The debates on Maya

Indian philosophy-- regardless of which school of philosophy we are talking about-- distinguish between two forms of reality. The existential reality of names and forms, including information constructs like knowledge, belief, etc. form what we generally know as reality. This is called Prakriti in the Samkhya philosophy and Maya in different other schools of thought. 

But in addition to the existential reality in which we all dwell in, almost all schools of thought posit a deeper substratum that transcends all of existence and beyond. This "transcendental" reality, variously called Purusha, Brahman, or "that which is", etc. is postulated as the only entity there is. 

Most philosophical writings are about how to realise this transcendental reality as a fact, and not as a postulate or an assertion, or as a matter of faith or belief. There are several techniques and paradigms (called marga or pathways) that are proposed, that systematically take the inquirer from their current moorings in existential reality, to a state where they realise that all of existence is just "that which is." 

The jnana marga or the paradigm of knowledge takes the inquirer on a journey of logic and epistemology, to ultimately lead to a state where one realises that reality needs to necessarily lie beyond the system of logic and knowledge-- and that logic can only communicate truth, and not discover it. 

In addition to the paradigm of knowledge, there are several other paradigms that are proposed-- including karma (action), Yoga (the discipline of joining or harmonising), bhakti (devotion), etc. All of these paradigms have a core objective-- that of systematically taking the seeker from the existential realm, to realise the transcendental realm.

But in all these, there is a fundamental question that lies unanswered, which has been at the core of several breakaway philosophical schools. This is the question about existential reality or Maya itself. If the transcendental reality is all that there is, why then does existence exist at all? Just because existential reality of physics and knowledge is not complete, does it mean it is not important to study existence at all? 

This debate lies at the core of the vast body of literature that have argued about the non-dual and dual nature of reality. This can be broadly classified as the Advaita and Dvaita schools of thought. 

Advaita or non-dualism argues that Maya is just an illusion that obscures our realisation of the substratum. Maya is said to have two kinds of properties-- the avarana shakti or the property of veiling or occlusion, that prevents us from seeing reality as it is, and the vikshepa shakti or the property of projection, where the Maya of our minds project some properties onto reality based on our own experiences. 

To explain this, several analogies are provided. Imagine a pond at the base of which, is a precious, shining gem. We can see the gem when the water is clear, but when the water is muddy, it occludes the gem from our vision, and we may often mistake the gem for something else like a fish, or some creature. In order to see the gem for what it is, we need to clear the water from all the mud. Maya is like the muddiness of the water, that occludes our vision of the gem, and the muddiness in our minds, mistakes the gem for something else. 

In another argument, we are asked to think of a clay pot, made completely of clay. And then we are asked, is there anything to the pot other than clay? In the universe of the pot, the clay is all there is. The "potness" of the clay is ephemeral and is soon lost if the pot is broken-- but the clay remains, even when its "potness" is gone. 

However, the dualists or the Dvaita philosophers take exception to this. The "potness" or the idea of a pot is independent of the clay, they argue. To substantiate this, consider a fancy pot like in the picture below: 

The "potness" of this pot has specific characteristics-- there are two handles, there is a big mouth with a lid of a specific shape, etc. The "potness" of this pot existed in the mind of the pot maker, independent of the clay. The pot maker may well have manifested this same "potness"-- that is a pot with the same shape and characteristics-- using say, plastic, or metal. The existential reality of the idea of the pot existed independent of the substance that made the pot (which is the clay). 

According to the dualists, the Maya of the "potness" is not "occluding" our glimpse of the clay. We need not "remove" Maya or the "potness" to get a glimpse of the underlying reality (the clay). We need not "remove" a wave on the sea, to see the underlying water. And just because there is no other substance to the pot other than the clay, it does not mean that the "potness" or the idea of the pot is unimportant. If we want the clay to hold water or tea, we need to cast the clay in the form of a pot. 

Maya, according to the dualists, acts more like a mould that "casts" reality into different forms with different characteristics-- rather than as a "cloak" that occludes or covers reality with its illusion.