (Ancient Indian Ojas, Latin Augos and the Indo-European nouns in-es-os, 1952'.Also H.G. Narahari's Atman in Pre Upanishadic Vedic Literature', Adyar, 1944, and Prof. Prabhu Datt Shastri's book, 'Doctrine of Maya'.

 

The concept of Maya in the, Shuddhadvaita Vedanta virtue or excellence. 2 It is used in the Rigvedic sense about five times in the YV ten times in SV., and twenty-six times in the AV. The Nighantu 3 includes the word in the list of words meaning knowledge (prajna). Yaska accepts that meaning. Sayana interprets the word in various ways, sometimes even according to the system of Shankaracharya.

The Brahmana literature 5 associates the word Maya with the Asuras in the sense of 'magic power,' while the

Upanishad 8 and the Gita use the word in the sense of divine power. The Brahmasutras 8 use the word only once in connection with dreams. The Mahabharata,9 the Ramayana 10 and the Purana, 11 mention the word in the sense of wonder or trick, while Gaudapada 12 uses the word in the sense of power and illusion.

 

2. Cf. Prof. V.K. Rajwade'5s article 'Interpretation of Vedic words' II. Maya ABORI. II. 2, pp. 109-116.

3 III 9.

4 Nirukta VII. 27; XII. 17.

5 Satapatha Br. X. 5.2.20; XIII. 4.3. II.

6 Br. Up. II. 5. 9 (=RV. VI. 47.18); Sveta. Up. 1.10; IV. 9,10.

7 IV. 6; VII. 14 b, d, 15; XVIII. 61.

8 III. 2. 3.

9 Very often in the Mokshadharma Parvan of the Santi Parvan, in the sense 'or divine power. There is; however. no reference to the theory of illusion which later on appears in the system of Shankaracharya.

10 1. 1.27 (divine power).

11 Vishnu 1,9. 10!J; V. 21.104; 27.. 14; 33.!), etc.

Bhagavata I..30; 3.30, 84; 5.3!; 7.4 and similarly throughout the whole text. Other Puranas also.

12 Mandukyakarikas, II. 19,31; III 24b, d, 27, 28 a, d, 29 his; IV. 58 61 bis.

 

The several commentaries on the Brahmasutras give a fair idea of their authors' views on Maya, which may be briefly summarised as follows:

1 Shankara: Illusion, unreality 13

2 Bhaskara: Cognition without an object

3 Ramanuja: Wonder

Srikantha: Wonder

Nimbarka: Wonder

Srikara: Wonder

4 Madhva: Mental impressions of a soul utilised by the will of the Lord

5 Vijnanabhiksu: Power of God

6 Vallabha: Power of the Lord

7 Baladeva: win of the Lord (Chaitanya school)

8 Pandit Aryamuni: Power of Knowledge (Aryasamaj School).

Vallabhacharya has accepted as his authority the four basic works (Prasthanas), viz. (I) Vedas, (2) Gita, (3) Brahmasutras, and (4) Bhagavata, and shown how in case of doubts the following authority should be utilised. 14 The result of this principle is that the following authority becomes a commentary on the preceding authority, and in this way the Bhagavata comes to enjoy unique position in his system.

 

13 There is a regular discussion on Maya in the post. Shankara literature which shows the development of the idea in the school of Shankaracharya.

14 Tattvarthadipanibandha (TD), I. vv. 7-8 and thereon.

 

The highest, Reality is, according to Vallabhacharya, pure Brahman, otherwise known as Krishna, full of Bliss and possessing infinite powers-a Personal God. Maya is one of the twelve powers of the Lord, 15 and is defined as the power residing in the Lord and by which the Lord can become everything. 16 It is in fact the prototype of all the things in the world. 17 It is by means of this Maya that the Lord creates the world, and in this capacity the Maya is called Yogamaya.18 The wonderful capacity of this Yogamaya is entirely due only to the attributes of the Lord 19 This Maya has got three Gunas of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas from which the world is created. 20 but when these Gunas are produced directly from the Lord, the Maya should be understood as of the form of Chit-Shakti or Ananda Shakti. 21 The world is created for the sake of pleasure, and as pleasure is not possible without diversity, the individual souls in the world are, therefore, put by the Lord, under the influence of Avidya 22 (ignorance) which is also one of His powers Avidya is responsible for the soul's Ahamta and Mamata which constitute the Samsara which being false can be destroyed by right knowledge (Vidya). 23

The Lord can create the world in various ways, 4 But there are two principal ways of the creation of the world (1) Vedic and (2) Pauranic. According to the Vedic authorities the Lord Himself becomes the world without any aid, while according to the Puranas the Lord takes the help of His own Maya Shakti. 24 These two types of creation have been favourably compared by Vallabhacharya with golden ornaments which are shaped by hammering and by putting molten gold in blocks. It should be, however, remembered that the world, like the golden ornament, remains in the form of Brahman in both the cases. 25

 

15. Bhagavata (BH) X. 39.56; BH 1.7.4.

16 TD. I. v. 27 and Prakasha thereon.

Subodhini (SU) on BH I. 230; 7.4; X. 39.55; 3.1.3.

17 SU on BH X. 2.6, 18 I bid., III 6..35.

19 Ibid., 1.3.30.

20 Purushottamaji's Prasthanaratna.kar, p. 58 (M.G. Shastried. Bombay,1914.).

21 TD I. 27 and Prakasha thereon.

22 BH X. 39.55,

23 TD I. 40.42 and Prakasha thereon.

24 TD I. 27 and Prakasha thereon.

SU on BH I. 2.30; XI. 3.3. (and Purushottamji's Prakasha thereon); BalaKrishna Bhatta's Khyati viveka, pp. 14.15 Vadavali, Bombay, 1920)

25 Bala-Krishna Bhattas Khyativiveka, p. 14.

 

The principal Maya Shakti or the Lord has again got another variety, Vyamohika maya, by which the mind is deluded 18 It is this Vyamohika Maya that accounts for error in the world. 27 [t is like an attendant of the Lord and operates in the case of those who are away from the Lord, but not in the case or the Lord' devotee 5 28 As Maya is of the nature of Shri Lakshmi, wealth) the form she has assumed is called a woman. It is meant for the pleasure of the Lord and for the delusion of demons.

The word Maya is also used in the sense of magic and conception; and sometimes in the sense of the world created by the Lord with the help of Maya.30 The description of the world as Mayika or unreal in the Puranas is meant only for creating the spirit of detachment and not for showing that the world is really an illusion, 81.

It will be clear from this brief exposition that Vallabhacharya's concept of Maya is primarily based on the original sense of -Creative genius-of the word Maya in the Rigveda, and has been influenced by the later' literature up to the Purana.l32 or Shankaracharya.

 

26 For a full account of this doctrine see my article on Vallabhacharya's View of Error' published in Siddha-Bharati, part 11, pp. 9-11; Hoshiarpur, 1950) 27 SU on BH 11.5...1; 7.47.

28 Ibid., XI. 3.16.

29 Ibid.., XI. 3.3.

30 Bala-Krishna Bhatta's Khyativiveka, p. 13.

3L,TD 1.84, 8,) and Prakasha thereon.

32 Purushottamaji in his Prakasha on SU on BH XI. 3,3 refers to the Bhashya on V. XI. 117.1 explaining Maya as Achintya. I have not been able to find out this Bhashya which is certainly different from that of Sayana.

 

VII

VALLABHACHARYA'S VIEW OF ERROR 1

 

The Doctrine of Error, generally known a, the khyativad, i an important part of Indian epistemology. The different systems or Indian Philosophy have discussed the problem of Error in their own way, with the result that there have come into existence several theories, such as (1) the Atmakhyaativad of the Yogacara School of Buddhism, (2) the Asatkkyativada of the Madhyamika School of Buddhism. (3) the viparitakhyativada of the Bhatta School of Mimamsakas, (4) the akhyativada of the Prabhakara School of Mimansakas. (5) the anyathakhyativada of the Nyaya School, (6) the Sadasatkhyativada of the Samkhya School, (7) the Anirvacaniyakhyativada of the Shankara

School, (8) the akhyativada or sometimes known as Sat-khyativada of the Ramanuja School, (9) a kind of Anyathakhyativada of the Madhva School, and so on. The object of this short paper is simply to give a brief exposition of the Doctrine of Error, according to the Shuddhadvaita School of Vallabhacharya.

 

1 Sources:- (i) Vallabhacharya's commentary on the Bhagavata, II. 9.33 and III. 32.28; and Purushottamaji's commentary 1 thereon, (ii) Purushottamaji's khyativada, and (iii) Bhatta's Khyativiveka.,

 

The world, according to Vallabhacharya, is a reality, is an expression of the sat element of Brahman, and, as such, it should not leave any scope for Error. But Error is a common phenomenon in the world. It is, therefore, necessary to show how Error ' It takes place, without sacrificing the reality of the world, A clear line of distinction has been drawn, in the Shuddhadvaita Vedanta, between the world and the Samsara, the former being real, while the letter being unreal a it is the creation of nescience. The Samsara is defined as consisting of ahamta, and is destroyed by right knowledge. Brahman is possessed of many divine qualities, and, He has created the world from Himself for the sake of pleasure. On of these divine qualities of Brahman is many which is capable of becoming all things at all places. One of the aspects, of this Maya is technically called vyamohika, and it is solely responsible for Error in this world.

The patent ex ample of Error is to look upon nacre as silver. The writers of the Shuddhadvaita School divide the cases of Error into two classes, viz. (1) nirupadhika, and {2) sopadhika The illustration of the first type is furnished by the jar that is taken to be revolving.

In perception, a substance such as a jar or nacre is actually and directly connected with the eyes, the sense-organs operating in this case. As long as the contact of,the eyes with the substance continues, so long one can see the actual substance without any possibility of Error. But when there is some cause such as the operation of maya or a defect in the eyes or great distance between the eyes and the substance or the preponderance of old impression, of an object similar to the substance in question, there arises Error, and the knowledge so obtained happens to be erroneous. As in the case of right. perception, s in the case of Error, it is necessary to establish contact between the perceiving agent and the object perceived. Like right know- ledge,. erroneous knowledge directly connected also requires its I own object. In the case of nacre and silver it is only nacre, and not silver, that. is present before the eyes. How, then, to account for the knowledge of silver in this case?

We are told that the eyes which are directed with nacre give rise to general knowledge (samanya jnana), and the maya, power of the Lord, first of all, creates the quality of tamas and then creates an illusion in the buddhi which becomes responsible for the erroneous knowledge of nacre. The product of maya is called visayata which, in its own turn, doe two things, (1) obscuring the nature of an object, and (2) creating another impression. In other words, the buddhi under the influence of the Maya, power of Brahman, obscures the real nature of nacre and creates in. its place silver oraccount of the preponderance of old impressions, and the similarity of brightness etc., qualities which are common 'to both nacre and silver. Thus, it is this imaginary silver created by buddhi, which is comprehended by buddhi alone. In the initial stage when the contact between the eyes and nacre gives rise to general knowledge, the silver. as it is not existing at that time cannot be comprehended by the eyes; and when the silver is created by buddhi, it has no real existence and is, therefore. comprehended by buddhi only and not by eyes, III other words, in the initial stage of general knowledge, it is the nacre alone that becomes the object of perception by the eye, because the general knowledge pertains to it only, while in the later knowledge which refers to silver and which is the creation of buddhi, it is only the imaginary silver that becomes the object of comprehension by buddhi. In the case of right knowledge buddhi comprehends are 1.1, external object, while in the case of erroneous, knowledge it comprehends an unreal object created by itself under the influence of maya. Thus silver which is mayika, unreal comes between the eyes and the nacre, and being the creation of buddhi is comprehended by buddhi and not by the eyes. In the case of sopadhika Error, e.g. this jar i revolving, this conch is yellow, the external and real object such as the jar and the conch are actually perceived by the eyes, and the" attributes such a revolution and yellowness are created by the Ma)'a, and are perceived by the eyes, as the substances such as the jar and the'-conch which are erroneously associated with the attribute of revolution and yellowness, are perceived by the eyes. What actually happens in this case is that the buddhi influenced by maya sees the mayika and unreal attributes, revolution and yellowness, takes them to be real and connects them with the jar and the conch respectively. The jar and the conch as connected with the imaginary dualities are unreal, but the jar and the conch by themselves, actually perceived by the eyes, are no doubt real.

It is, then, obvious that in the case of nirupodhika Error of nacre and silver, the eyes perceive real nacre, and the buddhi perceives imaginary silver created by itself under the influence of maya while in the case of sopadhika Error, the eyes perceive a real jar and a real conch, and a]so the imaginary qualities of revolution and yellowness, and, then, the buddhi influenced by maya connects the imaginary attributes with the real objects, and, is therefore, responsible for the impression that the jar is revolving, and the conch is yellow.

Thus erroneous knowledge also has its own object, technically called visayata, which is the creation of maya, and, which although not connected with the real object such as nacre, appears as connected with it. The knowledge which is based on visayata is, therefore, wrong, while the knowledge based on real objects is correct.

In the erroneous knowledge one sees silver which is different from the nacre that is perceived by the eyes, and. which is, again similar to it. The Shuddhadvaita System, therefore accepts. 4 Anyakhyativada. It is, further, said that those who have got perfect knowledge or who are perfect Yogins can see all things in all places and hence their knowledge is always correct. There is, therefore no scope for Error in their case and, consequently, it is necessary to accept another theory of Akhydtivada for these persons.

 

 

VIII