2

Other scriptures would include Bhagavad Gita and Advaitic scriptures.

  • Do you want answer as per Tantra ? – TheLittleNaruto Feb 5 '19 at 18:12
  • absolutely @TheLittleNaruto – S K Feb 5 '19 at 18:13
  • these types of questions u can easily get answer to by searching in any good dictionary and there u get all the meanings and references – user17294 Feb 5 '19 at 18:13
  • There are maya, mahamaya and yogamaya – user17294 Feb 5 '19 at 18:14
  • and these endless maya will lead to nowhere:) – user17294 Feb 5 '19 at 18:14
1

Do other scriptures have different interpretations of Maya from the Tantric interpretation?

Yes, the Bhagavad Gita states that Maya is Prakriti:

‘This Maya of mine, characterised by the qualities of sattva, rajas and tamas [qualities of Prakriti], being divine, cannot be crossed. Those who surrender to me only are the ones that cross this Maya [liberated from Prakriti, or karmic bodies](Gita, 7:14);

Also, from the Svetasvatara Upanishad:

Know Prakriti to be Maya, the wielder of Maya is the great Lord (Sve. 4:9-10)

Also, according to Ramanujacharya in the Brahma Sutras, Shankaracharya's theory of Maya is incorrect.

From the section titled "The theory of Nescience [Maya] cannot be proved:"

We now proceed to the consideration of Nescience [Maya].--According to the view of our opponent [Shankaracharya], this entire world, with all its endless distinctions of Ruler, creatures ruled, and so on, is, owing to a certain defect, fictitiously superimposed upon the non-differenced, self-luminous Reality; and what constitutes that defect is beginningless Nescience, which invests the Reality, gives rise to manifold illusions, and cannot be denned either as being or non-being. Such Nescience, he says, must necessarily be admitted, firstly on the ground of scriptural texts, such as 'Hidden by what is untrue' (Kh. Up. VIII, 3, 2), and secondly because otherwise the oneness of the individual souls with Brahman--which is taught by texts such as 'Thou are that'--cannot be established. This Nescience is neither 'being,' because in that case it could not be the object of erroneous cognition (bhrama) and sublation (bâdha); nor is it 'non-being,' because in that case it could not be the object of apprehension and sublation. Hence orthodox Philosophers declare that this Nescience falls under neither of these two opposite categories.

Now this theory of Nescience is altogether untenable..... To all this we make the following reply. Neither Perception alone, nor Perception aided by Reasoning, reveals to us a positive entity, Nescience [Maya]

Shankaracharya says that Maya neither exists, nor does not exist. Ramanujacharya says that such a notion of Maya cannot exist as a positive entity.

So, how does Ramanujacharya interpret Maya?

From his Vedartha Sangraha, or "summary of the meaning of the Vedas," he says:

  1. In the same way the texts state that Prakriti is also beginningless: ‘There is one who is unborn, has red, white and black colours and gives birth to many creations similar in form. One “unborn one” abides with her, happy in her company and another “unborn one” abandons her having experienced the pleasures and pains she could give (Sve. 4:5)’ This passage points out the unoriginated existence of both the finite selves and nature. ‘From that the magician fashions the entire world and another is imprisoned in the magic; know Prakriti to be Maya, the wielder of Maya is the great Lord (Sve. 4:9-10)’. It is pointed out here that Prakriti is subject to change in its essential being. ‘The cow, without a beginning and end, is the creatrix fashioning all beings’.

So according to Ramanujacharya, Maya is Prakriti, or the creative power of Brahman. This view is supported by the Bhagavad Gita and the Svetasvatara Upanishad.

| improve this answer | |
  • "To all this we make the following reply. Neither Perception alone, nor Perception aided by Reasoning, reveals to us a positive entity, Nescience [Maya]" - this seems to be word-salad to me. penetrating Maya is ACTION - HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH WORDS - no one who has not reached Samadi can say anything useful about maya except endless disputation. – S K Feb 5 '19 at 20:42
  • @SK What he is saying there is that Maya, as described by Shankaracharya, has no proof of existence as a positive entity. – Ikshvaku Feb 5 '19 at 20:43
  • What Shankara SAID divorced from what he realized is also word-salad - if you don't DIRECTLY ACT TO DISPEL MAYA its all endless disputation. – S K Feb 5 '19 at 20:45
  • @SK That's all true, but what they are arguing here is what Maya is exactly. – Ikshvaku Feb 5 '19 at 20:46

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .