76

CHAPTER III

MITHYËTVA 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 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

77

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 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´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

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.

4. Brahmasatyam jaganmithy¡.

78

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 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

5. Dr. Viswambar Divedi, Advaita ved¡nt evam kaÀm¢r¿aiva advaitav¡da, Satyam

Publishing House, New Delhi, P. 47.

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.

79

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

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

ekatvamanupa¿yataÅ”8

7. I U., 3.

8. Ibid, 7.

80

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 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

9. Ibid, 10.

10.K.U., 2.1.10.

11. Ibid, 2.1.2.

12. AnguÀtam¡traÅ puruÀontar¡tma

Sad¡jan¡n¡m h¤daye sanniviÀ¶aÅ . K.U., 2.3.17.

81

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 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¡.

13. Ibid, 1.2.9.

82

Avidy¡ is the opposite character of vidy¡ and it has opposite effect. One,

who is indulged in 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”

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

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.

18. Ibid, 1.1.6.

83

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, 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’

19. Te tamaÅ paryantastvam hinah pita

Yo’sm¡kam avidy¡y¡Å param p¡ram t¡rayat¢ti. P.U., VI.8.

84

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

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¡.

3.1.5. M¡¸·£kyopaniÀad

20. M.U., 3.2.8.

21. M.U., 1.1.3.

85

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 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

22. Ma. U. 2.1.

86

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

‘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 root-cause.’27

23. Br.U., 2.4.6

24. Ibid, 3.7.23

25. Ibid, 3.8.11

26. S.U., 3.8.

87

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

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

27. S.U., IV.10.11

28. Tai. U., 2.1.2.

29. á¡´karabh¡Àya on Taitir¢yopaniÀad.

30. Tai.Up., 2.6.

88

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 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

31. Tai. Up., 2.6.1.

32. Brahmabhinnam sarvam mithy¡ brahmabhinnatv¡t. V.P. p-83.

33. C.U., 6.1.3.

89

‘In the beginning this was sat alone34. The basis this

upaniÀadic text 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 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.

34. Sadeva somyetamagre¡s¢t, C.U.,6.8.7.

35. R.Balasubrahmanian, Advaita Ved¡nta Philosophy of History Culture

and Civilization, p. 367.

90

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¡.

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¡.

36. Ibid.

91

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

Bh¢Àmaparva of 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

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

37. Balasubrahmanian, Advaita Ved¡nta the Philosophy of History Culture and

Civilization, p. 354.

38. Ibid.

39. Bhagavadg¢t¡ 1.1

92

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.”

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

40. N. Govindapanicker, ár¢mat Bhagavadg¢ta or karmayoga¿¡stra published by G.

Govindamenon Medayil Puthicakonam, T.V.M., 1985, p. 36.

41. B.G., 9.33.

93

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 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

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¡.

94

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

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

95

superimpositions of the category and by the 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. 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

42. B.S.S.B., 1.1.1.

96

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.

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 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

97

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 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

98

reiterates the view the world has no independent existence apart from Brahman.

The world therefore is Mithy¡. ‘All 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¡.

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

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

99

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 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

100

objects are unreal. Firstly the elephants and other objects seen in a dream are

confined in the limited space i.e. within the body.

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 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.

44. Jayadev Vedalankar, Bh¡rat¢ya Dar¿an, New Bhartiya Book Corporation 2001, p.

398.

101

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 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 only by the illumined ones. It has created this entire universe

102

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. 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¡.’

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.

103

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

“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

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

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.

104

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.

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 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

105

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 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)

106

1. S¡d¤¿ya (with similarity)

Rajju Sarpa (Rope / snake)

áuktikarajatham (shell / silver)

Stha¸urvapuruÀova (post / man) etc.

2. S¡d¤¿y¡bh¡va (without similarity)

M¡y¡vi (Hypnotist)

Svapna (dream)

N¡mar£pa analogies

Jalatara´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)

107

Spha¶ika – lohitam. (Crystal / colour)

Jalamar¢cika (mirage)

Motion illusions (firebrand, etc)

Reflection illusions

Sun/ image in water

Face/image in mirror, etc.

Appearance illusions

Light / object illumed

4. Limitation illusions

Space / 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” Analogies

a. “Popular” or bad analogies

Worm and wasp

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.

108

Boat and shore

Female crane – II.1.25, III.1.19.

Lotus – II.1.25.

Sympathy – I.1.1, II.3.46.

Carpenter

Eclipse

b. “UpaniÀadic” analogies

spider – II.1.25.

lump of salt – I.3.13, III.2.16. III.3.1.

clay, pot, milk/curd, water/ice, gold/ornament

II.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.

lodestone

Hypnotist, gods, king – I.1.7, I.3.19, II.1.1, II.1.9, II.2.29.

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

2. Transformation analogy

109

Actor – 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. Structural

1. Brahman/world analogies

Mirage – II.1.14.

Sky / surface, etc. – I.1.1, 1.2.8, 1.3.19.

Firebrand

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.1.14

Shell / silver

2. Self / soul analogies

Double moon – III.2.21, IV.1.15, IV.1.19.

110

Crystal / colour-I.3.19, III.2.11.

Light / object- II.3.46, III.2.15, III.2.25, III.2.34

Object (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 :

Nirup¡dhika Sop¡dhika Adjunct Natural law

(Up¡dhi) Involved

B

r 1. Rope / snake

a

h 2. a. space / surface

m

earth’s Light

a. 2.b. sky/blueness atmosphere diffraction

n

/ Light

w 3. Mirage heat diffraction

o

r

retinal

I 4. Firebrand motion after image

d

111

5. double diplopia retinal dis-

Moon placement of

Light refract.

6. crystal colored obj. light refract

In proximity

7. light / object object reflection &

Absorption.

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

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.

112

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 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 Padmap¡da Mithy¡tva

is a simple negation, Mithy¡ is indescribable. His opinion is that m¡y¡, avyakta,

54. Ibid p. 104.

55. Ibid p. 106

113

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¢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

56. Thomas O’Niel, M¡y¡ in áa´kara Measuring the Immeasurable, Mottilal

Banarsidass, 1980, p.107.

114

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.

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 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.

57. Dr. Viswambhar Dviivedi., Advaita Ved¡nta Evam K¡Àm¢r¿aiva Advaita v¡d. p. 57.

115

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

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

58. Pratijµ¡- j¡grat d¤¿y¡n¡m vaitathya

Hetu- d¤¿yatv¡t.

116

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.”

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.