280
PART
CHAPTER
II
XI
THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA
I
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT
Many references to Maya are seen in the literature
of the saints like Jnanesvara and Kabira. It is worthwhile
to know the significance of the spirit and sense in which
they have used the word Maya. Unless and until we know their
view points towards life# we will not be able to estimate and
appreciate their literature.
There are three aspects of Mayavada namely, meta­
physical# ethical and religious. Without knowing the spirit
or sense in which the saints have accepted Maya# it would
be sheer injustice to accuse then of being the cause of the
deplorable condition of India. We must try to know their
view point towards life, religion and the world in general.
281
Dr. Ruth Reyna has tried to remove the misconceptions
regarding the Indian philosophy specially Mayavada thus:Mayaveda in the hands of the various exponents of
Indian philosophy* in the Vedas# the Upanisads# the Gita# the
Sutras# and the Agamas# is used for but one purpose to enlighten
man, to educate man# to give him a starting point or an ending
point for the explanation of the existence of himself and of the
mysterious universe around him. Philosophy in India has always
had a practical bearing that distinguishes it from the purely
theoretical philosophizing of the West. For the Indian philoso­
pher# it is not a pursuit of intellectual fancy# not a profession
hut a dedication to the spiritual education of himself and his
fellow man.
I!
WHAT IS TEE POINT OF COHTROVERSY OVER MAYAVADA?
There is no controversy about the existence of Maya",
as all Vedahtins, the followers of the Natha-Cult# the Bauddhas#
the Jains, the Christa ins# the Muslims have accepted Maya in
this or that form. The difference of opinion is in case of its
nature. Whether it is active# experienceable, independent Sakti
(Power) and Iccha ( will) of God according to Kasmira Saivaits
or is it "Anadi*,
*Bhavarupa *
(Anirvacaniya * ’Sadasadvila -
ksana1# perishable, illusionary, non-existing etc. according
/
*>
to Sankara?
Luckily regarding Kabira, there is no controversy in
Hindi or English literature over his acceptance of Mayavada. All
282
have unanimously agreed that Kabira has accepted the MSyavada
of Sankara# where I differ. But in Maharastra the controversy
over the Mayavlda of Jnanesvara is still not over. Jnanesvara
has used the words Maya# Ajnana, Avidyi# Bhrama# Bhranti while
commenting on the relevant verses in the Bhagavadglta.
Whether Jnanesvara las used the word Maya according
to the doctrine of Mayavlda of Sankara or Maya-Sakti according
to Kasmlra-Saivism? If Maya is taken as Sakti (energy )
ou
c
Bhagavdicbha ( will of the Lord), Bhagavad-lila (sport of the
Lord) then it is inseparable# active and blissful.
To know this polar difference between the two conceptions
of Maya# we shall trace briefly the history of Mayavada.
111
EBE doctrine OF mm IK THE UP&NIS&DS:
Now we come to discuss a problem, upon which there has
been a great deal of difference of opinion among interpreters
of Vedantic Philosophy, namely, the problem of the sources of
the doctrine of Maya.
Dr. R.D. Ranade has pointed out the three different
theories which try to account for the doctrine of Maya, as
found in Sankara and later writers, in three different ways#
and comments thus# "To say again# that the doctrine of Maya
is to be found full-fledged in the Upanisads is to deny the
process of the development of thought, especially in such a
well-equipped mind as that of Sankara." and concludes, "our
conclusion therefore# is that Sanka racharya only. elaborated
\/
283
the ideas that he found in the Upanisads* and wove them into
the
'contexture of his Advaitic Philosophy."2
In the Upanisads, the ideas of Maya are seen under
...
.
different conceptions such as of a veil, of blind foldness, of
a knot^of ignorance, of not being; of darkness, of death, of
unreality and uncertaintity, of untruth, of crookedness and
falsehood and illusion, of the power of God^of this power as
identical with nature, of meshes, of semblance, an as-it-were
and an appearance and finally, of a word, a mode and a name. 3
Shri J.S. Karandfkar comments on the Mayavada in the
Upanisads thus*
"Not in a single Upanisad out of ten or eleven it is
mentioned that the creation of the universe is false (raayika )
or a myth and not real. The word 'Maya* is not used even once in
%'
support of_ "Jagamithya?
—
/
It is used as 'Isvarl-Sakti
*,
'Yoga-
A
/
Sakti•, 'miraculous power', crookedness, falsehood etc."
IV
THE DOCTRINE OP
4
^
/
IN THE BHAGAVADGim
Regarding the Mayavada in the Bhagavadglta, Dr. Ranade
comments,
"The Bhagavadglta is a short treatise compared with the
Upanisads, nor does the theistic mystic trend of the argument
leave much room for a philosophical development of the conception
of Maya."5
Shri J.S. Karandfkar observes, "Like the Upanisads in
the Bhagavadglta also no trace of Mfyavlda according to'Bhranti*
or 'Ajatjavada' is found."6
V
284
THE DOCTRINE OF AJATIV&BA OF G&UD&PADA
While giving a brief account of the vicissitudes of that
doctrine in its historical development in the post Upanisadic
period. Dr.1 Ranade says, "Gaudapada uses Buddhistic terminology,
but sets forth an original doctrine. He tries to write a systematic
treatise on philosophy instead of only giving a lift to the
spiritual impulse of man in the manner of the Bhagavadglta. Hence
he states his opinion deliberately and fully, and we find him in
his Kirlkis maintaining the doctrine, not simply that the world
is an appearance or an illusion, but that the world was never I
created at alii This was what has been known in the history of
11 ii - - t
~~J '
IndianThought as the doctrine of ‘Ajativida", the doctrine of
Non-creation."*7
According to Dr. S.D. Pendse Jnanesvara was influenced j
by the ‘Ajativada* of Gaudapada.
?
According to Pandita Ballc#arya Khuperkar Sastri,
"Ajativida" expounded by Jnanesvara is on quite a different
footing and has nothing to do with "Ajativida" propounded by
either Gaudapada or Sankara.9
According to Dr, Pendse ‘Ajativada* and ‘Mayavada* are
twin brothers.10 Pandita Khuperkar SSstrl has taken a very
serious objection to this statement.
11
VI SANKARA'S CONTRIBUTION TO MAYAVADA
Dr. Ranade estimates the contribution of Sankara to the
^
doctrine of Miyavlda in the following words:
"Sankara profits by all the conceptions that have
preceeded him, and weaves his full-fledged doctrine out of the
strands left at his disposal by the upanisads and Gaudapada."
(Survey of Upanishadie philosophy: Page-167 ) He says further,
"Sankarlcarya proves himself to be neither an episte­
mological idealist, no* an epistemological
nihilist. To Santera*
the world ij^r^l^ but^ only phenomenally r^|. Non-mentally
ly
"Sub specie etemitatis" it is unreal• We shall entirely commit \
a mistake in understanding Sankara * s point of view if we do not
consider the great distinction that he draws between the "Piramarthika" and the "Vyavaharika" views of reality.
Dr. Ruth Reyna observes about Mayavada:
"It follows from this that Maya has different connota­
tions in the various texts of India's sacred and philosophical
literature,1 lending itself also the varied interpretations;
but all texts and commentators upon the texts are agreed that
Maya is concerned with the relationship of the phenomenal
character of the self and the trancedent Absolute. And all are
equally agreed that Maya is either the antithesis or the obscura­
tion of Vidya. Rarely does Maya mean to Indian
Philosophers,
even for Sahtera, that the world is illusion, that kk it does
not exist and therefore should be explained away. 13
VII
THE DIFFERENT VIEWS OF AC&RYAS ABOUT MAYA
The doctrine of Maya* came to perfection in the hands of
J
Sankara. Ha has used Avidya, Ajnana, Prakrti, Bhrama in the
____ _
/
,
_
_
place of Maya at many places. According to Sankara, Maya is
1Anadi', 'Santa', 'Bhavarupa* 'Sadsadavilaksana * 'Anirvacaniya1
and the world is the effect or creation (Karya) of Maya-Avidya
~
_
_ _
i .
- —
or Ajnana. Ramanuja refutes Mayavada of Sankara but accepts Maya
ufa.vM.
in the form of Trigunatmika Prakrti, which creates different
«
*
things. Madhvacarya accepts Maya as Bhagavadiccha while Vallabhacarya takes it 'Visesa-Sakti' i.e. special energy of the
Pararaatraan. Kasmira Saivaits believe in Maya as energy (Sakti)
of the Paramltman. All other schools of philosophy excepting that
_
__
of Sankara do not consider Maya as false or Myth but accepted
it as real, eternal, Bhagavadiccha or Bhagavadsakti.
VIII
THB CHIEF OPPONENTS IN THE CONTROVERSY ABOUT MAYAVADA IN
MAHARASTRA
In Maharastra, there is a great controversy over this
point of Mayivada. Whether Jnahesvara believes in Sankara's
—
-
I
/
Mayavada or not? In 'Jnanesvara Darsana"
14
many eminent scholars
lave written articles on this controversial issue, but real
opponents are only two. Dr. S.D. Pendse is the chief leader of
—
the party supporting Jnahesvara*s acceptance of Sankara's
-
-
—
Mayavada.
-
—
-
Pandita Balacarye Khuperkar Sastri is the chief leader
a**,’#*
of the opposite party, which totally rejects this conception.
According to him Dr. Pendse is confusing the readers by the word
- - is which is used by all including the Upanisads, Sankara,
> •
Maya.
-
- /
-
/
r
^ _
f
and his followers, Gorakhanatha' Kasmira Saivits and Jnanesvara.
A
Jnanesvara has accepted Maya expounded in the Bhagavadglta and
propounded by KasWra- Saivism# but has not accepted Mayavada of
/ .
_ _
Sankara. The acceptance of Maya does not mean the acceptance of
Mayavada# ■which is altogether a different doctrine and connected
with the name of Sankara only.
Dr. Pendse has given a big list of the words Prakrtl,
Maya# Avidya# Ajnana, Bhrama# Bhranti <illusion) in support of
his theory of acceptance of Mayavada by Jnanesvara.16
It is better to remember the warning given by Dr.Ranade
thus# MWe have to investigate the doctrine of Maya in ideas rathef
than in words.I
In "Sri Jnanesvarlci Abhyasa" ("A study of the Jnanesvarl");
Dr. Pendse has repeated the arguments put up forward in his Thesis
mentioned before. He says# n Jnanesvara took the guidance from
I
.
/
,
Sankara# as 'Sankara - Bhasya* was according to the philosophy
of Monism acceptable to him." 18
According to Dr. Pendse# Jnanesvara has used the words
Mayi or Avidya, which are not found in the places i.e. verses
in the Gita or the commentary of Sankara.
( For example
Bg. 11-11, 11-28? VI-5? VI-68? VH-2? VII-23? VIII-4# VI11-27).
To judge and decide the opposite view points of these
different schools in the controversy# we shall examine the sources
from where Jnanesvara las taken the spiritual and philosophic
guidance. It is beyond doubt that Jnanesvara belongs to Adinath<^
lineage of Gorakhanitha and not Malayan! lineage of Sankara.
IX
KRBIRA'S MAYRVADA ACCORDING TO THE SCHOLARS OF HINDI
LITERATURE
Dr. Hajariprasid Dwivedi writes
"All that Kablra has said
about Maya has to be under­
stood in the sense of the word determined by Vedanta. It is
quite possible that Kablra got instructions about Maya from
Ramananda to whom he is also indebted for his doctrine of Bhakti.
This is the reason why Kablra described the devotee to have gone
—
beyond the fetters of MayS"
IQ
CV
Dr. Trigunayat's view regarding Kablra*s Maya has been
%
A
k shown further. Dr. Ramkuraar Varma gives a detailed and artistic
A
description of Maya propounded by Kablra:
Kablra has severally denounced Maya in his ‘Ramaini* and
A
'
*
£
'Sabda*. It appears that Maya is a courtesan silently hearing
to the invective of the saint with her face down-cast. Carping
words of the saint become too sharp to be curbed by Kablra himself.
Kablra unable to silently bear now and
anon carries on his
tirade against Maya with a view to ignore it altogether. At times
he creates its picture full of passion, while on same occasions
he is keen on vehemently denouncing it. Sometimes not being
content with this also, he prefers to advise saints. Accepting
all this, it must be admitted that his fretting and fuming against
_
Maya findf
ct/tv
expression quite frequently.... The detailed
explanation of the
origination of Maya given by Kablra stands
almost unparallelled.
X
20
MAYA OP SANKARA AND KABIRA
Safckara*s Maya is only the cause of illusion; giving
rise to the idea of a serpent in a rope or to that of the
water of mirage where there is no water. According to him, this
world of names and forms, though unreal, appears to be real
because of Maya. Kablra accepts this but also depicts Maya as a
fickle woman assuming deceptive forms trying to seduce and lure
men. Hence Kablra considers wealth and woman to be the symbols
of Maya having great influence and interested in looting the three
worlds. “She is the beloved looting the market in the form of
the world"
TShile comparing the doctrines of the two, Dr. Rlmratan
Bhatnagar observes# "Kablra*s idea of Maya does not much differ
from that of Sahka racarya. Sankaracarya understands Maya to be
the veil of Brahman; but he is keen on pointing out that this
veil is false based on ignorance,' and is of the nature of nescience.
Brahman alone is true; all else based on nescience is illusory.
This is illustrated by the appearance of silver in the mother-of
pearl, or that of the mirage or that of the serpent in the rope.
i _i_
£&
a, considers Maya to be non-different from
Kabira
like Tulsidas,
a
A
Brahman and the hand maid of Brahman as is clear from:-
"Maya is half of my body and the slave of the devotee."
Kabira*s thoughts on Maya have been first expressed in
Padavali, a collection of his songs. According to him^entire
existence is a form of Miya coming under the wondrous influence
by which mpn are deluded. Kabira has described Maya as the great
deceiver trying to eramesh in her net of three aspects all men
living in this world. At the other end is Moksa or liberation
-
290
■which is obstructed by Maya which is in fact a great ditch and it
is very difficult for a person to safely cross this. Hence Kablra
has pronounced, "Miya we understand to be the great deceiver*! 23.
XI
THE CONCEPTION OF MAYA ACCORDING TO KA^MIRA
SAIVISM
The Paramatman has created the universe according to
his Sankalpa* i,e, resolution or volition. This is known as the
will of 'Bahubhavana" i.e. will for expansion, and this ‘Sankalpa'
/
/
/
_
is known as Maya in the Kgsraira-Saivism. In Saivagama, Maya means
SaktT^or will of the Paramatman.^
nanda has defined Maya,
In Maharta-flanj^rl Mahesvara-
The Parmatman is ‘Satyakama* SatyasanA
kalpa'
'Ananta' and 'Anidi1 and hence his will of 'Bahubhavan^
(expansion) is also 'Anadi' ‘Ananta* 'Satya-svarupa* and hence
the creation of the universe is also Satya i.e. real, as it is
His manifestation. In this sense it is said in Svetasvatara ‘Mayarn
tu Prakrtim Vidyanmayinam tu Mahesvaram".
<v
/
According to Bhoja
___
(Tetfva- Prakasika) of Kasmlra-Saivism, Mayi is not an illusion a/*
JT-yA^V,fa $•&>$; •< >r?
i.e. Abliasa, but as real and eternal as the Paramatman Himself.
In the Natha-Sampradiya Sakti is not different from Siva.(SaktiSaktimatorabhedah). This doctrine is accepted by Jnanesvara in
the Amrtanubhava and the Jnanesvari.
According to the Svetasva-
/
tara Upanisad and Saivagama^ Maya is the
<o-
primeval cause of the
creation of the universe. It is the form i.e. Svarupa of
y
26
Mahesvara Himself in Sakti-energy, hence He is called Mayin.
From the above description or conception of Maya in
/
_
Saivagama
it will be quite clear that except similarity in name
(name, sadrsya) there is nothing common in Maya of Sankara and
that of KasmIra-Saivisra. There is one radical difference among
291
them, in Kasmlira-Saivism the words Sakti, Maya# Prakrti and
|
Sthula are used to denote different stages in cosmology where 1
■<y/'
.
4
as in Sankara Vedanta they are all used in the sense of Maya, j
,
‘
Gorakhanatha, who was known as Mahesvarananda also has
written 'Mahlr^tha-manj^ri* in Maherastrl language. In it he
*
has expounded the *Jagat-prakriya1 i.e. cosmology of 'Saktisampanna Mahesvara* i.e. Brahman along with energy (S^kti) i.e.,
— 27
~
Maya.
This shows the polar difference of Maya according to
,
.
,
Sankara
and the Kasmfra-Saivits,
which Jnanesvara has followed.
✓
✓ A.
This world is a creation of Maya. This conception is
accepted by Sankara and the Kasmlra-Saivlts both. But there is a
vast difference in the meaning 'Maya-nirmita* i.e. created by
Maya. According to Saivagma# Maya is 'Cit-sakti* 'Brabma-sskti'
_ c. _
*
•Bhagavadicliha* which is accepted by the Vedas and the Upanisads.
Dr. Pendse has quoted ovis from the ftast Jnanesvarf
having the word * Maya' in support of his argument, but Jnanesvara
being the follower of his spiritual lineage i.e. Natha sampradaya
or Kasmlra-Saivism and not that of Sankara, has used 'Maya* in
the sense, meaning and spirit according to Kasmlra-Saivism only.
In this light the w>rd 'Maya* used in the following
ovis may be seen.
"fCyavas^e'
'Mayayoge*
(7-65)
(2-105) y
'Mayaka^lta* (2-168)
'Mayivasl^e' (4-45)
'Maya* (9-96) Maya (15-79) etc.
According to Jnanesvara, Maya means will of the
Paramatman, Bhagavadichha, Brahma*- Sakti, Cit-sakti,
292
Jnanesvara lias accepted Maya according to the Vedas*
the Upanisads* the Gita and the Saivagamas, but has not accepted
Mayavada of Sankara* According to Jnanesvara that Maya# which
«•
✓
expounds { Maziye vistarlepane) because it is Cit-Sakti or
A
/
*
ci-
Brahma-Sakti. He says* "For this reason* I am the father?MahafeBrahma is the mother* and the child is the manifested universe*"
28
"If I am hidden under the form of this world, then who
is manifested through its existence? fif
Is a ruby hidden under
its own lusture?
"So then if this universe is drawn aside 1 shall be seen
behind it. It is not different from Me? I am, in fact, all
'WP»s,rtS*>CS',S '
^
that is."130
"Similarly the entire universe is but Myself? there is
no purpose in stripping the moon." "Therefore do not think that
I can only be found through the dissolving of the universe# for
I Myself am all."^
Like 'Ajnana-Khandana * in the seventh chapter of the
Amrtlnubhava# Jnanesvara has refuted Mayavada in this fourteenth
chapter of the JninesvarT*
XII
W ACCORDING TO JNANESVARA
We shall take only those 'ovis’ for discussion
which
Dr. Pendse has quoted in support of his argument that Jnanesvara
has followed the doctrine of Maya propounded by Sankara (page 55)*
For example:
(a)
"The idea that things can be born or destroyed is
but an illusion ( Mayavasfye) ? in reality matter is indestructible.
sj/
293
In this ovi Jnanesvara has expounded his 'Cid^vilasavida* and not Mayavada. The world is not an illusion or myth
but to think that something is bom or is destroyed is illusion,
because there is nothing except Reality-Brahman• Jnanesvara
clarified his conception in the prteoeedrag ovis thus:
" The surface of water is agitated by the wind and
waves appear on it; yet who can say what it is that is bora and
whence? Similarly^when the wind ceases to blow and the surface
of the water once more becomes calm, consider, what is it that
has died."33
In these three ovis Jnanesvara has propounded Brahmavada,
Atmavada or Caitanyavada and not Mayavada as Dr. Pendse claims.
(b)
"New, that is manifest in the life between is a
dream to one Who sleeps, Likewise^form appearing in the sky is due
to the power of cosmic illusion ( Mayavashe). As water when
agitated by the wind, appears in the fora of ripples, or as gold
is fashioned by a man's desire into the shape of ornaments, so
all that has fora is the result of illusion as the clouds that
appear in the sky. Thou shouldst realize this." 34
In fact,Jnanesvara has denounced Mayavada completely
in the above ovis. 'nidrita* (slept) and ' vashe*
( due to ) are
important words, by which Jnanesvara refutes Mayavada. All these
beings are formless before birth; being born they take on
individual form. In that state, to which they go after the
dissolution of their bodies? They do not certainly exist separately
but revert to their primal state. In reality the world is not an
294
illusion or a myth, but to think it so, is an illusion-’Bhranti*
like a dream in the sleep, because the world is the manifestation
of the Brahman-Itself *
Who gets the dream? Certainly not to one who is awake. In
the same way the person who is *Jnani* i.e. awakened, enlightened
or self-realized sees the world in the form
of Paramatman
or
-----------Brahman. He knows only •lamftrta* i.e. unmanifested hSITccrae to
J
tv
1 Murtasnarupa* i.e. the manifestation. The Nirguna bePcomes
Saguna, "Nirakara" becomes ‘Sakara* Avyakta * becomes *Vyakta *.
By the sweet will of the ‘Amurta-Hirguna-Nirakara Brahman’, the
Murta-saguna-sakara universe has been created.
According to ^Tsmlra-Saivism, Gorakhanatha and Jnanesvara,
Maya is not illusion or myth but the sweet will of Brahman i.e.
__
©
_
• _ au
Bhagavadicljha. "Mayakarita" is translated by Pradhan^ as ” the
result of illusion" because generally Maya is taken as illusion
due to the influence of Sahkara*s Mayavada. Jnanesvara follows his
spiritual lineage which is Natha-Sampradaya, hence though the
words Maya, Ajngna, Prakrti, Advaita are common in Sankara*s or
Jnanesvara*s philosophy, the meaning and spirit in them is quite
different.
At the end of the commentary of this verse Jnanesvara
concludes thuss"Why then does thou grieve for that which is not subject
to tact birth? Consider rather that spirit which never fades away?
In this second chapter of Jnanesvarl, he has expounded
"Caitanyavada" or *Cid$vilasav5da* (Caitanya means Spirit, Self
35
295
or Consciousness) in the following ovl also.
"Within this body life dwells that same consciousness
ich pervades all things. Philosophers accept this."
36
In Cidvilasavada of Jnanesvara, Mayavada cannot be
accommodated as they are contradictory. In ovl. 144, Jnanesvara
_
37
has called Atman as ‘Caltanyanatha *.
(c)
"When in a state of deep ignorance, a man falls
ajsleeP on the bed of delusfion, then he experiences the painful
dream of life and death.
In this ovl also Jnanesvara has expounded Atmavada or
Caitanyavada. Here Avidyl means Ajnana or Maya, which is ignorance.
The emphasis on Atma-Satta or Advaita (Monism), will be seen if
all four ovls ( 67 to 70 ) are taken together.
In shorty Jnanesvara has expounded * Cid^yilasvada* or
•Stmavada' and not Mayavada as vehemently propagated by Dr.Pendse.
XIH
THE DOCTRINE OF MAYA ACCORDING TO KABIRA
Kablra has described Maya in all possible ways, means,
words, language, and metaphors at his command. Like Brahman and
i
Atman^Maya has got a prominent place in the expositions of Kablra.
The different influences on Kablra are worth noting in his
conceptions of Maya. Edrirefely It seems that Kablra was very much
J
%
influenced by the Doctrine of Brahman and Maya of the Sankara
Vedlntins. He has accepted Sankara*s Maya as ‘Bhivarupa* 'Anadi*
Santa, Anirvacanlya *,
‘Bhranta
A.
and Sadsadvilaksna.
He has
accepted two powers of Maya, which are ‘Avarana* and ‘Viksepa.
296
<TV
(A)
_
THE
" SADSMWILAKSANA"
MAYA ACCORDING TO KABIRA
— ......A«—
" —S—it
T—
f
_
Sankara explains illusion qs 'Adhyasa* or super­
imposition which means " the idea of that (tat) in a thing
which is not that ( a-tat)". Kablra refers to this 'Adhyasa*
in the following Sakhi (verse). "An ignorant person worships
the idol created out of stone considering it to be the Lord. He
who lives by faith in this gets himself drowned in the midst
of ^stream."
<K
Dr. Govind Trigunayat observes,
A
*
A
"Being a follower of Sankaracarya, Kabira considers
Maya to be an illusion having a positive content. The idol
fashioned out of stone, referred to in the words above is
undoubtedly an existential entity. The idea of Brahman in it is
illusory, as really it is a stone to be the Lord, is as illusory
as is taking the rope to be a serpent. Kablra*s Maya, therefore,
S
like Vedantin^r is illusion having a
positive content. Different
views are put forth for defining and explaining the nature of
illusion.
According to Sankara, Neither 'Sat* alone nor 'asat*
is the material cause of the universe. It is possible that it
may be partially * Sat* or * Asat' but such a mixture is not
possible. Hence this principle is said to be indescribable. This
makes Maya an illusion of an indescribable character. This
Vedanta doctrine of indeseribability is acceptable to Kabira
along with the allied doctrine of *Sat* and *Asat*. It is on
this that Kabira, on one occasion, styles Maya to be Saguna
297
(possessed of attributes) as well as Nirguna ( without
attributes). Kabira says,
"This (apparently) agreeable and tempting Maya cannot
be abandoned. It repeatedly deludes an ignorant person and
destroys him. This woman i.e. Maya both Saguna and Nirguna
alluring in the world was abandoned by Laksmana and warded off
a. 4n
by Gorakhnath."
A
A
In describing Maya, Kabira, at times, shows similarity
with the followers of 'Sunyavada* but immediately comes back
to those who subscribe to ‘Anirvacphlya Khyiti*.
Following descriptions of Maya as a creeper is worthy of note:
"This one is the creeper in the courtyard with its
fruit in the sky, the milk of the cows who can never fructify?
and the horns of the hare. Maya is like the son of a barren
woman."41
It is evident that the attributeless form of MSya is
described here on the lines of the ’Sadasadvada* of Vedanta
according to which Maya is both Sat and Asat causing man to
turn towards merit as well as demerit,
(B)
THE « AKIKVACflASIYA* MAYA ACCORDING TO KABIRA
The 'Asat* form of Maya, like the horn of the hare or
the sport of the son of a barren woman or the milk of the cow
that cannot fructify is imaginary having no existential character.
This view tending towards the doctrine of indescribability is
suggested in a different manner. In the words of Kabira,
II
It is
298
difficult to describe the qualities or attributes of this Maya
the peculiar creeper which bios sons on being cut and fades
(or dies) on being sprinkled with water.
Here Maya” is described with the help of paradox. If
one tries to leave this creeper alone or abandons it, it allures
you all the more. On the other hand, if one tries to sprinkle
it with water in the form of meditation of the Lord, it
gradually fades, this is the reason why Kablra says that this
Maya having conflicting qualities defies description.
(C)
THE ILHJSORY MAYA ACCORDING TO KABIR&
Kablra has described the expanse of M5aya in great
details.
Maya is delusion directed by money and youth. All people
are bound down by it. The false is enveloped by delusion.
According to Kablra nobody visualises the one that is unseen.
"Maya is responsible td make the false in falsehood
appear as truth. The truth is forgotten amidst falsehood. It is
said that this confusion is mostly a prison, let not my order
be excluded or destroyed. The sight ( of the highest) is destroyed;
the hermitage is made to fall* the real taste is made sour and
passion takes away the flavour."43
The entire expanse of Maya has been described by Kablra
as illusory and he compares it with the wiles of an actor. Just
as the wiles of an actor are incapable of being described as they
can be only known by the actor
himself, so it is that the
expanse of this Maya can only be comprehended by the Lord of Maya
299
the actor of actors. Even after having seen the expanse of Maya,
Kablra considers himself to be unaware of its real nature.
/
"People understand that the actor assuming many forms
plays his role. He displays his art and the spectators appreciate
it. Similarly this Miya plays ( appears) among all individuals
and is really not understood by others. He ( i.e. Lord ) also
understands all her qualities not others who are innocent."
Like Sankara Kablra las railed Maya as ‘Mithya* i.e.
myth. He has used the words "Maya Mithyavada."
45
In one Pada* Kablra has described the nature of Maya
elaboratedy, vhitih deludes the world in the forms of parents,
which .deludes the world 4n- the forms of parents, son, wife and
respect etc. According to Kablra nobody is saved from the
fetters of Maya except the real devotees of Rama.
46
According to XcSrya Sitarama Caturvedi, Dr. Hazari
Prasad Dwivedi, Dr. Triguniyata,
Acarya Parsurama
CaturayedI
*
A.
Kablra has accepted and described Maya on the lines of SankaraVedanta. According to Kablra Maya is •Shavarupa'# 'Bhranti* and
*Ajnana-rupinl* i.e. of the form of ignorance.
CD)
MAYA OF RAGHPN&THA ACCORDING TO KABIRA
According to the Glta^Maya is "Triguns tmika Prakrti" i.e.
consisting of three attributes. That Maya, is 'Satvaguna
PradhSna* which manifests ’Caitanya-svarupa-Brahman* in the form
of isvara or the stained Brahman (Sabala-Brahman). Some Advaita
300
Vedantins have distinguished Prakrti as 'visuddha Pradhana' and
•Avisuddha-Satva-Pradhana'. The first is called 'Maya* and the
latter is called ‘Avidya.' The first one is ‘TJpadhi* i.e. quali­
fication of Isvara# while the latter one is Jlva i.e. IndividualSelf.47
According to Sattkara -Vedantins "MayopadhiO spirit is
isvara" i.e. Brahman ijl stained by Maya, which becomes God. In
this sense Kablra has built up a very beautiful metaphor. He says,
“Maya of Raghunitha (Brahman) has come for hunting and
she is hilling those like Muni, Plra, Jaina, Jogi, Jangaraa,
Brahmin and Samnyasin.**48
Kabxra has not distinguished between Maya and Avidya
like Sankara -Vedantins. According to Kablra only Maya is the
cause of all delusion, but he has warned Maya to keep her hands
off from him.49
(E)
THE EIGHTFOLD PRAKftTI ACCORDING TO KABIRA
On some occasions, he has also referred to the eight
fold Prakrti like the Giti or Jnanesvara. Thus once he fancies
this entire world to be a tree having three branches of eight
leaves. Merit and demerit are the fruits of this tree.**9 Possibly
eight leaves here refer to the eight fold Prakrti and the three
branches to the three aspects.
<F)
KABIRA AHD THE SA^KBYA VIEETt
Maya of Vedanta is styled as Prakrti by the SanCkhya.
This Maya or Prakrti is constituted of three Gunas and possesses
301
the attribute of evolving. Though itself unraanifest, it gives
rise to the principle Mahat which is manifest. Maya of Kablra
in point of nature as well as attributes, mostly agrees with the
Prakrti of the Samkhya. Thus like the Sanflchya KabXra describes
Maya as consisting of three Gunas or aspects* "All this is your Maya consisting of Rajas, Tamas and
Sattva".^
It also possesses the attribute of evolving as Kablra
mentions the world as its evolute. " One Maya created this
canopy." All this is created by Maya consisting of Sattva, Rajas
and Tamas.There is no other means of expansion as capable of
this one. 52 Five elements, the root cause of this world are
also evolutes of this Maya as is clear from his words, " This
one created these five elements."
(G)
53
THE CHANGEABILITY OF MAYS ACCORDING TO K&BIR&
The sali/nt feature of this Prakrti constituted of three
aspects is its character of changeability. Even Sankara accepts
this aspect. All things in this world have the form of Maya i.e.
th^ are changeable. Therefore Maya is said to have great speed
(or force). Kabxra says*"Maya is one that makes you swing ( or move) like the
wind flowing within heaven.
This change is denoted specially in the form of axgant
origination and destruction. It is in this sense that Kabira
considers Maya to be one that originates and also one that
perishes*-.
302
"This all-conquerring Maya is one that originates ana
is destroyed, "
It is on account of this Maya that the Individual - self
is lost in the ^vagaman^cakra' i.e. of coming to and going away
from this world? which becomes the cause of sorrow. Therefore,
Maya, by nature takes the form of sorrow. On one or two occasions,
_
55 But
Kablra has clearly mentioned this characteristic of Maya.
this Maya of the form of sorrow is very alluring or seductive.
This characteristic of Maya repeatedly deludes the ignorant and
destroys him finally.
According to Dr. Syam^Sunderdas, Kabira believed in the
fir
A
5*3
doctrine of Buddha which is, "Duhkha Satya" i.e. *Sorrow is real.
according to Kablra, the sorrows of the world are due
to illusion ( Mayakrta). He says,
"The mouth of the pot of the world is full of sorrows.”
Further he sarcastically says, "Only those are happy in this
world, who drink, eat and sleep. Kabxra is a miserable man, who
is awake and weeps." Kablra does not weep for himself, but for
the ignorant, who do not realize the sorrowful nature of the
world and come under the clutches of Maya. According to Dr.Syam<K.
Sunderdas, Kablra had sacrificed
his individuality like Christ
for the well being of the children of the Lord. 58
(H)
THE UNFAITHFUL TEMPTING MAYA ACCORDING TO KABIRA
Maya", by nature, is unfaithful. It enmeshes in its net
all the souls in this world. This is the reason why it is of the
303
nature of a snare.
‘Mine1 and 1 Thine* are its snares. The
soul can never get emancipation so long as these snares remain
with him. Along with being a snare# Maya is also the nature of
ignorance. The symbol of ignorance is darkness. Hence Kablra
considers Maya to be of the nature of darkness having a very
wide kingdoms 59
In the Jnanesvari a very elaborate metaphor on the
river of Maya (Mayanadi) is seen,60 which corresponds to 'MayanadiT* of Tulsidas a also,61
A
Maya has wonderful power to attract or tempt so much so,
that it does not leave a person injspite of his efforts to leave
it. All respect, honour in this world is nothing but Maya.
Recitation and penance being of the nature of binding down a
person in this world are taken m by Kablra to be the forms of
Maya. All relations in this world also are of the nature of Maya
and Kablra resorted to Rama by cutting
as under the bonds of
all these.
In addition to the power to tempt, Maya is all pervading.
It is not only limited to this world but brings water, space as
well as sky under its perview.
This Maya with its power to tempt does not allow a
person to devote himself to the Lord and becomes a hindrance in
faith. The moment a devotee or an aspirant tries to go forward
on the path of devotion, this Maya puts forward different
h
temptations and wean him away.
"Don't look at this one. This Maya will beseach you.
304
speQk words fall of pity, folding her hands infront of you
again and again; She will request you to take away money making
you feel the conqueror.
She will also request you to take a
woman attracting your mind beseech you to accept merit and
became a master of lores and accept the sovereighty of the
entire earth."62
Possibly Kabfra considers Maya to be also unmanifest. ^
Thus he sayss"This Maya can be contained in a sit® 11 insect or a
big elephant, and yet she conquers all the three worlds. Whom
Maya does not devour?"6^ Due to being unmanifest, She is allpervading. Kablra has described both these aspects of Maya
possibly under the influence of Satnkhya as well as Vedanta.
Maya really the cause of difference, establishes many
in one. Hence Maya is of the nature of ’Mine & Thine* This
Fathomless MSya burns creating 1 Mine1 and Thine *. This is the
false mirage of this world.
64
A man cannot get peace
off happiness
so long as Maya of
this nature remains with him. This makes Kablra give her names
ir*
65
such as Mohanx0 Kumati# witch# thief# treacherous# prostitute#
'The female goblin^' the "demoness* The noseless
inauspicious woman. * etc. According to Dr.Ramakumar Varma66
sometimes it seems that seme prostitute in the city of Benaras
is in front of the minds eye of Kablra when he starts abusing
Miya like living woman.
305
On one occasion, Kablra has called Maya the ‘threefold
tree* or ' the tree of three aspects' having branches in the
form of sorrow, torment etc.
"Miya is the three-fold tree with its branches of
sorrow and torment. One cannot dream of peace (coolness)
from this one. The fruit of this tree is inauspicious i.e.
torment to the body
XIV
JKAKBi&ARA'S
REFUTATION OF AJH&KA
-nr'~
Three proofs are usually given for the existence of
Ajnatoa.68
Though the Monists among Advaitins have taken great
pains for a systematic justification of Mayavada, the nanmonistic Vedantins like Ramanuja, Vallabha,Mfidh^va and Nimbarka
as also their supporters are equally vehement in their criticism
of Maya. They are all realistic regarding the status of the
world, and abhor any suggestion of its illusory character.
Jnanesvara was a philospher saint, a spiritual monist
and a great mystic. He regards Ultimate-Reality as one and
j
spiritual. Spirit is pure consciousness the substratum of the
knower and the known. This view so far resembles that of Sankara
who regards Ultimate-Reality as pure consciousness without
I
subjective and objective relation ( Nirvisaya Jnana). However,
the resemblance ends with this common starting point, and their
views are widely divergent when they come to deal with the triad
of knowledge, knower, and the known or perception, perceiver and
306
the perceived. 13®M*&VieAa4(n©ady''d4«e»ssedvtK^^
chajst^p^jfA^jistenioisgy-.
Sankara maintains that the subjective and objective
relation is illusory and is due to AvidyS or Nescience.
69
The world also is no more than in appearance though
it has a reality for practical purpose ( Vyavaharikasatta) •
Jnanesvara admits the reality of Brahman but rejects the falsity
of the universe. Be clearly states in the "Cangadeva Pasasti",
"Therefore# I do not understand when it is said that the origin
of the perceived and of the one who perceives i;n Nescience. On
the other hand, they are natural expressions of Reality."
Jnanes'vara has totally refuted the theory of Avidya or
Nescience in the seventh chapter of "Ajnana Khandana" of the
Amrtanubhava
or 1 Anubhavamrta
*. He has devoted 295 avis to this
•
e
chapter only, out of total 807 ovXs in the Amrtanubhava. This
Enquiry into the nature of Ignorance ( Ajnana)" is the most
|
important part of the'philosophy of Jnanesvara. He refutes thes
Ajnanavada (accepted by the Vedlntins) from various points of
view,, with great logical skill and gives various illustrations
to support his
contention. He has clearly declared that the
entity which is called Maya by Vedantins is nothing but ignorance,
"O prince of wisdom, the Vedantins declare it to be
|
I y
illusion ( Maya); what need is there to quote any others? Matter
70
-K
I
is, indeed, ignorance."
The criterion is significant as it comes from a
great
Advaitin, who was largely influenced by the Natha-Sampradaya, to
307
which Jninesvara belonged. The point of view from which such
refutation is made is the experience of the Immortal Absolute.
It is pure consciousness beyond the dualism of sat’and asat,’
Knowledge
and ignorance, bliss and misery. Knowledge and
ignorance are relative terms and tfeagf therefore none is signi­
ficant without the other.
Jninesvara argues in the Amrtanubhava, if the existence
of ignorance is taken for granted before the rise of knowledge
in the absence of knowledge that existence of ignorance cannot
be known. Nothing can be said about the nature of ignorance
without the help of knowledge. Ignorance cannot be a natter of
knowledge or experience as it involves utter self-contradiction.
Hence ignorance is more a natter of imagination than actuality.
Knowledge which is supposed to be capable of destroying the
non-existent ignorance is another form of ignorance.
Ignorance has no foundation either in knowledge or in
itself. In the first place the foundation or substra^tum will
be made ignorant, in the latter case there can be no revelation
of ignorance. Ignorance cannot know itself since it is insentient.
Ignorance again is ineffective as knowledge does not come to be
totally eclipsed even as clouds cannot eclipse the sun. If it
were really effective in nullifying knowledge, there would be
no knowledge of the existence of ignorance itself.
Ignorance can neither co-exist with knowledge nor can
it exist independently. Sleep and wakefulness, forgetfulness and
memory, cold and heat, death and life cannot co-exist. And so
too jf ignorance and knowledge cannot co-exist.
308
a*
Ignorance cannot exist independently, just a dis^ease
cannot exist without the patient. A fish made of salt even if
alive cannot either live in water or outside it. And so would
be the condition
of Aj Sana.
a/
Ignorance cannot be proved by any Pramana. The t ri/ed
of Pramana, Pramjaya and Prarai is the result of Ignorance, and
hence no Pramana can prove ignorance as proof should be of the
nature of knowledge and not of ignorance. If the identity of
cause and effect is assumed the effect of ignorance will be
non-different from it and hence cannot be made a means to prove
it.
Ignorance cannot dwell in Atman in its pure state. In
such a pure state even the word Atman has no room nor the word
knowledge, then much less could there be any room for ignorance.
It is futile to seek darkness in the Sun.
Ignorance cannot be proved with reference to the mani­
festation of the objective vrorld. It is futile to infer the
existence of ignorance as the source of the manifestation of the
world. The word revelation as a
matter of fact reveals the
self revealing knowledge. It is really absurd to call that
ignorance which indeed reveals. It is like saying that xhzdcK
burns, or that ambrosia produces poison. What we see
before is only knowledge.
It is irrevalent to think that the ignorance has the
e-
powers of presentation, which is the rightful privilege of
knowledge.
309
The very construction of the word 'Ajnana* by merely
adding prefix
to Jnana verges on malapropism. Just as
fire cannot be covered by lac-box, Knowledge cannot be
covered by ignorance. Ajnana thus is a misnomer and a falsehood. To suppose ignorance to have^bom out of knowledge is
to think of a child that is bom dead.
The Sruti "Yasya bhasa sarvamidam Vibhiti" which
appears in Katha (V-15)y Svetasvatara (VI-14) and Mundaka
(II-2-10) has been misinterpreted by Sankara to mean the
false appearance of the world, but for Jnanesvara the world
is a delighteful expression of the Reality or manifestation
of the Brahman
Itself by It's sweet will.
Jnanesvara concludes this discussion thuss "Do not
fail to know that the light ( of knowledge ) is nothing but
the light. The whole world is nothing but the illumination
of the Substance or Atman. The Srutis
( the Upanisads )
declare with contentment that all that exists is illuminated
by light. Is it purposeless?"
"Therefore the existence of ignorance is not found out
in any way. It becomes futile though we try to search for
ignorance. The Sun would find no existence of darkness though
he visited the residence of night."
XV
AJNANA—KHANDANA OF RAMANUJA AND JNANESVARA
It must be made dear here that this Ajnana Khandana *
of Jnanesvara is not according to Ramanuja, which Panduranga
Sanaa has tried to show,
Rimanuja and Jnanesvara have used
310
"Dvfi-candra-Jnana" (knowledge of the two moons ) but In a
different sense* According to Ramanuja " Dwicandrajnana" is
not Bhramaka ( illusionary ) and * Anirvacaniya * (inexplicable)
but it is true. But Jnanesvara uses that illustration to show
that by 'Pratyakfa-Pramana* the effect (Karya) of Ajnana is
seen and not Aj nana itself. By Anumina { inference ) Ajnana is
proved. There is a polar difference between their view points
inciting ‘Dwicandraj nana". Jnanesvara has not accepted the
seven kinds of 'Anupapatti• i.e. inadmissibility of Avidyi
propagated by Ramanuja. According to Dr. Pendse Jnanesvara has
written Amrtanubhava to refute the conception of 'Anupapatti*
of Avidya propogated by Ramanuja.
Though this claim of his
is accepted* the other one cannot be accepted. He says*
"Amrtanubhava of Jnanesvara is a main and detailed commentary V
j
f
,
(Pravacana ) on the 'Adhyasabhasya1 of Sankara." Sankara has 5
e*
accepted Avidya-Ajnana-Adhyasa whereas Jnanesvara has refuted
it which we have already seen and proved.
XVI
HAS JKAKBSVARA ACCEPTED <ADHYAS&VADa’ OF SAHK&RA?
Dr. Pendse has quoted 147 places in the Appendix
of his Thesis,
in support of Mayavada* where words like Maya*
Bhrama* Bhrlnti* Avidya* Mithyadrstl, Mrgajala, Toya-taranga,
Bhutabhisa* Malasarpa, Ajnana, Rohinljala* Jagada bhasa.Svapna
etc. are used. But he has not quoted the word 'Adhyasa* i.e.
superf imposition even once. What does it show? If Jnanesvara
wanted to support 1 Adhyasa-Bhasya' of Sankara he would have
used the word 'Adhyasa’ in his Amrtanubhava or Jnanesvarf. But
311
on the contrary it seems# Jfitanesvar^has purposely avoided
this word in all expositions to avoid misconception. SSUr
Kabira has accepted *AdhySsa*i.e. . Superiraposition while
Jnanesvara has refuted it.
XVII
THREE DISTINCTIONS IN MAYA ACCORDING TO KABIRA
According to the Svetasvataropanisad (4/5/) Maya is
described as one only# though she creates the world *hich is
Trigunamaya. In the Gita also, she Is described as one only
(7-14). Kabira accepts Maya in one form on the metaphysical
level but according to practical view point (Vyavahirika) he
takes it in three distinct forms. He says,
"Gross Maya can be abandoned by all# but the subtle
Maya cannot be got rid of by anybody including all Gods like
A
-
jjl,
Pira# Paigambara or Alla. It devotfprs then all”.
75
A
(1)
JH
THE SUBTLE (SftlNi)
AND ILLUSIONARY MAYA
wn
Kabira has used 'sjinl*
and 'Motl• i.e. subtle and
A
CC
gross words for Maya. He distinguishes them as 'BhgramJ
(illusion) and 'Karam*
(action) also. According to Kabira
Bharama ( illusion) is due to passions of mind. All worldly
attractions create temptation in the mind and brings one under
bondage of Maya.' One who knows these fetters of Maya or
ignorance, tries to get rid of then through knowledge. 76 Only
knowledge can dispel ignorance * Bhrama' or * Mithyi-Jnina *
from the mind.
According to Kabira ' Bhramarupi^i Maya (illusionary )
312
J-L
is •3$ini' Maya, (subtle), which is very powerful. This subtle
Maya will never leave a roan unless he dies. It pursues a man
in different forms as expectation and thirst of worldly things.
78
The craving for respect does not leave even the great Munis.
77
ou
Sides Fame is known to be the infirmity of Jodble minds. This
subtle Maya has devoured Muni (sage ) like Narada^hat of others?
2.
THE GROSS (MOfl ? MAYA
All -worldly things of names and forms are influenced
by law of Action. But the influence of Maya can be seen where
hypocrites are trying to show their devotion or love towards God
or religion through 'Pujapatha* (worship) * Yajna-Yaga*,
pilgrimages#' different vows and so many other rituals. All
wealth, gold, rich*£s$» woman came$ under the influence of Maya.
Kablra has vehemently, attacked those persons, who are after
•Kanaka* and 'Kanta' i.e gold and woman. According to him due
to the clutches of these yf two a man is doomed for ever. Like
cotton by fire he is burnt due to the association of Maya. 80
3.
THE 1VIDYA-RUPINI' MAYA
eu
Like GosvSni Tulsidasa,
Kabira has described Maya of
A
—
in two kinds, •Vidya-.rupini' and •Avidya-.rupinT*. In the
Svetasvataropanisad (5/1)
Maya is described in two fori®.
According to Kabira, “Upajl binasai jeti serva Maya." i.e.
whatever is bom, dies or changes is all illusion Maya. All
perishable and changeable things are of the nature of Maya
according to Kabira. *Avidyi' - ignorance-denotes all perishable
and gross things, while ’vidyi* denotes Imperishable, unchangeable
313
eternal Atman. Atman is not influenced by Maya, she cannot
touch the saints; on the contrary she becomes their *DisI’
handmaid.81
XVIII
m AS KUNDALINI
In ' Kablra-Mansura *, Maya is described as 'Niranjana
Sakti•,
*Brahmanda-Sakti* which is
'kundalinl'
in • Pinda1
*«
" »
(human body). According to them (Kabirs-panthis ) Kundalinl is
'Adya-Sakti*
'Nigin*
(a finale snake ) 'ThaginX
(Knavish woman).
-^Pranave- is nothing but hissing of a female serpfnt, which is
'Nirahjana* in the Brahmanda and Man ( Mind ) in the Pinda
(human body). It is known as Naga ( male snake ). By the union
of Niga and Nagin the whole world is created. The world is
after devotion ( upasana) of the Pranava, which is poisonous
—
hissing of Nagin. One, who can kill it will be the conqueror.
QO
According to Dr. H.P. Dwivedi this new conception of
Maya is addition to the Kablra-Pantha, and they have misinterpret­
ed ‘Iferna*
(spirit-essence ) as 'Jaharllapana* i.e. poisoning.83
Kablra has described Maya as ‘DolanX* i.e. 'ffetakX*
(earthem pot) , Havana’ (Pranayama) as a churaer, butter as the
essence (Tattva) which is taken and eaten by the saints. The
ignorant people drink only *Tarka*— reasoning and temptation-whieh
is butter milk.84
XIX
MAYA AND THE MIND ACCORDING TO KABIRA
*€ya is closely related to the mind. Kablra considers
the latter to be the residing place of Maya.
"Here is one demoness residing in my mind. She rises
vr
again and again and gna$s or bites at my soul"
35
Being always an occupant of the mind, she permanently
torments it. Like the mind which is not destroyed in spite of
the destruction of the body, this Maya defies destruction. "Maya
does not perish. The person dies and this body is destroyed
again and again."
All emotions of the mind are the companions of Maya.
On one occasion, Kablra considers the five-passions viz. •Kama*
'Krodha* etc. to be the progeny of Maya: "That demoness has
five sons"86
Wealth and woman are the two off shoots of Maya that
are difficult to be overcome. The entire universe is burning in
the flames of the fire of these two. It is indeed very difficult
to save oneself from these. These form the • all-enveloping fire.
"The fire of Maya arising from wealth and woman bums
this world. How long can Brahma protect you taking you to be his
07
pupil?
According to Kablra the world is burning like cotton
in the fire of Maya# *dilch is nothing but 'Kanaka* and 'Kanta*
i.e. riches and woman. 88
How one can be saved from Maya?
According to Kablra only through the grace or blessings of
ot
_
go
Satguru one can be saved from the fetters of Maya.
Kablra
&
is page prepared to become a slave of him, who is aved from the
A
clutches of Maya.86
XX
THE ESTIMATION OP KABIR&'S MAYAVADA
Kabira's Mayavada is not influenced by the Upanlsads#
the Hatha-Sampradaya or by the Bhagavadglta but* by Sankara
Vedanta only. Like Sankara’s Maya# Kabira has described her
as indescribable# vanishable,illusory etc. Like Prakrti of
7
_
a*
Ct
Sarakhya philosophy# she Is ‘Prasva- DharminT* i.e. giving births
*
A
®
to many and Trigunatraika i.e. having three attributes. Like
Satan (Devil) of the Suphls she becomes the great hindrance
on the pathway to Self-Realization. Kabrra * s Maya is mainly
|
the product of mind and hence she is endless and all pervading.
/•
There is one great difference in Mayavada of Santera
and that of Kablra# which nobody has pointed out so far. The
doctrine of Mayavada of Sankara has come into existance to
'
solve the riddle of the creation of the world i.e. cosmology.
„
_
Sankara has used the Doctrine of Maya to prove Advaitavida# to
s
give ^convincing theory of evolving 'Nanatva* (Dualism-different
names and forms in the world ) from 'Ekatva1
(Monism) i.e.
from the Ultimate-Reality-Brahman. Kabira’s Mayavada does not
y
.....
reach that metaphysical
magnitufe and height. It does not
reach that height of Maya propagated by Jnanesvara, which is
based on the sound foundation of Kasmlra-Sa ivism•
Dr. Rev. P.E. Keay
has made a correct evaluation of
the conception of Maya expounded by Kablra. He says# "Kablra
also took the 'Maya* from Hinduism but with him# Maya seems
generally to have rather a different meaning from that which
316
is in general use. It is amongst Hindus a philosophical
concept to account for the apparent duality of the universe.
This idea may be found in Kablra, but it more often has rather
an ethical content."91
The vivid descriptions of Maya of Kablra undoubtedly
convey that his heart is burning due to the horrible effects
of Mayi, from which he wants to warn and save the ignorant
%
£
people hankering after the wordly
pleasures and thus destroying
A
their precious lives. His expositions of Mi5a reveal the
compassionate heart of a real saint and throws light on his
originality^ -£«ike his other.
XXI
OHE MISCONCEPTION REGARDING JN^BSVARft
In the Jninesvarl at many places the author gives the
conceptions of Naiyayikas, Samkhyas# Vedantins etc. and then
proceeds to expounde# his own doctrine. In short, after giving
the 'Purva paksa* JnSnesvara puts forward the 'Uttara-paksa *,
—
s For example, following
as was the custom among the Bhasyahara,
ovTs may be seen.
"These shoots are known as Maya; but in reality Maya
both is and is not and is as impossible to describe as the
offspring of a barren woman. She neither exists nor does not
exist, she cannot tolerate the idea of thought- this is her
nature, and is thought of as eternal." 92
In Marathi it is *Anadi~m^bana11* means " is said to be
eternal" and not " is thought of as eternal" as translated by
\317
)
Pradhan. • MahanatT* i.e. c it is said/ shows somebody else's
•+***/
*‘
conceptions and not that of Jnanesvara. This is the conception
of Mayavidi~Advaitins which Jnanesvara has referred to. Because
he gives his conception regarding Maya as follows:
‘•This Maya abides in Brahma and therefore both is and
is not; then only does the splendour of Brahma become manifesl'V^
In this ovl Jnanesvara clearly refutes the Conception of
_ _
w
~tkajj~
Maya according to Mayavadi-Advaitins and states the universe
n
\hich is being seen and experienced is not false? is not a myth
or play of AnirvacanTya i.e. inexplicable Maya, but it is the
manifestation of the Brahman {Vastu-Prabha). After describing
'Asvattha1 from 110 to 115 ovTs ( Chapter XV) according to
Sankara-Vedantins, Jnanesvara very clearly says, "Pari to
^
94
abhipraya ndhe Sbrl^arTca"
The same conception is seen in the
Amrtanubhava.
"The whole world is nothing but the illumination of
_
QC
the substance ( Vastu-Brahman ) or Atman" #
In Marathi it is, "Jag® asakl Vastu-prabha.M In
J'-tfciKjsSf.K*
Jninesvarl it is
Maga Vastu-prabha cl pehx, Prakata hoe-."
A,
I
{»SW»SWSS!UC!S
After describing Maya as per illustrations given by the
Vedantins, Jnanesvara sums up this discussion thus:
"This is the way in which it is explained in the Vedanta?
but let this be, here, we
consider ignorance to be the root.
96
319
This clearly shows JnanesVara*s indifference towels
Mayavada propounded by the Mayavadi-Advaitins. So whatever is
stated in the Jnanesvari should not be ascribed to JnanesVara'
name or his philosophy but should be seen and studied in the
light of Purva-paksa and Uttara-paksa.
XXII
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we can now definitely say that JnanesVara
was not a believer of Sankara's Mayavada. Though he has used the
word Maya at many places in the Jnanesvari, it is in accordance
with the philosophical conceptions of Kasim! ra-^aiv ism. He takes
Maya as Brahma-^akti, Cit-^akti, Bhagavat-sakti or Bhagavadiccha.
He has clearly refuted Mayavada in the fourteenth chapter of
•
~‘r~ -r
Jnanesvari and the seventh chapter of Amrtanubhava under AjnanaKhandana. There is a polar difference in the conception of Maya
among Sankara and JnanesVara, and so between JnanesVara and
Kabira. Kabira1s Maya is mainly the product of mind and hence
she is endless and all-pervading.
We have already made an estimation of Kabira*s
Mayavada in details and have also shown the great difference
in his Mayavada and that of Sankara, which nobody has pointed
out so far.
320
NOTES
PART II
CHAPTER
XI
THE DOCTRINE
OP
1
Con. Ma. Per. 22.
2
Con. Su. Up. Ph.* fig. 162.
3
Ibid* Pg. 165.
4
G.T.M. Pg. 729.
5
Con. Su.Up. Ph. Pg. 165.
6
G.T.M. Pg. 733
7
Con. Su. Up. Ph. Pg. 166.
8
Jn. T.J.s pg. 180-183
9
Sai. Jn. Pg. 105-106.
XO
Jn. T.J.: Pg. 183.
11
12
Sai. Jn.s Pg. 107.
MAYA
13
Con. Su. Up. Ph.* Pg. 167.
Con. Ma. Pg. 4.
14
Jn. Dar. Vol. II
15
Jn. T. J.t Pg. 43.
16
Ibid: Appendix* Pg. 210-212.
17
Con.Su. Up. Ph.* Pg. 165.
18
19
Jn. Ab.s Pg. 53.
Kab. (H.D.)j Pg. 109.
20
Kab. Rah. V.
Pg. 36. ?
21
22
Ibid
Pg. 40
23
Ekarase Svabhave Udbhavayanti Vikalpasilpani
Tantraloka* 6-9-149.
Haye ti lokapateh paramsvatantrasya mehani shaktin
(Mab. Manj.)
24
25
Sv. Up.* IV* 10.
i s Verse 3. "Sardhanm Kena ca kasyirdhain
Sivayoh Samarupinoh"
"tiye vandile ndjya" mulike# Devodevi "Is Ovi 1.
321
"Shri Purusa Namabhede, Sivapana elcale hi side" IjOviJf 17.
B.G. VI: 14; Jni.s 273.
**je sunyalingaci pindi, je parmatmasivaci karandi;
je prinici ughadi, jaronabhimi".
26
28
Sai. J.N. Pg. 51-52.
(27j M. Manj.s 14.
B.G. XXV : 4 s Jna s 115 ©) B.G. XIV* 4; Jni.*122.
32
Ibid
•
*126
Ibid
Ibid II s 12; Jni.s 105
@ Ibid
34
Ibid II* 28* Jni.s 166-168 © Ibid
36
Ibid XXsl6;Jhi:126.
37
38
"taise dehantarate svikarij e, Caitanyanathe"
(B.G. II* 22; Jni.s 144.)
Kab. V^ Dh. s Pg. 236-237.
B.G. Vi*5; Jhi. *68.
40
K.G. Pg. 166
42
Ibid Pg. 86
t
44
48
Ibidpg. 230.
Ibid Pg. 89* Pada*84.
K.G. Pg. 113*Pada* 187.
K.G. Pg. 141:Padas 296.
^7} Pan.Dis 1-15.16.
©. K.G. Pg. 134; Pada* 270.
50
Ibid Pg.
©.Ibid. Pg. 34
52
Ibid Pg. *228
©. Ibid Pg. 229
54
Ibid Pg.
257.
©. Ibid Pg. 156.
56
Ibid Pg.
166*Pada230.
@. K.G.
30
46
58
*374-377
*106-107
*169.
K.6. Pg. 86.
© Ibid.Pg. 229.
226.
Pre. Pg. 27
K.G. Pre. Pg. 27.
59. K.G. Appendix %. 218* Pada 78.
60
61
62
B.G. VII* 14; Jni.s66-98
Ham. Cr. M. AyodhyaKanda* Doha: 33; Chaupais 1-2.
K.G. Pg. 219
© K.G. Pg. 232
64
Ibid Pg. 233
Ibid Pg. 25-27
66
Kab. Rah. V.
K.G. Pg. 34
68
Sarva-Vedanta Siddhantasarda:
"Sabhave, linganetasya karyametat Caracaram,
69
71
73
2%nani Srutih smrtiseajno* ham itanubhavatopi caw
Sr.Su. S. Bh.s I -3-2.
6o), B.G. XIV; 3; Jnl* 70.
A.A.* VII * Ovis
Jn. T.J. Pg. 311.
289-294.© C.M.J. Dec. 1921.
© Jn. T.J. Pg. 210-212.
3X100
75
77
79
81
Kab. Bi.s Pg. 276
K.G. Pg. s 33
(H.D.)i Pg. 109,
Kab.
85.
K.G. Pg. 236.
Ibid Pg. 35
87.
93
95
A. A. s VII s 289.
91
84. San. Kab.:Sjrfloka
18-19
86. K.G. Pg. 168.
Ibid Pg. 218.
Pg. 77.
Kab. Fol,
B.G. XV; Is Jnis 83.
89
78. Ibid * 34
80. Ibid Pg. 35
82. Kab. Man.s Pg. 625.
Ibid Pg. 35
Ibid Pg. 33
83.
76. K.G. Pg. 236.
88. Ibid Pg. 27.
90. K.G. Pg.s 205? Padas 23
92. B.G.XVs 1? Jni.: 79-80.
94. Ibid
s Is Jtti.: 115.
96. A.A.: VII ? 89.
*****