AvichAraonthetermsavidyAandmAyA

A short study of three passages from the Brahmasutra Bhashya of Sri

Shankaracharya is taken up with a view to determine the Bhashyakaras
intent with regard to the usage of the terms avidyA and mAyA. In this
study, the standard, authoritative, traditional sub-commentaries bhAShya
ratna prabhA(by Govindananda Sarasvati) and nyAya nirNaya (by
Anandagiri) are consulted in deriving the purport of the passages of the
Bhashya. The study assumes value in view of the fact that the method
adopted in the tradition, 'sampradAya', handed down to the present day, in
the teaching and practice of Shankaras commentaries and works is
adhered to.
TheFirstSutraBhashyapassage:
To start with, the brahma sUtra bhAShya 1.3.19 passage as below is taken
up:
,

//only one highest Lord ever unchanging, whose substance is cognition,

and who, by means of avidyA, manifests himself in various ways, just

as a Magician appears in different shapes by means of his magical power.//
The bhAShya-ratnaprabhA commentary says:
, -
Sri Govindananda, author of the above gloss, explains the purpose and
purport of the two terms avidyA and mAyA used by Shankara in
consecutive order:
1. Shankara wants to negate the view that avidyA and mAyA are distinct
entities. So He uses the two words together, as in the same caseending, sAmAnAdhikaraNyam.
2. Shankara wants to indicate that avidyA serves as AvaraNa-shakti
(concealing power) and mAyA serves as vikShepa-shakti
(projecting/multiplicating power). Hence the two words are used
together, in that order.
The nyAya-nirNaya of Anandaj~nAna (Anandagiri) says:

(With a view to debunk the view

that mAyA is different from 'avidyA, Shankara uses the term mAyayA,
by/due to mAyA after saying:avidyayA by/due to avidyA.)
- , ,

According to the above gloss, the purpose of using the two terms together
by Shankara is:
1. Since there is no basis (pramANa) for the differentiating between (a)
a world common to all and (b) a world exclusive to a pramAtA, there
is no reason to hold a distinction between avidyA and mAyA. The
idea is: each of these, avidyA and mAyA, is held by those who posit a
distinction between them, to be the cause of the two types of worldexperience (a) and (b). Shankara is refuting this idea by using the two
terms together.
2. There is no pramANa for holding a distinction between avidyA and
mAyA. To show this Shankara is using both the terms together,
asserting their synonymity.
3. Since it is possible for the idea of a whole world to come about in a
persons thinking by the agency of one aj~nAna, ignorance itself
owing to its inscrutable power, it is unnecessary to posit a forced
distinction between avidyA and mAyA. To convey this Shankara
uses the two terms together establishing thereby their nondistinctness.
ThesecondSutraBhashya1.4.3passage:
,
,

.... ... ..

// For that causal potentiality is of the nature of Nescience; it is rightly

denoted by the term 'undeveloped;' it has the highest Lord for its
substratum; it is of the nature of an illusion; it is a universal sleep in which
are lying the transmigrating souls destitute for the time of the
consciousness of their individual character. 1 This undeveloped principle is
sometimes denoted by the term AkAsha, ether; so, for instance, in the
passage, 'In that Imperishable then, O Grg, the ether is woven like warp
and woof' (Bri. Up. III, 8, 11). Sometimes, again, it is denoted by the term
akShara, the Imperishable; so, for instance (Mu. Up. II, 1, 2), 'Higher, than
the high Imperishable.' Sometimes it is spoken of as mAyA, illusion; so, for
instance (Sve. Up. IV, 10), 'Know then prakRRiti is mAyA, and the great
Lord he who is the wielder of mAyA.' For mAyA is properly called
undeveloped or non-manifested since it cannot be defined either as that
which is or that which is not.--The statement of the kAThaka that 'the
Undeveloped is beyond the Great one' is based on the fact of the Great
one originating from the Undeveloped, if the Great one be the intellect of
hiraNyagarbha. If, on the other hand, we understand by the Great one the
individual soul, the statement is founded on the fact of the existence of the
individual soul depending on the Undeveloped, i.e. Nescience. For the
continued existence of the individual soul as such is altogether owing to the
relation in which it stands to Nescience. //
http://www.bharatadesam.com/spiritual/brahma_sutra/brahma_sutra_sanka
ra_34114.php

Anandagiri, in the nyAya-nirNaya, alludes to a view held by someone:

, ,

// Since mAyA and avidyA are different from each other, Ishwara is the
locus of mAyA and the jIva is the locus of avidyA. Replying to such a view,
Shankara says: This bIjashakti is mAyAmayI, it is of the nature of mAyA.
Just as the magicians magic, mAyA, is dependent on the magician, so too
this Shakti is dependent on the Conscious entity. //
Continues Anandagiri:
,
[This mAyAshakti is characterized by 1. Non-comprehension of the Reality,
2. Mis-comprehension of the Reality and 3. Projection of multitude of jIva-s.
Owing to this, this Shakti is admitted to be a positive, existent, entity. By
this, the idea is that this shakti is not some non-existent, abhAva, entity but
bhAvarUpa, existent entity. An abhAva entity cannot be said to have these
or any properties; nor can such an entity bring about / cause any effects of
saMsAra.]
Moreover, the above description of mAyA, reminds us of Shankaras
definition of avidyA lakShaNa and mAyA lakShaNa in the Gita bhashya
13.2 and Mandukya kArika bhashya 1.16:
1. , ,
(Gita Bhashya 13.2)

2. , ,
(Brih.Up.Bhashya)

3.
...
(Manudkya kArikA bhAShya 1.16)

From the above sample, it is clear that for Shankara what

constitutes avidyA, mAyA and aj~nAnam is all the same
power. Shankara is seen in the above sentences to make a
clear distinction between adhyAsa and tattva-agrahaNa,
thereby proving wrong the theory: avidyA = adhyAsa. From
the above sentences we conclude that for Shankara avidyA
is not just adhyAsa; it is something more than that. 'adhyAsa'
is just one facet of avidyA/aj~nAna/mAyA; the other two
facets being agrahaNa/j~nAna abhAva and saMshaya.
'adhyAsa' is called by other names such as: viparItagrahaNa, anyathA-grahaNa, atasmin tad buddhiH, viparyAsa,
etc. While tattva-agrahaNa is understood as mUlAvidyA
that underlies adhyAsa by the traditional commentators,
j~nAna abhAva, a synonym of tattva agrahaNa is
understood as the state prior to adhyAsa by the non-

traditional thinkers. For analytical purposes a sequence is

admitted by all. adhyasa, superimposition, does not happen
unless there is a prior non-apprehension of the object.
Continues Anandagiri: (
) ... (Since this avidyA Shakti is inexplicable, it is quite fitting that
it is called by the name: avyakta. ) Shankara says that this shakti which
cannot be determined to be real or unreal, different from Brahman or
identical with It, and therefore it (mAyA) is avyaktA.
, , ,
Since the jiva is subservient/subordinate to /controlled
by avidyA, how is it apt to say that the jIva is subservient to avyaktA? To
such a question, Shankara replies, by recalling His earlier remark regarding
the nature of avyakta (avyaktA hi sA mAyA) - - avidyA
indeed is avyaktam.
Thus, in the light of Anandagiris clarificatory comments we conclude that:
For Shankara avidyA, mAyA, avyakta are all non-different from each
other; they mean the same bondage-creating/sustaining nescience.
This nescience has these facets: 1. Render the jIva ignorant to the
True nature. 2. It is inexplicable, anirvAchya. 3. It overpowers the
jIva. 4. It projects a multitude of objects/jIvas, in other words, the
world. All these features are present in this shakti and hence it is
denoted by so many names in the scripture.

 In the passage examined herein, Shankara uses two words:

and in the same sentence to describe/define
one noun: also termed by Shankara as . This
confirms beyond doubt that He holds avidyA and mAyA to be
synonyms, even as He holds bIja shaktiH and mahA suptiH as
synonyms.
The ending AtmikA and mayI in the two adjectives are important for
consideration. When we say , it is a pot made of clay.
means, a golden ear-ring. Likewise,
means a golden vessel. The suffix and Atmakam mean the
same.
Shankara is undoubtedly talking about
and in the same sentence,
without making any distinction between them. From the very
wordings of these two expressions it is clear that the first one refers
to the popular mAyAshakti of Ishwara and the second one refers to
the equally popular bandhaka avidyA of the jIva. This expression:
particularly has in it, in embedded form, the two
AvaraNa shakti, - and vikShepa shakti, -. But
why should be located in the Parameshwara? Herein lies
the answer: According to Shankara, Brahman Itself, owing to
ignorance of/about Its own Nature, is as though in bondage.
Otherwise, we cannot account for mahAsuptiH for Ishwara. Is He

not sarvaj~na? In the subsequent sentences Shankara is referring

to the jIva being subordinate to/controlled by a force avyakta. Thus
Shankara uses the adjectives avidyAtmikA and mAyAmayI in such
a way that the bIja shaktiH is explained as referring to mAyA and
avidyA. This shows that Shankara treats both mayA and avidyA as
basically non-different, yet allowing for a functional distinction.
When we appreciate the above

, arrangement, we can

appreciate that the upAya for transcending mAyA and avidyA is

one and the same. It is well known from the Gita that mAyA is
, constituting the three guNas. The entire 14th chapter is
a description of the guNa-s and the way to transcend them: .
The Lord says:
(Gita 10.11). This is clearly indicative of avidyA in
the jIva. Maya, even though regarded as Ishwaras Shakti, is
definitely jIvas problem. He has to and can transcend it and realize
that from the Advaitic realization standpoint, mAyA/avidyA never
existed. Maya as both jagadrUpa and jIva-avidyA rUpa is mithyA.
TheThirdSutraBhashyapassage:

,
, - ,
.... ,

(2.1.14)
http://www.bharatadesam.com/spiritual/brahma_sutra/brahma_sutra_sanka
ra_34153.php

// Belonging to the Self, as it were, of the omniscient Lord, there are name
and form, the figments of Nescience, not to be defined either as being (i.e.
Brahman), nor as different from it 1, the germs of the entire expanse of the
phenomenal world, called in Sruti and Smriti the illusion (mAyA), power
(shakt), or nature (prakRRiti) of the omniscient Lord. Different from them is
the omniscient Lord himself, as we learn from scriptural passages such as
the following, 'He who is called ether is the revealer of all forms and names;
that within which these forms and names are contained is Brahman' (Chan.
Up. VIII, 14, 1); 'Let me evolve names and forms' (Chan. Up. VI, 3, 2); 'He,
the wise one, who having divided all forms and given all names, sits
speaking (with those names)' (Taitt. r. III, 12, 7); 'He who makes the one
seed manifold' (Sve. Up. VI, l2).--Thus the Lord depends (as Lord) upon
the limiting adjuncts of name and form, the products of Nescience; just as
the universal ether depends (as limited ether, such as the ether of a jar,
&c.) upon the limiting adjuncts in the shape of jars, pots, &c. He (the Lord)
stands in the realm of the phenomenal in the relation of a ruler to the socalled jIvas (individual souls) or cognitional Selfs (vij~nAnAtman), which
indeed are one with his own Self--just as the portions of ether enclosed in
jars and the like are one with the universal ether--but are limited by

aggregates of instruments of action (i.e. bodies) produced from name and

form, the presentations of Nescience.//
The scheme of jIva, jagat and Ishwara and Brahman as essentially brought
out by Shankara is as follows:
1. By avidyA, names and forms are projected.
2. A. Names and forms form the basis/seed/material for the principle
called Ishwara. Names and forms cannot be said to be different from
Ishwara as they are nothing without the sentience and existence
borrowed from Ishwara. Nor can they be said to be the same as
Ishwara as that would render Ishwara insentient. Being thus
inexplicable, anirvachanIya, they form the seed for the saMsAra of
the jivas and the prapa~ncha, the world of experience. The
Ratnaprabha gloss clarifies:

[Shankara, with a view to imply that the names and forms in
the form of saMskAra-s, latent impressions, are non-different from
avidyA (their cause), uses the word mAyA.] The word
mAyAshaktiH of the Bhashyam implies that it is non-different from
avidyA, the cause of saMskAra-s that forms the material for Ishwara
to engage in creation, etc.
B. Names and forms form the basis/seed for the principle called jIva.
These names and forms are a product of avidyA.
3.

Ishwara is the one that is associated with the avidyA-created name-

form upAdhi.

4. jIva is non-different from Ishwara, and is conditioned by avidyAcreated, name-form created body-mind apparatus upAdhi.
5. Thus Ishwara and jiva have the same avidyA-created upadhis, with a
distinction in the nature of upAdhis: For Ishwara the shakti is the collective
saMskAras created by avidyA, non-different from mAyA, prakRRiti, etc. as
different names found in the scriptures.
6. The Atman is the locus where the avidyA, avidyA-created upAdhi-s.
When vidyA is secured, it destroys all the upadhi-s and Atman is known to
be ever-free of upAdhi-s, both of Ishwara and jIva.
7. The Scriptures temporarily adopt the -, the
scheme/method of the pariNAmavAda, only with the objective of enabling
the jIva to engage in karma yoga and upAsanA. This would be possible
only when creation of the world is spoken of, Ishwara, the Creator, is
specified and Ishwaras role in the creation, maintenance, etc. Once the
purpose of cultivating/preparing the mind is accomplished, the jIva comes
to appreciate the upAdhi-free Atman, free of creation, free of Ishwara and
jIva upAdhi-s. The Ratnaprabha quotes a verse in this connection:
(source not provided). [The
unprepared aspirant understands only the creation, transformation
scheme whereas the one who has purified his mind of all dross is able to
appreciate the transfiguration vivarta of Atman/Brahman as appearing as
the world and jIva-s.]
8. Shankara does not say avidyA has created mAyA. He only says avidyA
has projected names and forms. It is only the Veda that gives the term

mAyA/avyakta/prakRRiti and so on to that power of Ishwara used for

creation and managing the creation. Shankara only alludes to this saying
that this avidyA-created names and forms are named mAyAshakti, etc. by
the Shruti. By this much it would be incorrect to conclude that Shankara
has treated mAyA as a figment of avidyA.
9. It could be contended that since names and forms are called mAyA by
the shruti and alluded so by Shankara, names and forms themselves could
be treated as mAyA and in that way why cant we hold mAyA to be a
figment of avidyA? The reply to this is: By this same logic, what is wrong
in treating mAyA as non-different from avidyA since as per the above
contention mAyA is a figment of avidyA? After all, Shankara has strongly
held that the effect, kAryam, is non-different from its cause, kAraNam.
That way mAyA is non-different from avidyA indeed.
10. As the study of the Bhashya quotes reveal and as the general method
of the Upanishads as taught by Gaudapadacharya and Shankaracharya
make it clear, the Upanishads/Smriti initially talks about the creation and
the created world and jIva-s as distinct entities and Ishwara as a distinct
All-powerful Creator. In this stage the Upanishads have to maintain that
Ishwaras power is mAyA/avyakta/avyakRRita and the power that
conditions the Consciousness so as to make it appear to be a jIva,
saMsArI, is avidyA. From the third bhashya quote we saw above, it is clear
that Shankara alludes to this and thereby uses the term:
. . Here we see Shankara mentioning that the nAma-rUpa
combine is responsible for 1. saMsAra which is the jIva-s creation and 2.
prapa~ncha which is Ishwaras creation. Elsewhere in the Brihadaranyaka

mantra and bhashya we learn that the jIva, owing to avidyA and kAma
(ignorance and desire) engages in karma and accumulates apUrva,
saMskAras. This forms the stock material for Ishwara to provide the jIva
with the appropriate prapa~ncha consisting of the names and forms. We
can see here that the jIva creates his saMskAras and Ishwara provides the
appropriate prapa~ncha for further bhoga and further karma. In this way,
avidyA of the jiva provides the material for Ishwaras creation. We are able
to immediately appreciate that avidyA-created saMsAra is non-different
from mAyA-shakti, the material for prapa~ncha.
11. If it is held that avidyA, the power that conditions jIva and makes him
subordinate to it, creates mAyA, the power of Ishwara who wields it to
create the world, etc., a question arises thus: How can the
durbala/daurbalya-creating avidyA ever bring about a mahAbala, great
power called Maya shakti of Ishwara?
12. Accordingly, the terms avidyA, mAyA, etc. are all used only in the
state of bondage, vyavahAra. Their synonymity and functional difference is
also maintained only in this realm. From the Absolute, Paramarthika,
standpoint, however, no words obtain.

Conclusion:
From the short study of the three sample passages from the Sutra
Bhashya, it would be apt to conclude as follows:

 The view arguing for the distinctness of avidyA and mAyA has been
prevalent even before Shankaras times. This is evident from the
gloss of Anandagiri. It is evident that the protagonists of such a
view are advaitins. In the absence of specific information, we
surmise that they are the bheda-abhedavAdins/vRRittikAra/bhartRRiprapa~ncha school that Shankara has
often taken up for refutation across His bhAshya literature.
The functional distinction between A and M could be admitted, even
as Shankara does, in the explanation of the distinction between jIva
and Ishwara in the realm of ignorance/bondage/saMsAra.
What indeed is meant by the non-distinctness of A and M? In reply
to this question, we turn to a very significant statement of the author
of the bhAmatI. Says Sri Vachaspati Mishra in the gloss to the
Bhashya on the sutra: 2.1.14 -
,

...(by non-difference we do

not suggest identity; but only negate absolute difference). By

imposing identity between the cause, clay, and the effect, pot, a
difficulty would arise where the practical utility/parlance cannot be
accomplished. When a man wants a pot to store water/cook rice,
etc., he goes to a potter to buy one. In case the potter hands him a
lump of clay saying take this, for is not the pot the same as clay?,
that would be an undesirable situation. This is not the way Advaitins

want the cause-effect non-difference to be understood. All that is

intended is to wipe out any idea of absolute difference between the
cause and the effect. One not given to enquiry holds the effect and
the cause as two distinct real entities. This view is not conducive to
the understanding of the fundamental reality, tattva. The correct
view of appreciating the non-difference of the effect from its material
cause without jeopardizing the practical parlance, vyavahAra, is to
understand, by enquiry, that the two, the cause and effect, are not
two distinct, real entities; one cause alone appears, through
imagined/superimposed name and form, as many effects. The
fundamental reality, however, is one only which is neither the cause
nor the effect.
If the principle underlying the above Bhamati statement is
appreciated, one would be able to understand and appreciate the
varied usages of the terms avidyA and mAyA in the scriptural and
commentarial literature. One can allow a distinction for functional
purposes in vyavahAra but not lose sight of the ultimate nondifference between A and M.

AnAppendix
In his Gudarthadipika, Madhusudana Saraswati (MS) comments for the
verse 13.34:

...[bhUtaprakRRitimokSham cha
the cause of all creatures avidyA which is called mAyA, its non-existence
owing to the gaining of the knowledge of the Supreme Atman also those
who know]
This is what exactly Shankara too has done here, with even more
emphasis:
...[ the meaning given in the above paragraph is to
be seen as applicable here, with the additional word: avyaktA. MS uses
MAYA for this word. ]
For the term avidyA lakShaNa of the bhashya, the derivation is:
= that prakRRiti which has for its characteristic
avidyA, ignorance. This prakRRiti is also termed avyaktA.
It is clear that Shankara makes no difference between avidyA and mAyA
(avyaktA). Also to be noted is that Shankara says, on the authority of the
Lord, that mAyA, avyaktA, which is the Lords Shakti, is realized by the
Jnani to be non-existent.

This very sentence also says that avidyA is

realized to be non-existent too.

How? By gaining the Self-knowledge.

Thus AtmavidyA renders non-existent (1) the avidyA, ignorance, that is

associated with the jIva as well as (2) mAyA that is Ishwaras Shakti.

How do we affirm that mAyA, avyaktA is Ishwaras Shakti in this context

and not something related to the jIva? The Reply is:
Just three verses after the above, into the 14th chapter, for the verse 14.3,
Shankara comments:
...[My own mAyA that
is made of the three guNa-s is the source, cause, womb, of all beings]
(note: this very expression is used by Shankara to explain of verse
7.14.)
One can see the similarity in the words usage in the two instances
presented above. It is unmistakable that the 13.34 bhashya/verse speaks
about the same mAyA, avyaktA, Ishwaras Shakti that is spoken of in 14.3.
MS also follows Shankara in the 14.3 explanation.
What about the word avyaktA? The reply is: In His commentary to verse
8.20, Shankara says:
? ...[Greater
than what? Greater than the earlier mentioned (8.18) avyaktA that is the
seed of all the beings, of the nature of avidyA. ]
Here again, we have to remember the derivation of the term avidyA
lakShaNa as:

= that which has for its characteristic

avidyA, ignorance. This is also termed .

Here Shankara defines avyaktA, which is the source of all beings as one
having its nature, ignorance, avidyA lakShaNa. For Shankara, even mAyA,
prakrRti, Ishwaras Shakti, is of the character/nature of avidyA alone.
It is clear that MS too is actually putting avidyA and mAyA as synonyms.
In the Mandukya karika:

3.19

Here too, Gaudapada and Shankara use Maya as that which brings forth
misapprehension, multiplicity.

Shankara says:

..., ...
Thus, mAyA and avidyA have the same lakShaNa-s.
Shankara admits mAyA to be: 1. Ishwaras Shakti and 2. avidyA.
The Mandukya kArikA reads thus:

1.7 ||
[Some of those who contemplate the process of creation regard it as the
manifestation of Gods powers; others imagine creation to be like dreams
and illusions.] (Sw.Gambhirananda)
Shankara terms svapnamAyA-sarUpAH as those different type, second
type, believers in creation: These people think that the creation is like a
dream (that is, since the dream-objects are created only on the basis of the
objects experienced in the waking, the dream-objects are also REAL.) This
is the explanation for the portion: svapna-sarUpa.

Then, for the term

mAyA-sarUpa, the meaning is: that which is created by the powers of a

gem, mantra, auShadhi, herbs these are also considered by those people
as REAL. All these people believe in a real creation.
Anandagiri glosses for the portion of
the Bhashyam thus:

of the bhashya means, mAyA = magic. Adi =

the effects of magic namely the illusory things and events created by the
magician through the magic. The word of Anandagiri means
only this and not avidyA which is a product of mAya. Therefore, there is no
connection between verses 1.7 and 1.16 of the kArikA. In this kArikA the
word anAdi-mAyayA is none other than anAdi avidyayA.
There is an interesting pair of expressions in the bhashya for the Mandukya
karika 1.6:


1. -- ...
2. -
In the first expression, the meaning is: avidyA projects name and form
which are unreal, mAyA, superimpositions
In the second expression, the meaning is: avidyA is the nimitta,
instrumental cause and mAyA seed is the upAdAna, material cause of the
superimposed snake, etc.

For this expression, the Anandagiri gloss is:

.... ...

Anandagiri says that since it is admitted that avidyA is mAyA alone, ..

A question arises: Where, by whom is the above admitted? The reply we
can give is:
InthesecondSutraBhashya1.4.3passagewesawabove:
There are these two expressions: ..
Shankara says: 1. avyaktA is mAyA and 2. avidyA is avyaktam. The
common term in the two equations is avyakta/m. Since avyakta is mAyA
as well as avidyA, the three terms mean the same and thereby Shankara
admits that avidyA itself is mAyA.
In the Mandukya Upanishad bhashya, for the mantra 2 Shankara says:
, - ... -
,
//The non-distincness of the virAT and vaishvAnara and the taijasa and
hiraNyagarbha and prAj~na and avyAkRRita is well established. The last
pair is quite well determined owing to the absence of distinctions.//
Anandagiri clarifies: The individual, prAj~na, sleeps by withdrawing all
distinctions into himself, and in dissolution, pralaya, the Unmanifested,
avyAkRRita, too, withdraws everything into itself. The Unmanifested

means here the inner Director, antaryAmin, conditioned by Maya, ruling

from inside all.
From the above it is clear that according to Shankara the avidyAconditioned jiva and the mAyA-conditioned Ishwara are non-distinct. There
is no distinction in the shakti.