Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Psychological”
Religious Studies 162A
Professor Ninian smart
Janelle Harrison
Due: Dec. 1, 1998
In the Indian tradition if Philosophy and religion there has developed many different
forms of doctrines; both orthodox and unorthodox. Out of these two branches of Hindu
culture come of the most influential religious teachers have arose. One such teacher is
Gautama (The Buddha) and from his teachings there developed in the Buddhist tradition
three great Buddhist vehicles: Theravada (Way of The Elders). Sarvastivada (All Things
Are Real), a middle phase: Madhgamika (Middle Way) and, Vijnanavada (Consciousness
Only). For this paper, the focus will be on the Madhyamikas school which, is also known
as Mahayana.
The Mahayana school of thought within the Buddhist tradition espoused many
doctrines of belief; some of which brought new insight into Buddhist teachings. This new
(trisvabhava), The six perfection’s, and The ten Bodhisattva levels, along with the
doctrine of emptiness (aunyata) I hope to illustrate the various aspects of maya (illusion)
as a concept can be an eternal aspect to what has been thought for centuries as sunyata.
These two concepts are paradoxical, but further analysis will have to support this theory
I will briefly expose a number of doctrinal beliefs from the Vedanta branch of Hindu
orthodox philosophy. I will focus on Sankara’s famous metaphysical system for the most
part, and show the parallels of the belief in Maya between his teachings and, The
Buddha’s (well, in Mahayana they are the teachings of Sakyamuni) can compare two
traditions in the Hindu culture which are viewed as distinctly separate. All of this of
source will have to be viewed in light of the theories of causation and then, perhaps in
some reflexivity show the implications of these doctrines and theories in light of modern
and sunyata (Eliade 2: 335). The no-self doctrine is a denial of a permanent self existing
in a world of emptiness (Smart 31). He taught that life is permeated with suffering
(dukkha) and this suffering is what causes craving. If one can bring about cessation of
craving through the Noble Eightfold Path then suffering will end (Smart 18). In the
empirical world, Nirvana is a release realized by the cessation of craving. This release is
from the round of rebirth and leads to the attainment of peace (santi) and insight (panna)
(19). Once the macro-individual ceases to live in the empirical world, a transcendent
Nirvana is finally realized and release from a world made-up of impermanent states
These teachings tie in well for ore discussion of Mahayana Buddhism. They show
how the various schools of thought developed contrasting ideas about the path one should
take. Once we begin to examine Hinayana (The “lesser” Vehicle) compared to Mahayana
(The “greater” Vehicle) the doctrine of the Bodhisattva comes into play. It was the
Hinayanist who espoused a theory of individual liberation (release); thus they were
(Power 94). While the Mahayanist taught the doctrine of the Bodhisattva, who are beings
motivated by “great compassion” for all sentient beings; thus they were referred to as the
“greater Vehicle” (93,94). It is the former school that adheres more closely to the
to reject the Mahayana claim that Mahayana sutra’s are the authentic words of Sakyamuni, and
contend that they are in fact later forgeries. Theravada scholars assert that Sakyamuni life is a
paradigmatic example of the heroic struggle of an individual seeker of truth, who saw through the
illusions that bind most people and who won enlightenment through his won exhorts...but
Theravadins pont to numerous passages in their canon in which he told his followers to pursue
their won salvation’s (95).
By applying this theory the Hinayanist’s can refute Mahayana’s doctrine of the
It also leads back to India’s original Buddhist belief that the Buddha’s words are the
ultimate source of sacred authority which he gained through his insight into
Buddha” there are several traits that he or she possesses that are of note; The Bodhisattva
possesses supernatural powers that are used for “working for the benefit of other” that
could consist of the Bodhisattva taking on karmic burdens of others that are suffering
(Power 91). John Powers explains this compassion for all sentient beings as follows:
At the beginning of the Bodhisattva path, they realize that their present capacities are limited and
that they are unable even to prevent their own sufferings. In order to improve their ability to aid
sentient beings in distress, bodhisattva’s resolve to become Buddha’s, since Buddha’s have the
greatest possible capacity to help others. Buddha’s possess unlimited wisdom and compassion,
and they have perfected the ability to adapt their instructions to suit the needs of individuals.
This being the first step in realizing that one is a Bodhisattva, the person then begins the
The six perfection’s of the Bodhisattva are qualities that make one a Buddha (98).
After these six qualities of (1) generosity, (2) ethics, (3) patience, (4) effort, (5)
concentration, and lastly (6) wisdom there are four more supplemental traits that Powers
notes in his list that constitute the ten bohisattva levels. These four perfection’s are (1)
skill in means, (2)aspiration, (3) power and (4) exalted wisdom (98).
time. The discussion here will have to be limited to the third level of the ten hierarchical
stages in the bodhisattva’s path to enlightenment. The reason for focusing on this level is
that it is a fundamental perfection that illustrates the concept of Maya within the
Mahayana tradition.
The third level of perfection has been called the luminous. It is at this level that
the bodhisattva’s “cultivate the perfection of patience” (power 105). But they also train
their minds in a number of traits which help to constitute the Bodhisattva countenance
and of Maya within Mahayana. These five clairvoyance’s are: (1) magical creation, (2)
the divine ear, (3) knowing other’ minds, (4) remembering former lives, and (5) the
In Mahayana Buddhism maya is known as a concept which states that the world
9:297). Mercae Sliade points out that this view that “the world process and ore
experience of it are devices to hide the inexpressible total void, cosmic consciousness
asserts “it (the cosmic consciousness) as belonging to this sphere of secondary reality”
(297). This sphere of reality in Mahayana Buddhism is created out of maya and the
Bodhisattva uses the clairvoyance of magical creation to help sentient beings in a number
of ways.
Although maya plays a role in the Bodhisattva doctrine it is not as central of a
theme as the case is when one examines it in the three-nature theory (trisvabhava). This
theory elucidates the world, and everything in it as having three natures. The first, is an
imagined nature which is maya. The next nature is called other-dependent; the last nature
relationship between the imagined nature (which is nonexistent) and, the consummated
nature which id empirically real and existent (Kawamura 62). The other-dependent nature
lies in-between the two and it exists, “but only by depending on some other entity” (62).
The world, though it consist of these three natures is not separated into divisional
parts that are distinct from one another. No, as Kawamura notes:
According to the three-nature theory, the world remains at all times one and the same, appearing
on different occasions to passes one of the three natures. While various different worlds exist, the
world of human beings, the world of animals, or the heavens, the hells, and so on, according to the
one unchanging world being converted into these various other worlds; those various other worlds
do not exist from the first (62, 63).
reality” (52). Her discussion is based on causality within the Buddhist doctrine
and how it (causality) is used as one of the arguments for the doctrine of
causality the mechanics, perception, action and so forth, Rosch gives a brief
effect” (63).
arising of causes or effects could be found” in both “ourselves and the objects of
the world” (63). Thus confirming a notion of causality within their tradition but
find connections between events that occur from previous grounds. This process
tends to create a circular flow of events within the time-space flow of human
241-256).
This of course has implications that are relative to the concept of maya in
the Madhyamikas, Mahayana doctrine. The illusion (maya) is not an effect that
arises out of independent causes. There is a ground for this cause, but that is a
paradox to the theory that all things are empty (sunyata). This paradox would
experience in interpreting the notion of a first cause. And in relation to the three-
nature theory both maya and cause are explained by Kawamura to be without
insofar as we are not yet enlightened to its reality but remain in a deluded state (it being the
world)- we speak of this world as a world of the imagined nature: it is an imagined world.
Through our cognition’s, or discriminations, or intellect, we are always projecting some kind of
imagination onto the world that is originally neutral (63).
relative to the neurobiological functions of the brain. Though I will not be able to
and, philosophically it has been affirmed and opposed by such thinkers as Hume
implications of maya within it there are several similes that can be found in
Yogacara texts which will suffice to give an example for the Mahayana school as
well. It is the magic show simile and has been directly referred to as maya.
An elephant form appears; but this magically created elephant is not real; what really
exists is the wood or other material. It is not difficult to see which of the three natures
these three elements are intended to represent. The words “an elephant form appears”
stand for the other-dependent nature; “magically created elephant “stands for the
imagined nature which is “not real”; and “what really exists is the wood or other
material” stands for the other-dependent nature as well as the consummated nature
(Kawamura 69).
The simile continues to explain how the audience believes that what is not real
(the elephant) is real. Yet, the process of interpretation is different for enlightened
beings as opposed to unenlightened beings: the former are not attached to the other-
dependent nature and thus see by means of their non-discriminative wisdom the original
nature (71). One such being, The Buddha, “accomplished in this knowledge of the
because the magician, like the Buddha, differs from his audience in that he is well aware
philosophical school of thought from orthodox Hinduism that I would briefly like to
discuss. This school asserts several doctrinal theories about the ultimate reality; some
parallel, come opposed to The Buddhist tradition. The first most distinctive difference
would be the disbelief of Brahman within the Buddhist school. Brahman, which is
thought the essence of consciousness that is our inner soul is espoused by him as being
identical with Brahman (Eliade 13:65). The Buddhist tradition of course teaches the
doctrine of no-self, and this is a central theme that reveals the main contrasts between
According to Eliade, the Vedanta schools concept of maya “follows the Vedic
maya is considered to be the illusion that is ignorance (13:65). He espoused that, there is
no ultimate reality to the phenomenal world. Rather, it is Brahman that creation arises
out of, and thus is not “totally unreal” (297). Were as in the Buddhist tradition atman is
impermanent and devoid of self (anatman) and does not conjoin with a ultimate reality.
These contrasts of atman and Brahman unfold into two thoughts which, holds maya or
Maya deludes cosmic consciousness into associating itself with individuality, sense perception,
and the sensory objects of phenomenal reality. Gaudapada interprets this process as a
misconception (vikalpa) of the pure and undivided self-consciousness of the atman, just as a
snake. To dispel false perception is to attain true insight into the undivided Absolute. Sankara
prefers the term avidya (nescience) or ajnana (ignorance) (297).
Here we find maya’s role in Sankara’s doctrine to have parallels to the concept of maya
in Mahayana. The snake simile is widely used within both traditions. It is the theory of
Once again, this discussion is able to Western psychology to show the parallel’s
between cognitive science and ancient religious theory. In some contexts of the Indian
philosophy “the phenomenal world is likened to a bubble on the water” (Eliade 9:298).
This is a theory quite the same as posited by William James’ stream of thought.
The relationship between orthodox Hinduism and Buddhist tradition is a wide
gap, but at the level of illusion, thought the concepts be grounded in a different
conceptual mode one could infer that there are similarities between the two schools of
thought.
There are a number of factors that develop the theory of maya. And there are
many aspects of illusion and its role in orthodox Hinduism and Buddhism which were not
discussed. A further exposition would reveal maya as a fundamental trait of the gods in
elaborated on in much greater detail, but as this discussion has espoused in its focus of
illusion there is a paradox between the eternal idea of maya and the doctrine of sunyata
within the Buddhist tradition. This was what the development of this paper was meant to
expound. I hope the contrasting of two different traditions elaborated on the ideas of
maya and, how comparing these two traditions in the study of religion can be beneficial
transpersonal perspectives.
Kawamura, L.S. and, Nagao, G.M. Madhyamika and Yogacara: A study of Mahayana
Powers, John. Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism. New York: Snow Lion Pub. 1995.
Rosch, Eleanor. “Is Causality Circular? Event Struture In Flok Psychology, Cognitive
1994).