Māyā
DR. A.K. Coomaraswamy recently observed [2] that it is preferable to translate māyā as 'art' rather than 'illusion', as is done most commonly. This translation indeed corresponds with a point of view that might be called more principal. He who produces manifestation by means of his 'art' is the divine architect, and the world is his 'work of art'; as such, the world is neither more nor less unreal than our own works of art, which, because of their relative impermanence, are also unreal if one compares them to the art that 'resides' in the artist. The chief danger of the use of the word 'illusion', indeed, is that one risks too often making it synonymous with 'unreality', understood in an absolute fashion, that is, considering things said to be illusory as only being a pure and simple nothingness, whilst it is only a question of different degrees in reality; but we shall return later to this point. For the moment, we shall add on this subject that the fairly frequent translation of māyā as 'magic', which some have tried to base on a totally verbal, external similarity, and which results, in fact, from no etymological kinship, appears to us strangely influenced by that Western prejudice which wants magic to have only purely imaginary effects, lacking in any reality, and so repeats the same error. In any case, even for those who recognise the reality, in their relative order, of the phenomena produced by magic, there is obviously no more reason to attribute
to the productions of divine 'art' a specially 'magic' character, than to restrict in any other way the scope of the symbolism that assimilates them to 'works of art' taken in their most general sense. [3]
'Māyā is the material 'power' (sakti) through which divine understanding acts; more precisely still, it is kriyā-sakti, that is 'divine activity', which is icchā-sakti. As such, it is inherent to Brahmā Himself, or to the Supreme Principle. It is therefore, situated at an incomparably higher level than prakrti, and if the latter is also called māyā, notably in the Sāṁkhya, this is because it is in reality but the reflection of this sakti in the 'cosmological' order. [4] One may, moreover, note here the application of the inverse sense of the analogy, the Supreme Activity reflecting in pure passivity, and the principal 'omnipotence' in the potentiality of the materia prima. Furthermore, māyā, by the very fact that it is the divine 'art' that resides in the Principle, is also identified with 'wisdom', sophia, understood, in exactly the same sense as the Judeo-Christian tradition, and, as such, is the mother of avatāra. It is so, primarily, as to its eternal generation, inasmuch as it is sakti of the Principle, which is, moreover, but one with the Principle Itself, of which it is but the 'maternal' aspect. [5] And it is so also, as to its birth in the manifested world, inasmuch as it is prakrti, which shows even more clearly the connection existing between these two higher and lower aspect of māyā. [6]
We may make another remark, directly connected to what has just been said of divine 'art', concerning the meaning of the 'veil of māyā': this is primarily the 'tissue' of which is made the manifestation of weaving we spoke of before, and although one generally seems not to take account of it, this meaning is indicated very clearly in certain representations, where various beings belonging to manifested world are represented upon this veil. It is, therefore, only secondarily that this veil at the same time appears to hide or somehow envelop the Principle, and this because the unfurling of the manifestation conceals it from our
eyes. This point of view, that of manifested beings, is, moreover, inverse to the principal point of view, for it makes manifestation appear 'external' in relation to the Principle, while it can in reality only be 'internal', since nothing can exist in anyway outside of the Principle which, by the very fact that it is infinite, necessarily contains all things in itself. [7]
This brings us to the question of illusion: what is properly illusory is the point of view that makes us consider manifestation as external to the Principle: and it is in this sense that the illusion is also 'Ignorance' (avidyā), that is to say, precisely the opposite, or the inverse, of the 'Wisdom' we spoke of above. This, one may say, is the other face of māyā, but only on the understanding that one adds that this face only exists as a consequence of the erroneous way we view its productions. The latter really are other than what they seem to be, for they all expresses something of the Principle, as every work of art expresses something of its author, and in this consists all their realites. This, therefore, is only a dependent and 'shared' reality, which can be seen to be nothing in light of the absolute reality of the Principle, [8] but which is no less real in itself for that. The illusion can, therefore, if one wishes, be understood in two different senses, either as a false appearance that things take in relation to us, or as the unreality of even these things in relation to the Principle. But, in both cases, it necessarily implies a real foundation, and consequently, it can never be in anyway assimilated with pure nothingness.