CHAPTER IIIMITHYËTVA IN ADVAITA VEDËNTA

Mithy¡ is an important concept of the

Advaita system. It differentiates the Advaita

system from all other systems. According to

Advaita Ved¡nta the chief aim of every one is

the attainment of mokÀa. The only way to

attain mokÀa is true knowledge. The sat is that

which is unsublatable at all time (past, present

and future). The mithy¡ comes within the range

of empirical cognition and it is sublatable by

knowledge. According to Advaitin the empirical

world is neither real, nor unreal, nor both. It is

not real because it is sublated by the knowledge

of Brahman. According to Advaitin Brahman is

the only real. It is not unreal because it is

perceived as it is. The unreal thing is not

perceived, for example ‘The sky flower’

(khapuÀpam). Thus the world is not real in the

76

sense in which Brahman is; it is not unreal like

the sky flower. It is different from two, and it is

characterized as Mithy¡.

The world appears in Brahman. The

characteristic feature of the world that it is

sublated by the knowledge of Brahman. There

are three types of realities, absolute reality

(p¡ram¡rtikasatta), empirical reality

(vyavah¡rikasatta) and apparent reality

(pr¡tibh¡sikasatta). The Brahman is the Absolute

reality, the world has empirical reality, and the

shell-silver has apparent reality. According to

Advaita Ved¡nta, God, the individual soul and the

world have its own being. Here is the problem

that is related to these three entities. To prove

the reality of Brahman, Advaitins show that

everything other than Brahman is an appearance.

They have no independent reality apart from

Brahman. Thus the concept of Mithy¡ gained a

77

good position in Advaita Ved¡nta. Advaita

Ved¡nta has an elaborate logic and polemic

literature. áa´kara and his followers have

gradually developed the concept of Mithy¡tva.

They formulated the definitions and arguments

for its justification.

The basic texts of Advaita Ved¡nta are

UpaniÀads, Bhagavadg¢t¡ and Brahmas£tra.

These three are also known as Prasth¡natraya.

The concept of Mithy¡tva is discussed in

prasth¡natraya. Mithy¡ presupposes m¡y¡.1

According to Advaitin whatever is different from

Brahman is m¡y¡2 i.e., Mithy¡. So it is said that

the universe is Mithy¡ or m¡y¡.3 This is what áa

1 ?. Balasubrahmanian, Advaita Ved¡nta, History culture and civilization, p. 359.

2 ?. Dr. Viswambar Dvivedi, Advaitaved¡nta evam KaÀm¢ir¿aiva advaitav¡da, Sathyam publishing House, New Delhi. 2005, p. 47., Reference also in ‘Brahmabhinnamsarvam mithy¡’ V.P, p-83

3 ?. M¡y¡m tu prak¤tim vidy¡t m¡yinam tu mahesvaram, S.U., 4.10.

78

´kara said as Jagat is Mithy¡.4 So m¡y¡ and

Mithy¡ are same. This m¡y¡ or avidy¡ is like a

covering layer to the Brahman and it is in the

form of vikÀepa and forms jagat. From the

empirical level, the world is Mithy¡. Advaita

Ved¡nta accepts that m¡y¡ is as same as avidy¡.5

3.1. Mithy¡tva in UpaniÀads

The theory of m¡y¡ is present in the

UpaniÀads. M¡y¡ and its synonyms are mostly

used in the UpaniÀads. The expanded figure of

m¡y¡ and avidy¡ are seen there. The basic

theme of áa´kara’s m¡y¡vada is the reflection of

the UpaniÀadic siddh¡nta. Vy¡vah¡rika satyatva

of m¡y¡, p¡ram¡rthika Mithy¡tva,

jagadup¡d¡nak¡ra¸atva etc. are seen in the

UpaniÀads. Arthad¢pik¡vy¡khy¡na of

Ved¡ntaparibh¡À¡ states that m¡y¡ and 4 ?. Brahmasatyam jaganmithy¡.5 ?. Dr. Viswambar Divedi, Advaita ved¡nt evam

kaÀm¢r¿aiva advaitav¡da, Satyam Publishing House, New Delhi, P. 47.

79

avidy¡ are same. Karma, sorrows, name etc. is

the result of avidy¡, which is terminated by

Brahmajµ¡na. The things which are terminated

by Brahmajµ¡na are Mithy¡. áuktirajata and

rajjusarpa are commonly used examples. When

the rajjujµ¡na is raised then the sarpajµ¡na is

removed. There fore the sarpajµ¡na is Mithy¡.

áa´kara states that superimposition is Mithy¡.

The post áa´kara Advaitins states that Mithy¡tva

is different from real and unreal6. This

indiscribableness of sat and asat, the scholars

said that the siddh¡nta of upaniÀads. The

importance of upaniÀadic study is to understand

non-duality. In many place the mantra which is

the negation of duality is seen. Advaitins show

the mantras to state Mithy¡.

3.1.1. Ì¿¡v¡syopaniÀad

6 ? SadasadvilakÀa¸atvam mithy¡tvam, Padmap¡da, P.P . ed., Sri¡ma¿¡stri, S & K¤À¸am£rti¿¡stri.S.R., Madras, 1958, p-23.

80

The Ì¿¡v¡syopaniÀad tells that ‘Hira¸mayena

p¡tre¸a satyasy¡bhihitam mukham.’ The

‘hiranmayap¡tra’ means the vessel which is

glittered like gold, so it is beautiful. The face of

the satya is covered with the golden vessel. In

our experience the satya is covered. This

covering of satya is avidy¡. That means through

the covering of avidy¡ the face of reality is

covered. So there is no experience of truth.

Here it can be understood that the Reality is

covered with the knowledge of Mithy¡. So it

cannot understand about Brahman. When we

understand the world is unreal then the real is

revealed. Here it shows the ¡vara¸a¿akti of

ajµ¡na which is based on Brahman.7

“Yasmin sarv¡¸i bh£t¡ni

¡tmaiv¡bh£t vij¡nataÅ

tatra ko mohaÅ kaÅ ¿okaÅ

7 ?. I U., 3.

81

ekatvamanupa¿yataÅ”8

It seems duality because of avidy¡. The real jµ¡n

¢ who has realized Brahmajµ¡na has no ¿oka

and moha. The Ì¿¡v¡sya text also holds that the

result of vidy¡ and avidy¡ are different.9

Vidy¡ takes people close to god and avidy¡ do

the opposite. Here the ¿oka and moha are the

happenings with the help of m¡y¡. It is Mithy¡

because it is m¡y¡k¡rya.

3.1.2. Ka¶hopaniÀad

The ka¶hopaniÀad text tells that one who

has realized Brahman, will overcome death.

Ka¶hopaniÀad states ‘He who perceives, as

though there is diversity in Brahman, he goes

from death to death.’10 This shows that Brahman

is free from duality, which is perceived is,

therefore not real. Another mantra of the

8 ?. Ibid, 7.9 ?. Ibid, 10.10 ?.K.U., 2.1.10.

82

ka¶hopaniÀad states that ‘the world of objects,

which is impermanent is Mithy¡.’11 Again the

Ka¶hopaniÀad says. “The puruÀa which is of the

size of a thumb is immanent in the heart of

everyone and one must disentangle from the

psycho-physical organism like a stalk from the

muµja grass, one should know that as pure and

immortal.”12 Here puruÀa is Brahman that is

consciousness which is immortal, that means

unsublatable. The psycho-physical organism

from which it has to be disentangled must

naturally be mortal i.e. sublatable and hence it

is Mithy¡.

áa´kara says about this in the

Ka¶hopaniÀadvy¡khy¡na; in the first chapter of

the second valI¢, first mantra of kathopaniÀad

differentiates the vidy¡ and avidy¡. One, who

11 ?. Ibid, 2.1.2.12 ?. AnguÀtam¡traÅ puruÀontar¡tma Sad¡jan¡n¡m h¤daye sanniviÀ¶aÅ . K.U., 2.3.17.

83

wishes mokÀa, follows the path of vidy¡ and one

who wishes abhyudaya, follows the path of

avidy¡. Although these two tell about

puruÀ¡rtha, one is vidy¡r£pa and the other is

avidy¡r£pa. So it is different. So it is different.

‘All are one’ is the highest position of vidy¡.

Through the knowledge of ¡tm¡ the knowledge

of sams¡ra is removed. The Sams¡ra is removed

by the knowledge of ¡tm¡ so it is Mithy¡

(unreal)13. Here the eighth mantra tells about

nitya and anitya also. Anitya means Mithy¡.

In the commentary of the third vall¢ of the second chapter áa´kara says that if there was nothing for the reason or the world, the effects are joined with the asat’. Here the world is told as effect. Effect is unreal because the cause is only real. So it is said to be Mithy¡.

Avidy¡ is the opposite character of vidy¡ and it has opposite effect. One, who is indulged in 13 ?. Ibid, 1.2.9.

84

the avidy¡, is like the blind man lead by the blind.14

This UpaniÀad also said that this Brahman

is situated in everyone’s inner soul. It disappears into everyone’s heart. So it is not understood.15 This UpaniÀad also shows that the people are

living in avidy¡ and they think themselves wise.16

3.1.3. Pra¿nopaniÀad

One who is different from m¡y¡svabh¡va, his position is Brahmaloka.17

“TeÀ¡masau virajau brahmaloko na

YeÀu jihmaman¤tam na m¡y¡ ceti”

14 ?. Ibid 1.2.5.15 ?. EÀa sarveÀu bh£teÀu g£·hotm¡ na prak¡¿ate

D¤¿yate tvagryay¡ budhy¡ s£kÀmay¡ s£kÀmadar¿ibhiÅ. K.U. 16 ?. Avidy¡y¡mantare vartam¡naÅ Svayam dh¢r¡Å pa¸·itam manyam¡naÅ. K.U., 1.2.5.17 ?. P.U., 1.6.

85

This mantra tells “we cannot attain

Brahmapada unless we have shaken the an¤ta

and the knowledge of Mithy¡ in us and also the

m¡y¡ in us.”18 This UpaniÀad also states that

“One who knows this becomes a Sarvajµ¡n¢.” It

is said that the removal of avidy¡ is a must

because if avidy¡ is not removed, it leads to

unreal that is Mithy¡. It is because

‘jµ¡nanivartyatvam Mithy¡tvam.’ Avidy¡ is

removed by the knowledge of Brahman.

This UpaniÀad also said “we can see

avidy¡ in the sense of

the opposite knowledge of Brahman.”19 M¡y¡ is

not an effect of Brahman. “In the Pra¿nopaniÀad

says that, one who knows Param¡tman, 18 ?. Ibid, 1.1.6.19 ?. Te tamaÅ paryantastvam hinah pita Yo’sm¡kam avidy¡y¡Å param p¡ram t¡rayat¢ti. P.U., VI.8.

86

becomes Param¡kÀara. One who knows this he

becomes Sarvajµ¡n¢. One did not become

Sarvajµani, because of the ¡vara¸a of avidy¡.

Later the removal of avidy¡ made him sarvajµa.”

3.1.4. Mu¸·akopaniÀad

In Mu¸·aka a person knows his own reality by the destruction of avidy¡, Self which is both the high and the low, is realized, the knot of the heart gets united, all doubts become solved, and all of one’s actions become dissipated. ‘Bhidyate h¤dayagranthiÅ chidyante

sarvasam¿ay¡Å

KÀ¢yante c¡sya karm¡¸i tasmin d¤À¶e

par¡vare’

This Mu¸·aka text again says:The flowing rivers reaching the sea, give up their names and forms. Like this the knower of the self goes beyond sorrow.

“Yath¡ nadyaÅ syantam¡n¡Å samudre

astam gachanti n¡mar£pe vih¡ya

87

Tath¡ vidvan n¡mar£p¡t vimuktaÅ

Par¡tparam puruÀamupaiti divyam”.20

These texts say that the knowledge of

Brahman removes avidy¡ and its effects.

Another verse of this text indicates that

“Kasminnu bhagavo vijµ¡te sarvamidam vijµ¡tam

bhavat¢ti”21 Here Saunaka approached A´giras

and asked him about the knowledge of supreme

reality by knowing which everything else will

become known. A´giras answered him about

this showing par¡vidy¡ and apar¡vidy¡. These

ideas show that the world of objects is nothing

but Brahman.

The above texts show that the world and

the cause of it viz. avidy¡ are removed by the

knowledge of Brahman. As stated earlier, that

which is removed by the knowledge of Brahman

is Mithy¡.

20 ?. M.U., 3.2.8.21 ?. M.U., 1.1.3.

88

3.1.5. M¡¸·£kyopaniÀad

The second chapter of the M¡¸·£kyopaniÀad

is Vaitathya prakara¸a. The first ¿loka of this prakara¸a tells that “The wise declare the falsity of all objects in a dream because of the location of the objects inside and by reason of being small.”22 Gau·ap¡da uses m¡y¡ in his k¡rik¡.

Vaitathya is used for m¡y¡. It has the same meaning as of avidy¡. His opinion is that the world is m¡y¡ or Mithy¡. The unreality of the world is the power of God. The M¡¸·£kya

upaniÀad brings out the nature of ultimate reality. It shows through the contrast with the individual soul, which is its reflection, which is viewed as the three fold relation in the waking state, dream state and deep sleep state. With the association of avidy¡ and its products that is subtle and gross body, Brahman the pure consciousness attains to the state of the

22 ?. Ma. U. 2.1.

89

individual soul. In the dream state, it is associated with avidy¡ the subtle body and in the state of deep sleep with avidy¡ only. The individual soul is referred to as state pr¡jµa in the deep sleep state. The pure conscious which is not conditioned by avidy¡ and its products, is spoken as the fourth state called tur¢ya. It is described as that in which the pluralistic universe ceases to be. It follows that the world which appears and disappears and that is Mithy¡.

3.1.6. AitareyopaniÀad

The AitareyopaniÀad also says that the world and the worldly objects are Mithy¡. It does not show directly but carefully analyses these texts. It is understood that only one thing that is real is Brahman. Then the other objects are false or Mithy¡.

3.1.7. B¤had¡ra¸yakopaniÀad

90

‘All this is that which is the self.’23 ‘There is no seer other than this.’24 ‘There is no other seer, but this.’25 These upaniÀadic texts show the unity of the self and others. There is nothing different from this self. This unity shows that the diversity is nothing. It is only Mithy¡. The self is the only reality and different from this there is nothing. So it is Mithy¡.

3.1.8. ávet¡¿vataropaniÀad

The ávet¡¿vatara text “By realizing him alone one transcends death, and there is no other path to attain one’s true nature.”26 This states the knowledge alone is the means of overcoming avidy¡.

This text also said, ‘Know then that prak¤ti

is m¡y¡ and the wielder of m¡y¡ is the Great Lord. That one who is the controller of every

23 ?. Br.U., 2.4.624 ?. Ibid, 3.7.2325 ?. Ibid, 3.8.1126 ?. S.U., 3.8.

91

root-cause.’27 This means M¡y¡ is prak¤ti. If prak¤ti is m¡y¡ then it is Mithy¡ because m¡y¡ and Mithy¡ is one and same.

Here the removal of avidy¡ is strewed because if avidy¡ is removed, it is unreal, that is it is Mithy¡ because ‘jµ¡nanivartyatvam

Mithy¡tvam.’ Here through the original knowledge the avidy¡ is to be removed.

3.1.9. Taittir¢yopaniÀad

The Taitir¢ya upaniÀad defines Brahman as

satyam, jµ¡nam and anantam28 (real,

consciousness, unfinite). These three terms

intend to distinguish Brahman from the unreal,

insentient, and finite objects respectively.29 The

non-sublatabile object in the past, present and

future is called the real. This real is present in

the world as vy¡vah¡rikasatt¡. The real is

27 ?. S.U., IV.10.1128 ?. Tai. U., 2.1.2.29 ?. á¡´karabh¡Àya on Taitir¢yopaniÀad.

92

presented in the world as vy¡vah¡rikasatt¡ but

the world cannot be defined satya as Brahman.

The world is called Mithy¡.

According to Taittir¢ya upaniÀad, Brahman

by its mere will created the subtle elements,

and got itself reflected in them in the form of

the souls.30 Then it proceeds to make a

distinction between provisionally real objects.

This continues to exist till the realization of

Brahman, like –shell silver. The shell silver is

sublated by the knowledge of shell, which is

other than the knowledge of Brahman. The

objects which are sublated by the knowledge of

other objects, like the silver knowledge sublated

by the knowledge of shell, that is an¤ta. But

these two do not have an independent existence

apart from Brahman, which is their source and

30 ?. Tai.Up., 2.6.

93

support. According to this text one who knows

Brahman calls it truth (satyam).31 If Brahman is

sat the whole different from Brahman is mithy¡

because it is Brahmabhinna.32

3.1.10. Cch¡ndogyopaniÀad

The Cch¡ndogya text identifies the non-dual

Brahman as sat; it shows that the world is Mithy¡

and the individual soul is non different from

Brahman. The sixth chapter of the Cch¡ndogya

starts with the dialogue between the father and

son. The father asked the son ‘Through which

the unheard becomes heard, the unthought

becomes thought the unknown becomes

known.’33

‘In the beginning this was sat

alone34. The basis this upaniÀadic text 31 ?. Tai. Up., 2.6.1.32 ?. Brahmabhinnam sarvam mithy¡ brahmabhinnatv¡t. V.P. p-83.33 ?. C.U., 6.1.3.34 ?. Sadeva somyetamagre¡s¢t, C.U.,6.8.7.

94

the Advaitin considers the world given

in perception as unreal (Mithy¡) or

indescribable (anirvacaniya). The first

part of the text it is conveyed that

Brahman stands in relation of identity

to the world characterized by duality. It

is the udde¿ya padartha; and the state

of being an udde¿ya (udde¿yata) exists

in it. Brahman is presented as udde¿ya

under the specific aspect of being

associated through the relation of

identity to the world. This specific

aspect is the delimiting adjunct of the

udde¿ya in Brahman, in the navya-

ny¡ya language it is known as

udde¿yat¡vacchedaka’. Thus the first

part of the text introduce Brahman as

udde¿ya, and its association, through

95

the relation of identity, with the world

as udde¿yat¡vacchedaka dharma’.35

These texts state that the world is negated

in Brahman wherein it appears, it suggests the

Mithy¡tva of the world.

This text also states the reality of Brahman

and the unreality of world. The upaniÀad also

says ‘the every effect has speech as its basis

and is name only.’36 This shows the reality of

the cause and the unreality of the effect. The

purpose of effects is different. If the

Cch¡ndogya text, is analyzed it can be

understood that the cause alone is the real and

the effect is Mithy¡. Like this the Brahman, the

ultimate cause, is real and the world of plurality

is Mithy¡.

35 ?. R.Balasubrahmanian, Advaita Ved¡nta Philosophy of History Culture and Civilization, p. 367. 36 ?. Ibid.

96

The Advaitin’s view that superimposition

followed by negation is the characteristic of

Mithy¡. By studying of these major upaniÀads, it

can be understood that, they don’t directly use

the word Mithy¡. They use avidy¡, ajµ¡na,

m¡y¡ etc. By analyzing this it can be understood

that avidy¡ or Mithy¡jµ¡na is the cause of the

plurality of the world.

Through studying these upaniÀadic texts,

that leads support to the Advaita, theory of the

levels of reality. Brahman is absolutely real and

it is not sublated. But the daily experienced

objects are sublated by the knowledge of

Brahman. It has only empirical satyattva. The

objects like shell-silver are apparently real.

Which is Mithy¡, because it is sublated.3.2. Mithy¡tva in Bhagavadg¢t¡.

Mah¡bh¡rata is said to have been written by Vedavy¡sa. In the Bh¢Àmaparva of

97

Mah¡bh¡rata, the chapters 25 to 42 are written as separate grantha. These 18 adhy¡ya are called Bhagavadg¢ta. G¢t¡ contains the essence of the upaniÀads. áa´kara said that G¢t¡ is called akhila Ved¡nta siddh¡ntas¡rasa´graha.

According to Bhagavadg¢t¡ Mithy¡tva of the causality ascribed to Brahman of characteristics of agency, are associated with the individual soul, and that of the world.37 Here m¡y¡ and avidy¡ are pointed out. It is the material cause of the world which is removed by knowledge of Brahman, is called Mithy¡.38

“DharmakÀetre kurukÀetre samavet¡Å

yuyutsavaÅ

M¡mak¡Å p¡¸·av¡¿caiva kimakurvata

saµcaya.”39

37 ?. Balasubrahmanian, Advaita Ved¡nta the Philosophy of History Culture and Civilization, p. 354.

38 ?. Ibid.39 ?. Bhagavadg¢t¡ 1.1

98

Here the word KÀetra is discussed. The meaning of KÀetra is ¿ar¢ra. So dharmakÀetra

means the adhiÀ¶h¡na of dharma that is human body or mind. Mind is the fighting field of dharma and adharma. Kauravas are the adharmins and the P¡¸·avas are dharmins. Here Arjuna is the J¢v¡tm¡ and ár¢k¤À¸a is the param¡tm¡.40 J¢v¡tm¡ depends on m¡y¡. So J¢v¡tm¡ enjoys the sukhaduÅkhas (pleasure and pain) in this sams¡ra. To attain mokÀa from this sams¡ra, to work in accordance with the advice of Bhagav¡n is proposed. In this ¿loka we reach the conclusion that the sams¡ra is dependent upon m¡y¡.

“N¡sato vidyate bh¡vo n¡bh¡vo vidyate

sataÅ

Ubhayorapi d¤À¶o’ntastvanayos

tatvadar¿ibhiÅ.”40 ?. N. Govindapanicker, ár¢mat Bhagavadg¢ta

or karmayoga¿¡stra published by G. Govindamenon Medayil Puthicakonam, T.V.M., 1985, p. 36.

99

The verse shows that the world is asat and it is not like ¿a¿aviÀ¡¸am.

This world has vy¡vah¡rikasatt¡. It is not sat

or asat, so it is called Mithy¡, anirvacan¢ya, avidy¡, m¡y¡. This verse shows that the universe is Mithy¡. Mithy¡ and m¡y¡ are the one and same.

M¡y¡ or prak¤ti produces the moving and unmoving world. M¡y¡ depends upon Brahman

which inspired by its reflection undergoes modification in the form of world. The manifested world lapses into m¡y¡ at the time of dissolution.

“Kim punaÅ brahma¸o

pu¸yabhaktarajarsastataÅ

Anityamasukhalokamimam pr¡pya

bhajasva m¡m”41

The jagat which is n¡ma and r£pa is not

real. In this world we more comfort with duÅkha

more than sukha. The basis of this scientific 41 ?. B.G., 9.33.

100

theory is that the good people tell that the jagat

is anitya or unreal. The G¢t¡ tells only the

unreality of world. According to Advaita the

world is Mithy¡. These two are same. People

mistakes one thing into another. As far as the

mistake is sustained, people think that it is real.

This reality is called pr¡tibh¡sikasatt¡. Rajjusarpa

is the example.

“Sarvametad¤tam manye yanmam vadasi

ke¿ava

Na hi te bhagavan vyaktim vidurdeva na

d¡navaÅ.”

Brahman is the only real. The world’s

reality is only our mistake. The world has

Pr¡tibh¡sikasatt¡. All beings that appear in

Brahman are not present in beings. Sarpa being

merely an appearance does not really exist in

the Rajju. The appearance of the world in

Brahman is due to m¡y¡ Brahman is the

101

substratum in m¡y¡ and world. The world has no

p¡ram¡rthikasatt¡ so it is called Mithy¡. Like this

Brahman has p¡ram¡rthikasatt¡, J¢va has

vy¡vah¡rikasatt¡ and Jagat has pr¡tibh¡sikasatt¡.

In Brahman these three divisions appear that is

Ì¿vara, J¢va and Jagat. The cause of these

divisions is ajµ¡na or m¡y¡.

According to áa´kara prav¤tti and niv¤tti

presuppose of an agent. This agency is possible

in the state of avidy¡ or m¡y¡. The agency of the

self is illusory. So it is Mithy¡. So many verses

in Bhagavadg¢t¡ tells about the false ascription

of agency to the self due to avidy¡ or m¡y¡.

Avidy¡ has two powers ¡vara¸a and vikÀepa.

Avidy¡ or m¡y¡ which is Mithy¡ is removed by the

knowledge of Brahman.

3.3. Mithy¡tva in Brahmas£tra

102

áa´kara used Mithy¡ as a main concept. He

used this concept to show the unreality of the

world. áa´kara’s commentary on Brahmas£tra

tells about the characteristics of the individual

soul, the existence in the world as Brahman, the

difference between Brahman and individual soul

and distinctions attributed to Brahman are

Mithy¡. These are caused by m¡y¡ or avidy¡. In

adhy¡sabh¡Àya áa´kara said that adhy¡sa and

Mithy¡ are the same. It presents a realistic

position and seemingly dualistic metaphysics.

The object and subject which are presented as

‘yuÀmad’ and ‘asmad’ are of very contradictory

nature and their qualities also are of

contradictory nature as light and darkness, they

cannot be identical. Plurality and illusion is

constructed out of the cognitive

superimpositions of the category and by the

103

objection of pure subjectivity. The cause of this

ignorance is of such a superior position. The

cause of the ignorance is want of discrimination

that is adhy¡sa. The well studied people say

that avidy¡ and adhy¡sa are the same. It is as a

pair, so it can be understood that in áa´kara’s

opinion, avidy¡, adhy¡sa, Mithy¡ are same. He

also said adhy¡sa is ‘Mithy¡pratyayar£paÅ.’ áa

´kara gives three types of definitions to adhy¡sa.

That is ‘Atasmin tadbuddhiÅ’, ‘sm¤tir£paÅ

paratra p£rvad¤À¶¡vabh¡saÅ’ and ‘anyatra

anyadharm¡vabh¡saÅ.’42 This superimposition is

an¡di and anantaÅ also. áa´kara accepts three

types of sattas svapna, j¡grat and p¡ram¡rthika.

The sv¡pnik things sublated in the j¡grat, and the

j¡grat things sublated in the p¡ram¡rthika. If it is

said a thing is real, the Anubh£ti is not real. The

things which are not anubh£ti are not real. Eg. 42 ?. B.S.S.B., 1.1.1.

104

Vandhy¡sutaÅ. It comes to our mind because; to

this anubh£ti there is no want of any jµ¡na. For

example if there is no rope, the sarpa cognition

will not happen. The definitions of one thing

seemed to be another thing and it is called

adhy¡ropa. In the rope there was the lakÀa¸a of

sarpa that is the cause of adhy¡ropa. This

adhy¡ropa is caused by the sarpabhrama. This

unsuitable promotion is called adhy¡sa. In the

Brahmas£tra commentary áa´kara established

the identity of individual soul and Brahman. The

reflection of the sun in the water is like the

individual’s soul reflected in Brahman. It is not

Brahman as such, nor is it a new entity. The

lokavyavah¡ra is possible for this adhy¡sa or

superimposition. The Brahmas£tra commentary

of áa´kara showed illusion in two ways.

105

1. Appearance of something previously experienced in something else like memory.

2. The minimalist characterization the appearance of one thing with the properties of another.

The upaniÀads like Cch¡ndogya and Taittir

¢ya shows that Brahman source, support the

end of the world. In the sutra the janm¡di

means s¤À¶i, sthiti and vin¡¿a. These happen in

the respect of Brahman. Here the Taittir¢ya¿ruti

is mainly discussed, “yato v¡ im¡ni bh£t¡ni

j¡yante” It is said that the causality of the birth

and the causality of being, in respect of

Brahman. This Taitir¢ya text states about the

definition of Brahman. Brahman is the material

and efficient cause of the world.

The opponents said, how can it be said the

s¤À¶i, sthiti and laya of the world are from

106

Brahman, because it is supposed to have no

second thing besides it. Then áa´kara said the

Lord has name and form because of his power of

m¡y¡¿akti. Here the Cch¡ndogya text states that

the effect exists only in name, the cause alone is

real. That means whatever has origination that

is unreal. The world is originated so it is unreal.

The knowledge of Brahman leads the knowledge

of everything.

áa´kara calls the b¢ja¿akti avidy¡tmik¡ that

means avidy¡ by nature the other term parallel

is m¡y¡. M¡y¢ made of m¡y¡. M¡y¡ is not an effect

of Brahman. Apart from Brahman m¡y¡ has no

independent existence. Through m¡y¡ the world

is an illusory projection in Brahman. M¡y¡ is

neither the effect of Brahman like the world, nor

is identical with Brahman like the individual soul.

It is dependent upon Brahman, and as such it

107

does not have any independent existence apart

from Brahman. Thus it is Mithy¡.

M¡y¡ is nothing more than illusion. It is

illusive like a dream. áa´kara in his

commentaries calls m¡y¡ the power of Ì¿vara.

M¡y¡ is the creative power and unmanifest

ignorance. Brahman is its locus. By this power

of ignorance all deluded being are aware of their

real nature.

The commentary on the Brahmas£tra áa

´kara shows some upaniÀad texts to prove the

Mithy¡tva of the world. ‘In that all this has its

Self; it is the True; it is the Self; you are that.’

This ¿ruti states that the world referred to be an

expression ‘all this’ derives its existence from

Brahman and thereby reiterates the view the

world has no independent existence apart from

Brahman. The world therefore is Mithy¡. ‘All

108

this is Brahman only43.’ ‘In Brahman there is no

duality whatsoever.’ These texts states that the

expression ‘all this’ and the word ‘Self’ or

‘Brahman’ are in co-ordinate relation to each

other. The really exists is Brahman, or the self,

though it is perceived as the world. Brahman

arises by sublating the perception of the world.

The world, which gets sublated is Mithy¡. 3.4. Mithy¡tva in pre-áa´kara Advaitins

B¡dar¡ya¸a was a famous pre-áa´kara Advaitin. When discuss the Brahmas£tra, the writing of the discussion of B¡dar¡ya¸a is over. Here the concept about Mithy¡tva in the writings of Gau·ap¡da is discussed. Gau·ap¡dak¡rik¡ was a very important work in Advaita Ved¡nta. It is based on the M¡¸·£kya upaniÀad. In the M¡¸·£kyak¡rik¡ it is said that the object of the waking state are not real. In the term ‘not real’ indicates that the waking state is Mithy¡.

43 ?. Sarvamkhalu itam brahmam. C.U. 3.14.1.

109

In the Gau·ap¡dak¡rik¡ the word m¡y¡ is used 22 times. In it m¡y¡ is used to:- With our own m¡y¡, ¡tman is supposed to be different. Through this m¡y¡, ¡tman is kart¤tva and bhokt¤tva

Brahman appears in the form of m¡y¡

because of m¡y¡.

The world is v¤tti of mind.

Here m¡y¡ is discussed as m¡y¡, ¡tma and citta.

But among this m¡y¡ is very important. He also

said that m¡y¡ which is an¡di, is the cause of

dvaita. Through this seed of m¡y¡may¢ the

origin of ¿ruti was happen. In the

Gau·ap¡dak¡rik¡ says that the unchanging non-

dual ‘one’ is the ordained. The Lord is the

matter of eradicating all sorrows. The effulgent

Tur¢ya is held to be all pervasive sources of all

objects. Here Gau·ap¡da says that “He is

AdvaitaÅ, non-dual on account of the falsity of

110

all objects like the snake rope.” Advaita means

non-dual, that is no dvaita. It is on account of

the Mithy¡tva of all objects like snake rope. To

prove Advaita, the dvaita Mithy¡tva must be

proved. He also said ‘m¡y¡m¡tramidam dvaitam

advaitam param¡rtataÅ’. This duality is nothing

but m¡y¡ and is called phenomenal world.

M¡y¡ and Mithy¡ are synonyms.

The second chapter of Gau·ap¡dak¡rik¡ is

based on Vaitathya. So it is called

vaitathyaprakara¸a. Vaitathya means unreal.

That is Mithy¡. Gau·ap¡da maintains that

‘plurality’ is only the appearance of Brahman

through m¡y¡. Through the support of some

grounds Gau·ap¡da maintained that the dream

objects are unreal. Firstly the elephants and

other objects seen in a dream are confined in

the limited space i.e. within the body.

111

Secondly “The one who experiences the objects in a dream do not go out of the body to perceive them because of the shortness of time; also, the one who experiences a dream, when awakened, does not remain in that place of deram.”

Thirdly – the ¿ruti text declares the non-existence of chariots, etc. perceived in dream. He proceeds to pointout that the dream objects are unreal on the ground that they are perceived. Like a mirage these characteristic belongs to the objects perceived in the waking state too. So the waking state objects are not real, therefore it is Mithy¡.

‘Gau·ap¡da stated that the world is Mithy¡. It

is Vaitathya like dream world because it is

seeing. He used vaitathya in the same meaning

of Mithy¡. The world is m¡y¡ and k¡lpanika; so it

is Mithy¡. According to him the creation of the

world does not happen through the satk¡ryav¡da

112

and asatk¡ryav¡da because before the creation if

the k¡rya is sat, then the creation is not needed.

He formulates the theory of non-origination.

That means the origination is not real, but only

an appearance of Brahman through m¡y¡’44.

The difference between the individual soul

and Brahman are unreal. Here the word

Mithy¡ is not used directly but vaitathya used it

in the same sense of Mithy¡. The pre-áa´kara

Advaitins does not use the word Mithy¡ directly.

They used m¡y¡, avidy¡, vaitathya etc.

Gau·ap¡da first formulated the m¡y¡v¡da.

According to m¡y¡v¡da everything except

Brahman is an illusion. To prove the unreality of

the external objects of our perceptions used the

same argument of the Buddhist. The discussion

of Gau·ap¡da against m¡y¡v¡da is called

aj¡tiv¡da. To state this aj¡tiv¡da, Gau·ap¡da 44 ?. Jayadev Vedalankar, Bh¡rat¢ya Dar¿an, New

Bhartiya Book Corporation 2001, p. 398.

113

used this m¡y¡v¡da. His opinion is that none was

born from sat. Anything that was born from

sat, became sat. Sat is not born from any

cause. So the cause of the originated thing is

called m¡y¡.

Against this supposition áa´kara gave

another supposition called vivartav¡da.

According to áa´kara the cause and the effect

are same. The whole world is the vivarta of

Brahman and the pari¸¡ma of m¡y¡. Like this

m¡y¡ is also Brahmavivarta. M¡y¡ is trigu¸¡tmik¡.

So prak¤ti is trigu¸¡tmik¡.

In the Vivekac£·¡ma¸i áa´kara describes the

m¡y¡svar£pa. “There is one –undifferentiated

and undivided. Nobody can define what it is,

but it has the power of God. Beginningless and;

yet also called ignorance (avidy¡). It has three

qualities. Sattva, rajas and tamas. It cannot be

understood except by its action and that can be

114

only by the illumined ones. It has created this

entire universe and produced it all. It is m¡y¡.

This ¿loka reveals that m¡y¡ and avidy¡ are

same. This m¡y¡ is created in this universe. So

the universe is m¡y¡k¡rya. Thus it is Mithy¡.

3.5. Mithy¡tva in áa´kara’s works

áa´kara used Mithy¡ as to show the

unreality of world. He used m¡y¡ into

parame¿varasatt,45 avidy¡,46 the magic of

Indra.47 áa´kara’s commentary on Brahmas£tra

and the major upaniÀads has been discussed

the unreality of the world.

‘áa´kara establishes that Brahman is the

sole reality without any difference whatsoever. 45 ?. B.S.S.B., 2.1.4.46 ?. K..Up., 3.1.22.47 ?. B.S.S.B., 1.1.17., 1.3.19,2.1.9,2.1.21,2.1.28.

115

It means that the characteristics of the

individual soul, the difference between the

individual soul and Brahman, the existence of

the world in Brahman, and the distinctions

attributed to Brahman are Mithy¡ due to the

work of m¡y¡.’

In the Vivekac£·¡ma¸i áa´kara described the

m¡y¡svar£pa. “There is one undifferentiated and

undivided. Anybody can define what it is, but it

has the power of God. Beginning less and, yet

also called ignorance. It has three qualities

sattva, rajas and tamas. It cannot be

understood except by its action and can only be

by the illumined ones. It has created this entire

universe, produced it all, that is m¡y¡”48 This

¿loka reveals that m¡y¡ and avidy¡ are same.

This m¡y¡ has created this universe. So the

universe is m¡y¡k¡rya. He also said

48 ?. Avyakta n¡mn¢ parame¿a¿akt. V.C., 108.

116

“m¡y¡m¡tramidam dvaitam advaitam

param¡rthataÅ.” Thus it is Mithy¡. áa´kara said

in the definition of m¡y¡ as

“sann¡pyasann¡pyubhay¡tmik¡ no.49 In the

Cch¡ndogya text also said that these three

gu¸as are the svar£pa of ajµ¡na or m¡y¡.

The verse in Vivekac£·¡ma¸i tells that the J

¢vabh¡va exist till the bhr¡nti exists because the

J¢vabh¡va is expressed by ajµ¡na. This

expression is born from Mithy¡jµ¡na.50 The other

verse tells that the relation between Ëtman and

Buddhi is caused by Mithy¡, when the

Mithy¡jµ¡na is destroyed, then the sorrows are

destroyed because the cause of the sorrows are

Mithy¡jµ¡na.

49 ?. Ibid, 111.50 ?. Y¡vadbhr¡nti t¡vadev¡sya satt¡ Mithy¡jµ¡noj¤mbhitasya pramad¡t Rajv¡m sarpabhr¡nti kalena eva Bhr¡nterna¿enaiva sarpo’pi tadvad. Vivekac£·¡ma¸I, 197.

117

áa´kara points out that Mithy¡jµ¡na are the cause of the worldly products. So Brahman is only real and it with the help of m¡y¡, it works unreal. If áa´kara’s such texts are read it can be understood that avidy¡ and m¡y¡ are same, Mithy¡ is not different from that. áa´kara took forward the concept Mithy¡ and gave a suitable position to this in Advaita Ved¡nta. Through this concept áa´kara showed that the world is unreal, the Brahman is the only real thing.

áa´kara in his Vivekac£·¡ma¸i has described the m¡y¡svar£pa. M¡y¡ is named as avyakta. It is the power of Parame¿vara. It is an¡di,

trigu¸¡tmika, k¡ry¡numeya and it is the cause of Jagat.

In the Bhajagovinda áa´kara points out that this sams¡ra is strange. Here it is seen that avidy¡ is indescribable so the effect of avidy¡,

that is the world, is strange so the worldly things are also the effect of avidy¡. So it is Mithy¡. The

118

people gained J¢vatva because of avidy¡.

People did not know the reality of Brhaman and the world is only Mithy¡.

The other text teaches that after the removal of avidy¡ led to the removal of the world. This áa´kara explains through the example of lauk¢ka. He also said that the reflecting with discretion about these transient things one should enter the eternal truth.

In the 13th ¿loka áa´kara teaches that this world is like the svapnam¡y¡sam¡nam. The dream objects are Mithy¡, like this the worldly objects are also Mithy¡. These have the pr¡tibh¡sikasatt¡ only.

In the Ëtmabodha áa´kara says that Brahman is different from this universe. There is no thing other than Brahman. If anything shines other than Brahman it is false (Mithy¡) like the mirage.

In his prakara¸agranthas he also indicates the unreality of the world. In the

119

m¡y¡siddhiprakara¸a of the prabodhasudh¡kara

states that the world is the effect of m¡y¡ so it is Mithy¡. This also said to Sv¡tmaprak¡¿ik¡.

In the m¡y¡paµcaka áa´kara elaborately discusses the m¡y¡. The prau·h¡nubh£ti áa´kara states the Mithy¡. Svapna and the J¡grat are Mithy¡. áa´kara also accepts the anirvacan

¢yakhy¡ti. From this basis it is said that m¡y¡ is anirvacan¢ya.

áa´kara’s works entirely discuss m¡y¡,

avidy¡, ajµ¡na and Mithy¡. These are all more or less cor-related. For further discussion on mithy¡

/ m¡y¡ advaitic analogues’ illustration- see below.I Non-super imposition analogy (sympathy, magnet)II Superimposition analogy -

A.Nirup¡dhika (without adjunct)1. S¡d¤¿ya (with similarity)

Rajju Sarpa (Rope / snake)áuktikarajatham (shell / silver)

120

Stha¸urvapuruÀova (post / man) etc.2. S¡d¤¿y¡bh¡va (without similarity)

M¡y¡vi (Hypnotist)Svapna (dream)N¡mar£pa analogiesJalatara´ga (sea / waves)M¤t, kha·am (clay / pot)Nat¡Å¡di (actor / etc )

B.Sop¡dhika (with adjuncts)A´gah¢nata (organ defect)DvicandraÅ (double moon)P¢ta¿a´kh (yellow conch)2. Prav¤ti doÀaÅ ( action defect) Da¿amsatvamasi (tenth man)

Ka¸dec¡m¢karany¡ya (lost necklace)3. Sv¡bh¡vikaniyama (Natural law)

Ëk¡¿a antar¢kÀa (sky or surface)Spha¶ika – lohitam. (Crystal / colour) Jalamar¢cika (mirage)

Motion illusions (firebrand, etc)

121

Reflection illusionsSun/ image in waterFace/image in mirror, etc.

Appearance illusionsLight / object illumed

4. Limitation illusionsSpace / pot-space51.

The above classification of Brook’s is a more generalized rendering of one contained in Chapter Five of his work. Here he makes the division of analogues into general types under (1) Persuasive and (2) Explanatory. He further divides (1) into (a).popular (b) UpaniÀadic and (2) into (a) causal and (b) structural :

I. “Persuasive” Analogiesa. “Popular” or bad analogies

51 ?. R.H Brooks, “The Rope and the Snake”, Ph.D. Dissertation,

unpublished, University of Minnesota (1968), p-240 quoted from

Thomas O’Neil, M¡y¡ in áa´kara Measuring the Immesurable,

Mottilal Banarsidas, 1980, p-166.

122

Worm and waspBoat and shoreFemale crane – II.1.25, III.1.19.Lotus – II.1.25.Sympathy – I.1.1, II.3.46.Carpenter Eclipse

b. “UpaniÀadic” analogiesspider – II.1.25.lump of salt – I.3.13, III.2.16. III.3.1.clay, pot, milk/curd, water/ice,

gold/ornamentII.1.14, II.1.18, IV.3.14, II.1.18, II.1.24.Fire / sparks – II.3.43.

II Explanatory Analogies a. Causal

1. Creation analogies – I.1.4.lodestoneHypnotist, gods, king – I.1.7, I.3.19, II.1.1, II.1.9, II.2.29.

123

Dream – I.2.12, I.3.19, II.1.14, II.1.23, II.1.28, II.2.29, III.2.21.

2. Transformation analogyActor – II.1.18.Thread / cloth – II.1.15.Earth / modifications – II.1.24.Ocean / waves etc. – II.1.13. (cf. also

clay / pot, etc)3. Realization analogies Tenth man

Lost necklace Loss of direction- III.3.9.Soap-nut

b. Structural1. Brahman/world analogies

Mirage – II.1.14.Sky / surface, etc. – I.1.1, 1.2.8, 1.3.19.Firebrand

124

Rope / snake – I.1.4, I.3.19, I.4.6, II.1.9, II.1.14, III.2.21, III.2.22.Post/man- I.1.4, I.3.19, II.1.14Shell / silver

2. Self / soul analogiesDouble moon – III.2.21, IV.1.15, IV.1.19.Crystal / colour-I.3.19, III.2.11.Light / object- II.3.46, III.2.15, III.2.25, III.2.34Object (mirror image)- II.3.46, II.3.50, III.2.18-20, III.2.25.Space / pot-space- I.1.5, I.1.17, I.2.6, I.2.7, I.2.20, I.3.7, I.3.25, II.1.13, II.1.14, II.1.22, II.3.3, II.3.17, II.3.46, II.3.48, III.2.25, III.2.34, III.2.35, IV.3.14.

Brooks makes even a further breakdown of II. b and arrives at the following :

125

Nirup¡dhika Sop¡dhika Adjunct Natural law

(Up¡dhi) Involved

Br 1. Rope / snake ah 2. a. space / surfacem

earth’s Lighta. 2.b. sky/blueness atmosphere

diffractionn/ Lightw 3. Mirage heat diffractionor

retinalI 4. Firebrand motion after imaged

5. double diplopia retinal dis-

Moon placement of

Light refract.

6. crystal colored obj. light refract

In proximity7. light / object object

reflection &

Absorption.

126

8. object / mirror light reflect

Mirror image

9. space / pot- pot (none)52

space

3.6. Mithy¡tva in post áa´kara Advaitins

In Ma¸·ana’s opinion the false appearance is avidy¡ or m¡y¡.53 Avidy¡ is not a characteristic of Brahman, but it is different from Brahman. It is neither existent nor non existent. Avidy¡ is anyath¡graha¸a (misapprehension) or avidy¡ is agraha¸a (non apprehension). According to Sure¿vara, m¡y¡ is the mediate cause of the world. From the stand point of the experience m¡y¡ and world exists. M¡y¡ is same as avidy¡.

It veils the true nature of Brahman and makes it appear as the world.54 The world appearance is a product of ajµ¡na. In his opinion m¡y¡ is only

52. Quoted from Thomas O’Neil, M¡y¡ in áa´kara Measuring the

Immesurable, Mottilal Banarsidas, 1980, p. 168. 53 ?. Thomas O’Neil, M¡y¡ in áa´kara Measuring

the Immesurable, Mottilal Banarsidas, 1980, p. 102.

54 ?. Ibid p. 104.

127

one instrument in which Brahman appears many.55 The Mithy¡tva discussion is based on the Cch¡ndogyopaniÀadic text “In the beginning ‘This’ was sat (Brahman) alone”. Advaitins

considered on the basis of this upaniÀadic text that the world is Mithy¡ or anirvacan¢ya. The basis of expedient Advaitins gave five definitions of m¡y¡. In these definitions they used the Mithy¡ instead of m¡y¡ because they agree that the meaning of m¡y¡ is Mithy¡.

Padmap¡da said that Mithy¡ is different from

sat and asat. This is taken from Paµcap¡dika

that is ‘sadasadanadhikara¸a-

tvar£p¡nirv¡cyatvam Mithy¡tvam.’ Mithy¡ is not

sat because Brahman is only sat. Mithy¡ is not

asat because the sky flower is asat because it is

not perceived. So Mithy¡ is different from sat

and asat and that is anirvacan¢ya. According to

55 ?. Ibid p. 106

128

Padmap¡da Mithy¡tva is a simple negation,

Mithy¡ is indescribable. His opinion is that m¡y¡,

avyakta, prak¤ti, karma, laya, ¿akti, agraha,

mahasupti, ¡k¡¿a are synonymous with avidy¡.56

Prak¡¿¡tman gave two definitions to the

Mithy¡tva. The first is

‘traik¡likaniÀedhapratiyogitvam.’ With the

up¡dhi, which is

the traik¡likaniÀedhapratiyog¢, is called Mithy¡.

According to Prak¡¿¡tman Mithy¡ is

jµ¡nanivartya. The dream world is sublated by

the j¡grat. So svapna is m¡y¡. The world is

sublated by the Brahma jµ¡na so the world is

m¡y¡.

The fourth definition of Mithy¡tva is taken

from CitÀukha’s Tattvaprad¢pik¡. That is

sv¡tyant¡bh¡va sam¡n¡dhikara¸a eva prat

56 ?. Thomas O’Niel, M¡y¡ in áa´kara Measuring the Immeasurable, Mottilal Banarsidass, 1980, p.107.

129

¢yam¡natvam Mithy¡tvam. CitÀukha said that

Mithy¡ is ‘sv¡¿rayaniÀ¶ha

atyant¡bh¡vapratiyogitvam.’

The fifth definition of Mithy¡tva is taken from Ny¡yad¢p¡vali. That is sadviviktatva. Sadviviktatva means sadbhinnatva. Mithy¡ is different from sat. Ëtm¡ is sat. Different from Ëtm¡ all others are Mithy¡. Madhus£dana has taken all these definitions stated through pram¡¸as. Pram¡¸a is like this; Jagat is Mithy¡

because it is perceived. The thing which is perceived is Mithy¡ eg., rajjusarpa. The world is like this. So the world is Mithy¡. This shows that d¤¿yatva and Mithy¡tva are not different. D¤

¿yatva is the hetu of Mithy¡tva. In these five definitions there was the svar£pa of m¡y¡ or Mithy¡. M¡y¡ is the ¿akti of Brahma. So Brahman is the ¡¿raya of m¡y¡. M¡y¡ is sublated by the Brahmajµ¡na.

130

Dr. Viswambhar Dvivedi shows that these five definitions have used m¡y¡ instead of Mithy¡.57

3.7. Mithy¡tva According to Madhus£dana

Madhus£dhana has taken these definitions and logically proved that they are the suitable definition of Mithy¡tva. In some places he added more words and modified the definitions. The careful study of these five definitions reveals that the fourth definition is same as the second definition. The first and last definition that is sadvilakÀa¸a and sat viviktatva reveals that the worldly objects are sublated. So it is unreal. These details are discussed in the next chapter.

In the v¡d¡val¢ of Jayat¢rtha also Mithy¡tva

is discussed. The detailed discussion of

vipratipattiv¡kya is in it.

This chapter concludes that the word m¡y¡

is used before Mithy¡. Sankara used the word 57 ?. Dr. Viswambhar Dviivedi., Advaita Ved¡nta

Evam K¡Àm¢r¿aiva Advaita v¡d. p. 57.

131

Mithy¡ for m¡y¡. He used m¡y¡ also. After áa

´kara, Mithy¡ was developed and some authors

defined Mithy¡ variously. M¡y¡, ajµ¡na,

Mithy¡ etc are synonyms but there are some

differences too. It is said that these are

correlated.

3.8. Conclusion

Mithy¡tva is a very important concept in

Advaita Ved¡nta. áa´kara used avidy¡, ajµ¡na,

akÀara, ¡k¡¿a, avyakta, avy¡k¤ta, anavabodha,

adhy¡sa, pradh¡na etc. instead of Mithy¡. The

world is indicated through Mithy¡. So the world

is Mithy¡. The usage sagu¸a Brahman and

nirgu¸a Brahman is based on m¡y¡. áa´kara said

in his Vivekac£·¡ma¸i that this avidy¡ is

avyaktan¡m¡ trigu¸¡tmik¡, parame¿vara¿akti etc.

áa´kara’s works m¡y¡svar£pa is seen in the

name of avidy¡ and ajµ¡na. áa´kara used

m¡y¡ to state the Mithy¡tva of the world. The

132

indescribability of the world is the cause of m¡y¡.

Indescribability means Mithy¡. Mithy¡jµ¡na is

sublated when the Brahmajµ¡na is born.

According to Gau·ap¡da jagat is m¡y¡maya.

Mithy¡ is like a dream world. áa´kara shows in

the paµc¡vayava anum¡nav¡kya58 that the

M¡¸·£kyak¡rika has stated the jaganmithy¡tva.

Avidy¡ is used in the UpaniÀads in the meaning

of ajµ¡na. áa´kara said in the Bh¡Àya of

ávet¡¿vataropaniÀad that m¡y¡ is prak¤ti. The

careful study of m¡y¡ can be understood “In the

Pra¿nopaniÀad, in which it is said that, one who

knows Param¡tman, becomes Param¡kÀara.

One, who knows this, becomes Sarvajµ¡n¢. One

who does not become sarvajµan, because of the

¡vara¸a of avidy¡. Later by the removal of

avidy¡, he becomes sarvajµa.”

58 ?. Pratijµ¡- j¡grat d¤¿y¡n¡m vaitathya Hetu- d¤¿yatv¡t.

133

The siddh¡ntas of different upaniÀads are

different. This is the cause for

misunderstanding the Ved¡ntas. But áa´kara

integrated this through his m¡y¡v¡da (Mithy¡).

According to Mithy¡ the Brahman is the only

real. Mithy¡ is the indescribable ¿akti of

Brahman. Ì¿vara is sagu¸abrahma because it

qualifies m¡y¡. The up¡d¡nak¡ra¸a of the jagat is

m¡y¡. M¡y¡ is asat. So its effect is also asat.

Here the effect is world. So the world is Mithy¡.

Different from p¡ram¡rthikasatt¡, áa´kara accepts the vy¡vah¡rikasatt¡ also. So the empirical level of the world is not real but the vy¡vah¡rika level it is real. So m¡y¡v¡da or Mithy¡ is very important in áa´kara Ved¡nta.

134