/lit/ - Literature

>>15268734

"It is contended by some that the doctrine of māyā or avidyā is not found in the Upaniṣads and it is borrowed by Shankara from Buddhism. This contention can be made only by those who are un-informed or ill-informed about the Upaniṣadic philosophy. The term māyā can be traced to the Rigveda (VI, 47, 18) where the one Supreme is said to appear in many forms through his power of māyā. The Shvetashvatara (IV, 9-10) describes God as ‘māyī, Lord of māyā, and his wonder-working power of creationas māyā. The term avidyā is often used in the Upaniṣads in the sense of ignorance and appearance. The Mundaka (II, 1, 10) compares ignorance to a knot which is to be untied by the realisation of the Self. The Katha (I, 2, 4-5) says that worldly people live in ignorance and thinking themselves wise move about like blind men led by the blind. The same Upanisad (11,1,2) warns us not to find reality and immortality in things of this unreal and changing world. The Chandogya (VI, 1, 4) makes it clear that Atma is the only reality and that everything else is a mere word, a mode and a name. The same Upanisad (VIII, 3,3) says that worldly people are covered with the veil of falsity. It also says (VII, 1, 3) that he who realises the Self goes beyond sorrow. The Isha (7) assures us that delusion and suffering are gone for him who realises the unity of the Self. It also says (15) that the face of the Truth is covered by a golden veil and that the aspirant prays to God for its removal. It also compares ignorance with blind darkness (9).

The Prashna (I, 16) tells us that Brahma can be realised by those who have neither crookedness nor falsehood nor illusion. The Katha (II, 1,10) makes it clear that he who sees as if there is plurality here goes on revolving in the cycle of birth and death. The Brhadaranyaka (II, 4, 14 and IV, 5, 15) says ‘as if there were duality’ implying that duality is a semblance, an appearance, an as it were. The same Upanisad (I, 3, 28) has the famous prayer which runs: Lead me from unreality to Reality, from darkness to Light, from death to Immortality. This implies the distinction between appearance and reality, between ignorance and knowledge and between change and eternity. Quotations from the Upaniṣads can be multiplied where the phenomenal world of plurality and change is declared to be mere appearance due to māyā or avidyā and Brahma is said to be the only Reality, the eternal, undeniable and non-dual Self. Prof. R.D. Ranade rightly points out the origin of the doctrine of māyā or avidyā in the Upanisads and concludes that “we do find in the Upaniṣads all the material that may have easily led Shankara to elaborate a theory of Māyā out of it.. . . let no man stand up and say that we do not find the traces of the doctrine of Māyā in the Upaniṣad!”