[Advaita-l] Avidya and Maya are synonymous for Shankara

[V Subrahmanian]

In the Karka bhashya Shankara cites the Bh.Gita Lord's statement: mama
maayaa duratyayaa (My Maya is hard to cross over) while describing how the
world of the prana, etc. pancha koshas and the outside world of sound,
etc,. is imagined, vikalpitah, by the power of Maya. The Maya is so
powerful that it deludes the one who wields that maya, as it were:

प्राणादिभिरनन्तैस्तु भावैरेतैर्विकल्पितः ।
मायैषा तस्य देवस्य ययायं मोहितः स्वयम् ॥ १९ ॥
यदि आत्मैक एवेति निश्चयः, कथं प्राणादिभिरनन्तैर्भावैरेतैः
संसारलक्षणैर्विकल्पित इति ? उच्यते शृणु — मायैषा तस्यात्मनो देवस्य । यथा
मायाविना विहिता माया गगनमतिविमलं कुसुमितैः सपलाशैस्तरुभिराकीर्णमिव करोति,
तथा इयमपि देवस्य माया, यया अयं स्वयमपि मोहित इव मोहितो भवति । ‘मम माया
दुरत्यया’ (भ. गी. ७ । १४)
<https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Gita?id=BG_C07_V14>
इत्युक्तम्
॥
In line with the karika and bhashya below:
कल्पयत्यात्मनात्मानमात्मा देवः स्वमायया ।
स एव बुध्यते भेदानिति वेदान्तनिश्चयः ॥ १२ ॥
स्वयं स्वमायया स्वमात्मानमात्मा देवः आत्मन्येव वक्ष्यमाणं भेदाकारं कल्पयति
रज्ज्वादाविव सर्पादीन् , स्वयमेव च तान्बुध्यते भेदान् , तद्वदेवेत्येवं
वेदान्तनिश्चयः । नान्योऽस्ति ज्ञानस्मृत्याश्रयः । न च निरास्पदे एव
ज्ञानस्मृती वैनाशिकानामिवेत्यभिप्रायः
By one's own Maya shakti one imagines oneself, by oneself and becomes the
knower, pramaatru of what one has created. The analogy Shankara gives is:
rope-snake.
The inviolable rule is: Wherever the rope-snake analogy is given it is to
show that the superimposed one is really not there but is imagined to be
present there. atasmin tad buddhih is adhyasa Shankara says in the Adhyasa
bhashya.
Shankara has cited a verse, source unknown, in the Vishnu Sahasra Nama
bhashya:

स्वमायया स्वमात्मानं मोहयन्द्वैतमायया ।
गुणाहितं स्वमात्मानं लभते च स्वयं हरिः ॥

[By his own Māyā, deluding himself with the illusion of dvaita, Hari
Himself comes to see himself endowed with guṇas.]

It is interesting to note that Shankara uses the rope-snake analogy even
while explaining the creation by Sat, Brahman in the Chandogya 6th chapter:

तदैक्षत बहु स्यां प्रजायेयेति तत्तेजोऽसृजत तत्तेज ऐक्षत बहु स्यां
प्रजायेयेति तदपोऽसृजत ।..

तत् सत् ऐक्षत ईक्षां दर्शनं कृतवत् । अतश्च न प्रधानं साङ्ख्यपरिकल्पितं
जगत्कारणम् , प्रधानस्याचेतनत्वाभ्युपगमात् । इदं तु सत् चेतनम् ,
ईक्षितृत्वात् । तत्कथमैक्षतेति, आह — बहु प्रभूतं स्यां भवेयं प्रजायेय
प्रकर्षेणोत्पद्येय, यथा मृद्घटाद्याकारेण यथा वा रज्ज्वादि
सर्पाद्याकारेण बुद्धिपरिकल्पितेन ।
असदेव तर्हि सर्वम् , यद्गृह्यते रज्जुरिव सर्पाद्याकारेण । न, सत एव
द्वैतभेदेन अन्यथागृह्यमाणत्वात् न असत्त्वं कस्यचित्क्वचिदिति ब्रूमः । यथा
सतोऽन्यद्वस्त्वन्तरं परिकल्प्य पुनस्तस्यैव प्रागुत्पत्तेः
प्रध्वंसाच्चोर्ध्वम् असत्त्वं ब्रुवते तार्किकाः, न तथा अस्माभिः
कदाचित्क्वचिदपि सतोऽन्यदभिधानमभिधेयं वा वस्तु परिकल्प्यते । सदेव तु
सर्वमभिधानमभिधीयते च यदन्यबुद्ध्या, यथा रज्जुरेव सर्पबुद्ध्या सर्प इत्यभिधीयते,
यथा वा पिण्डघटादि मृदोऽन्यबुद्ध्या पिण्डघटादिशब्देनाभिधीयते लोके ।
रज्जुविवेकदर्शिनां तु सर्पाभिधानबुद्धी निवर्तेते, यथा च मृद्विवेकदर्शिनां
घटादिशब्दबुद्धी, तद्वत् सद्विवेकदर्शिनामन्यविकारशब्दबुद्धी निवर्तेते..
Brahman resolved: bahu syaam: let me become many. prajaayeya: let me be
born as many.
Shankara explains this becoming/being born as many is akin to the rope
being mistaken to be snake, etc.  Just like the clay is mistaken to be pot,
etc.  Thus Shankara is using the bhrama analogy even while explaining the
creation by Brahman, not jiva. This clinches the issue: Creation is
vikalpa, imagination and not real. There is absolutely no other way than
this to explain the employment of the rope-snake analogy by Shankara in the
creation by Brahman, not jiva. Shankara should not have employed this
analogy, not once, but multiple times, even in that short bhashya selected
above, if his siddhanta was not to teach mithya srishti.
In the Karika bhashya, again, Shankara uses this rope-snake analogy while
explaining the creation of the whole world by this Atman:
सतो हि मायया जन्म युज्यते न तु तत्त्वतः ।
तत्त्वतो जायते यस्य जातं तस्य हि जायते ॥ २७ ॥ 3.27
In the commentary Shankara says:
न तु तत्त्वत एव आत्मनो जन्म युज्यते । अथवा, *सतः विद्यमानस्य वस्तुनो
रज्ज्वादेः सर्पादिवत् मायया जन्म युज्यते न तु तत्त्वतो यथा,* तथा
अग्राह्यस्यापि सत एवात्मनो *रज्जुसर्पवज्जगद्रूपेण मायया जन्म युज्यते* । न
तु तत्त्वत एवाजस्यात्मनो जन्म । यस्य पुनः परमार्थसदजमात्मतत्त्वं जगद्रूपेण
जायते वादिनः, न हि तस्य अजं जायत इति शक्यं वक्तुम् , विरोधात् ।
The 'birth' of Atman is only due to Maya and not real. The birth of atman
means the One Atman appearing as the whole creation, jagadrUpeNa.  This is
not just the imagining of someone to be a jiva. On the other hand, it is
the entire world being created, out of Maya. Again here Shankara uses the
rope-snake analogy, for the bhrama that One has become many. If Shankar had
intended a real creation of the world, he should not have used the bhrama
analogy. He would be at fault by using it. But his intention is clear that
in multiple times across the prasthana traya bhashya that he uses this
bhrama analogy while explaining creation by Brahman. Wherever he has not
used this analogy, it is implied, on the strength of his using it so many
times.
Thus, the clincher is the rajju-sarpa analogy Shankara uses for the maayaa
creation.
In the Sixth ch. Chandogya, Shankara says:
यस्मिन्सर्वमिदं वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयमनृतं रज्ज्वामिव
सर्पादिविकल्पजातमध्यस्तमविद्यया, तदस्य जगतो मूलम् ; अतः सन्मूलाः सत्कारणाः
हे सोम्य इमाः स्थावरजङ्गमलक्षणाः सर्वाः प्रजाः ।
The entire creation that has come from Sat, Brahman, rests in it just like
the snake in the rope that has been imagined out of avidya.
Thus, both in the case of avidya (avidyayaa) and maya (maayayaa), Shankara
uses the rope-snake analogy alike, without any distinction. This proves
that for Shankara avidya and maya are non-different, synonymous. The
clincher is: the rajju sarpa analogy employment. If he had held avidya and
maya to be different, he should not have used the rajju sarpa analogy in
both the instances. He should be held to be at fault for doing this, in
case he were to be held to differentiate between avidya and maaya. Thus,
the analogy employment is the clincher here.
Om tat sat.


>