Gaudapada and Nagarjuna

[atanu]

I am repeating the post 59.

From Talks with Ramana Maharshi

D: I am only trying to understand the jnani’s point of view about the world. Is the world perceived after Self-realization?
M: Why worry yourself about the world and what happens to it after Self-realization? First realise the Self. What does it matter if the world is perceived or not. Do you gain anything to help you in your quest by the non-perception of the world during sleep? Conversely, what would you lose now by the perception of the world? It is quite immaterial to the jnani or ajnani if he perceives the world or not. It is seen by both, but their viewpoints differ.

D: If the jnani and the ajnani perceive the world in like manner, where is the difference between them?
M: Seeing the world, the jnani sees the Self which is the substratum of all that is seen; the ajnani, whether he sees the world or not, is ignorant of his true Being, the Self.

Take the instance of moving pictures on the screenin the cinema-show. What is there in front of you before the play begins? Merely the screen. On that screen you see the entire show, and for all appearances the pictures are real. But go and try to take hold of them. What do you take hold of? Merely the screen on which the pictures appeared so real. After the play, when the pictures disappear, what remains? The screen again!

So with the Self. That alone exists; the pictures come and go. If you hold on to the Self, you will not be deceived by the appearance of the pictures. Nor does it matter at all if the pictures appear or disappear.

Ignoring the Self the ajnani thinks the world is real, just as ignoring the screen he sees merely the pictures, as if they existed apart from it. If one knows that without the seer there is nothing to be seen, just as there are no pictures without the screen, one is not deluded. The jnani knows that the screen, the pictures and the sight thereof are but the Self. With the pictures the Self is in its manifest form; without the pictures It remains in the unmanifest form. To the jnani it is quite immaterial if the Self is in the one form or the other. He is always the Self. But the ajnani seeing the jnani active gets confounded.

 

[Aupmanyav]

My attempt at explanation
It means the self is outside the mind: Ego-Self is mind and it is in the brain, and as for 'ayamatma', it is Brahman.
Non-dual Self: Brahman.
Coming or going of things: Nothing goes, nothing comes, Brahman is unchangeable.
What is the Jnani seeing: Both, Vyavaharika and Paramarthika.
If you are seeing 'all', it is Bhedha-abedha - not advaita. Bhedha-abedha (simultaneous oneness-difference) - The doctrine is, we witness differences and these differences are real: In advaita (my belief), the differences are not real. Vyavaharika, where the differences exist, is not real and is created by 'maya'.
Eternal: Always was, exists in present, will exist in future also (as seen from Vyavaharika). In Paramarthika, Asti, 'na asat', existence.
1.Because, without anything to observe, there can be no observer: No need to observe anything. Observer/observed is Dvaita. What will Brahman do if it observes? It does nothing ever.
2. That is, no one can say to himself that he is in Paramarthika or that he was - sometime in the past: Why? You, I, him, it, they all exist in Paramarthika forever. You, I, him, it is only an illusion. It is all Brahman. 'Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma".

 

[atanu]

Because, without anything to observe, there can be no observer.

But whether the Jnani abides as non dual Brahman - as the whole, or not?

In such a case, when waves arise, who else is the Seer-Knower but Brahman? The waves are just transient forms-names and not other oceans.

An ignorant person thinking oneself as a wave, thinks other waves as others. A jnani being the whole, abides as the ocean even if millions of waves come and go.
...

 

[shivsomashekhar]

But deep sleep condition is exactly the same state of your advaita. We are saying that no one gets enlightenment in deep sleep.

Deep sleep is never a real state. It is always in the past. You look at the time before sleep and time after sleep and infer that you must have slept in between these times.

Enlightenment is not a state. It is clarity that comes with knowledge - no more, no less.

Is it a test or something? Ha. Ha. This is not required.

I ask because I believe your view of advaita is actually bedha-abedha.

Except advaita, all other darsana ascribe some objective reality to forms-names (which you are also doing, without realising). Advaita admits of no second.

bedha-abedha does not admit of a second either. So, that by itself, does not suffice to call out the difference between the two doctrines.

But that does not prohibit a jnani from seeing forms-names while abiding as non dual Self.

According to you, the Jnani sees forms and names. But then, so does the non-Jnani. What then, is the difference between the former and the latter? You believe the difference is that the former sees different names and forms, but simultaneously also sees them all as one Brahman. This is classic bedha-abedha. The other inconsistency in this position is that you believe time is outside maya. But that is a for a later discussion.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

In such a case, when waves arise, who else is the Seer-Knower but Brahman? The waves are just transient forms-names and not other oceans.

So long as there are waves, there is duality. If you say all the waves are really one Brahman, then that is bedha-abedha (for you are seeing both waves and Brahman) and not advaita.

So, what then is advaita? advaita is where you would say there is only the ocean and *no* waves. And if the ocean is all that exists, it is beyond labels and beyond description. Because, there is no one to observe the ocean; no one to identify it as an ocean and no one to label it as such. When everything is the ocean, there is also no such thing as time (no past and no future). Else, the view would be inconsistent with advaita, for you are admitting two entities - Brahman and time, which is duality.

An ignorant person thinking oneself as a wave, thinks other waves as others. A jnani being the whole, abides as the ocean even if millions of waves come and go.
...

Please see above. Also, your position (ocean vs. waves) contradicts the Ramana statement in my signature and the following Gaudapada statement. It also contradicts neti, neti and all the other Upanishad quotes, I mentioned earlier on this thread.

There is neither dissolution nor creation, none in bondage and none practicing disciplines. There is none seeking Liberation and none liberated. This is the absolute truth. - MK 2.32

You need to to be able to accommodate all of these statements into your advaita view - without which, it is incomplete.

 

[atanu]

So, what then is advaita? advaita is where you would say there is only the ocean and *no* waves. ....

This is fantastic. Do you mean to say that as you respond to me (presumably in dual mode), there is no advaita? Do you mean to say that advaita comes and goes depending on what you see?

I think we are on different pages. Before I can even communicate with you I need to understand your position. Which teacher you are following? It is certainly not Shankara. I think you are mistaking the experience of Nirvikalpa samadhi to be advaita, which is the timeless Truth and does not depend on your or mine seeing a world or not seeing it.

There are two things here. First. Advaita is ever true, whether you abide as advaita Self or not. Second. In your text, however, there is no reflection of the advaita truth, since you are functioning as a body-mind and not as the non dual Self. That is not the case, when Shankara or Ramana teach, since they abide as the non dual Self.

You seem to believe that advaita comes and goes, depending on your state/vision. You also fail to realise that a sage and an ignorant person do not see the multiplicity in same fashion. Whereas, the ignorant person takes the multiplicity as objectivity real, the sage, while abiding as the non dual witness, witnesses the multiplicity as a transient picture.

You may wish to kindly answer the following with 'yes' or 'no', so that I can understand your locus.

1. Do you mean that when duality is the vision (as in the vision of an ignorant person), there is no advaita?
2. Do you mean to say that a self realised sage cannot see a world? And that vision of such a sage when he sees multiplicity is same as the vision of ignorant persons such as you or me?
3. Do you mean to say that when Shankara teaches his disciples, there is no advaita, because there are many?
4. Do you agree that the Atman, which is not different from Brahman, is the witness of the three states of existence?
5. Do you agree that sages can realise advaita knowledge 'While living' (jivan mukta)?

Best.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

This is fantastic. Do you mean to say that as you respond to me (presumably in dual mode), there is no advaita? Do you mean to say that advaita comes and goes depending on what you see?

Atanu, you are the one who has been saying that Advaita comes and goes (depending on the rising and falling of waves). I say, time is not real and therefore, there is no 'coming and going' of anything.

There are two things here. First. Advaita is ever true, whether you abide as advaita Self or not. Second. In your text, however, there is no reflection of the advaita truth, since you are functioning as a body-mind and not as the non dual Self. That is not the case, when Shankara or Ramana teach, since they abide as the non dual Self.

I asked you earlier to explain what you mean by 'non dual self'. I have no idea what this means. Is there a 'dual self'?

You seem to believe that advaita comes and goes, depending on your state/vision. You also fail to realise that a sage and an ignorant person do not see the multiplicity in same fashion. Whereas, the ignorant person takes the multiplicity as objectivity real, the sage, while abiding as the non dual witness, witnesses the multiplicity as a transient picture.

Let me ask you this. Are you familiar with bedha-abedha? If not, I recommend you look it up and you will discover that *all* your statements are fully compliant with bedha-abedha. As an aside, some modern scholars have opined that among all Vedanta doctrines, it is bedha-abedha that matches best with the Upanishads and sutras.

You may wish to kindly answer the following with 'yes' or 'no', so that I can understand your locus.
Do you mean that when duality is the vision (as in the vision of an ignorant person), there is no advaita?

This question contains the answer, don't you think?

Do you mean to say that a self realised sage cannot see a world? And that vision of such a sage when he sees multiplicity is same as the vision of ignorant persons such as you or me?

Yes. When Ramana sees and talks to visitors, is reading his newspaper, caring for his mom, massaging his feet, eating dinner, etc., the world view is no different. He sees the same newspaper we do - made up of distinct pages - just as we do.

Do you mean to say that when Shankara teaches his disciples, there is no advaita, because there are many?

Yes. Goes back to my statement that your understanding is actually bedha-abedha. You are thinking that Shankara sees five disciples and is also simultaneously (somehow) seeing something common in all of them. But what is that common thing that he is seeing? It cannot be Brahman for Brahman (per advaita) is not something you see or feel or comprehend. So what is that common thread he sees among all the disciples?

Do you agree that the Atman, which is not different from Brahman, is the witness of the three states of existence?

No. Along the lines of Ramana - "who is witnessing what and how when all that exists is the self?" The three states are for people who do not have realization. A realized person sees that there really is only one state (if you can even call it that) and there is no witness (as explained earlier).

Do you agree that sages can realise advaita knowledge 'While living' (jivan mukta)?

Yes. In fact, that is the only way.

Once again, until you see that time is unreal, you will not get any of this and will continue to mistake bdha-abedha as advaita - as most people do.

Now, can you please explain how you reconcile MK 2.32 with your understanding of advaita?

 

[DanielR]

Is Bheda Abheda the same as Acintya Bheda Abheda?

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Is Bheda Abheda the same as Acintya Bheda Abheda?

bhedabheda is found in multiple schools including Bhartrprapancha (pre-Shankara), Bhaskara, Nimbarka, etc. with some variations. Acintya bhedabheda is the specific instance of bhedabheda ideas in the Gaudiya Vaishnavism school founded by Chaitanya.

Since Shruti was a mix of bheda statements and abheda statements, the abheda-vadins (advaita) had to reinterpret all the bheda statements to maintain consistency. The bheda-vadins had to do the same with the abheda statements. bhedabheda-vadins took the approach that both are correct. Consequently, this position requires lesser reinterpretation than the others.

 

[Ekanta]

IMO it boils down to shivsomashekhar not accepting atman as self-evident. Instead it has to be intellectually inferred.

I was looking into the Brahmakara Vritti (the thought I am brahman) and found this:

Sivananda:
The Sadguru will explain rn extenso the nature of Advaita Brahman, the One secondless Existence. This is termed sravana…
The aspirant will constantly reflect over this new, lofty Advaitic idea Aham Brahmasmi. This is termed Manana in Vedantic parlance…
After Manana, he will practise Nididhyasana, on the one idea: Aham Brahmasmi. Now the Brahmakara Vritti [thought I am brahman] is generated…
So Brahmakara Vritti is Aham Brahmasmi Mahavakya Janya Sattvic Antahkarana Parinama-a modification of the pure mind, born of meditation on the Mahavakya Aham Brahmasmi…
When this Brahmakara Vritti is in operation or manifestation, all Vishaya Vrittis [objective thoughts] vanish…
…this Brahmakara Vritti destroys the primitive Ajnana or Mula-avidya that envelops the Svarupa and thereby this phenomenal world melts itself in Brahman. The function of this Brahmakara Vritti is to remove the avarana that envelops Brahman, and after this is done, it dies by itself…
…when the avarana that envelops Brahman is removed by Brahmakara Vritti, Brahman shines by Himself in His own Glory as He is Self-luminous. The intelligence that accompanies the Brahmakara Vritti is not necessary to make Brahman appear…
Brahmakara Vritti is only a means and not the end. ln Brahman, there is no Vritti Jnana. ln Brahman, there are no Vrittis; there is Svarupa Jnana. Brahman is Chidghana, a mass of Knowledge. All vrittis should be given up before Brahma Jnana is obtained. Even the one final Brahmakara Vritti should be merged...
You may ask why the term Brahmakara Vritti is given to the last explained Sattvic Vritti, when Brahman has no Akara [form]. When all the Vishayakara Vrittis stop, then the Brahmakara Vritti comes out and this vritti is a means to approach Brahman. So it is correctly termed Brahmakara Vritti.
http://www.sriswamisivananda.org/Meditation_On_Om.pdf

Krishnananda:
The brahmakara-vritti… is the last vritti or psychosis, whose object is its own infinite form, which is not supported by anything else, which has nothing external, which rests solely on the power of its potential and actual contents. Even this experience is to be transcended by the Absolute-Experience which is the Goal of even the brahmakara-vritti, where the vritti destroys itself by itself on account of the exhaustion of its contents through experience, and exists in Identity with the Absolute.
http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/realis/realis_5.html

 

[shivsomashekhar]

IMO it boils down to shivsomashekhar not accepting atman as self-evident. Instead it has to be intellectually inferred.

@Ekanta, can you please explain how something that is -

1. Indescribable
2. Incomprehensible
3. Above the known; above the unknown
4. Attributeless
5. Beyond thought

- be self evident?

There are different classes of descriptions in scripture and we need to be able to reconcile all of them - instead of selectively choosing a few and ignoring the rest. I have to run now, but will be back later to explain what I mean.

 

[Aupmanyav]

IMO it boils down to shivsomashekhar not accepting atman as self-evident. Instead it has to be intellectually inferred.

Without going into academic gymnastics, did the dinos exist? If they existed before the coming of humans, then something has been existing all this time.

 

[Aupmanyav]

1. Indescribable 2. Incomprehensible 3. Above the known; above the unknown 4. Attributeless 5. Beyond thought

1. Not fully at the present time.
2. Could be comprehensible in times to come.
3. Known and unknown are qualities and do not have directions - above or below.
4. It has attributes, the elementary particles change all the time (Feynman's diagrams, virtual particles)
5. No, we are researching it.

 

[Ekanta]

@Ekanta
1. Indescribable
2. Incomprehensible
3. Above the known; above the unknown
4. Attributeless
5. Beyond thought

This simply means it not an object.

@Ekanta
- be self evident?.

This simply means I am.

But the interesting thing is, why did you ignore my post about Sivananda/Krishnananda? Which guru do you follow? Do you follow your own intellectual analysis of Shankara/Gaudapada? To me it looks like you follow some form of new age neo advaita. I have seen the type before.

 

[Aupmanyav]

This simply means it not an object.

Is energy an object? Is object anything other than energy? 'Neti, neti'. It is like the floor in Indraprastha's palace where Duryodhana fell in water and Draupadi laughed.
Rāmā-Rāmā, Hare-Hare.

 

[atanu]

I do not think that argumentation ever does anything for anyone. I am recording below excerpts from Shankara's Vivekachudamani, especially on: Self evident nature of atman, the witness role, manifestation of universe, and nature of eternal "I". These topics are important for this discussion.

It is said that a knower of Brahman becomes Brahman. So, is Brahman devoid of all sense functions and mind and is ever asleep like a fool or is Brahman like a mind-less sense-less stone?

Actually, Shruti says that Brahman, though devoid of eyes and legs sees with thousand eyes and moves with thousand legs. So, how come a knower of Brahman remains senseless?

Atman is the sole knower. There is no other knower. So, who else will know it but itself? It is Self evident to everyone. Only some initiate Buddhists deny it. Atman is the witness of modifications of Mind (Prakriti) too. Being witness it is never tainted just as objects in space cannot taint the space.

We will see the above points from Vivekachudamani -- The Crest Jewel of Discrimination, the number one manual of Advaitic knowledge.

 

[atanu]

A knower of Brahman becomes Brahman. So, does advaita guru Shri Shankara or any other ever taught that a knower of Brahman attains a state of deep sleep or like that of a stone. It is a foolish and in my opinion, an ill motivated, view. If Brahman ever asleep in deep sleep or is like a stone, then what witnesses the body and the universe?

Non Dual experience of Turiya (known as the advaita shivo atman — the non dual self) is also known as nirvikalpa samadhi. As per, Vivekachudamani of Shankara, Nirvikalpa samadhi is an essential ingredient of Self Realisation. However, Nirvikalpa Samadhi is not an unbroken state, else the universe would not be cognised. Advaitic teachers such as Janaka, Gaudapada, Shankara (and Shri Krishna Himself) have played a natural (sahaja) and active role here also, while not forgetting their infinite transcendental nature. Sri Ramana was once asked as to how that was possible.

Question: Are there no illustrations given in our books to explain this sahaj (natural) state clearly to us?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: There are. For instance you see a reflection in the mirror and the mirror. You know the mirror to be the reality and the picture in it a mere reflection. Is it necessary that to see the mirror we should cease to see the reflection in it?

You do not have faith in Shri Ramana? Okay, then read what Shri Shnakara teaches in Vivekachudamani (Crest Jewel of Discrimination):

550. The man of realisation, bereft of the body-idea, moves amid sense-enjoyments like a man subject to transmigration, through desires engendered by the Prarabdha work. He himself, however, lives unmoved in the body, like a witness, free from mental oscillations, like the pivot of the potter’s wheel.

Advaita holds that the intrinsic nature pf Brahman-Param Atman is same as the Atman, which is the witness of three states of existence: sleep, dream, and waking and also of the five sheaths. As per Shankara, realising the nature the Supreme Self (Param Atman) one is freed of all fetters and not otherwise. Since Param-Atman is homogeneous, non dual, bereft of all boundaries, the realisation has to be non dual and not otherwise.

Shankara explains how Atman is the witness of all states and all sheaths. Atman is the Knower but nought else knows it, since there is no second to it. Atman, as per Shakara, is self evident and requires no external proof. Atman is same as Param Atman and is the direct manifester of the gross and subtle universe.

124. Now I am going to tell thee of the real nature of the supreme Self, realising which man is freed from bondage and attains Liberation.
125. There is Absolute Entity, the eternal substratum of the consciousness of egoism, the witness of the three states, and distinct from the five sheaths or coverings:
126. Which knows everything that happens in the waking state, in dream and in profound sleep; which is aware of the presence or absence of the mind and its functions; and which is the background of the notion of egoism. – This is That.
127. Which Itself sees all, but which no one beholds, which illumines the intellect etc., but which they cannot illumine. – This is That.
135. The Supreme Self, different from the Prakriti and its modifications, of the essence of Pure Knowledge, and Absolute, directly manifests this entire gross and subtle universe, in the waking and other states, as the substratum of the persistent sense of egoism, and manifests Itself as the Witness of the Buddhi, the determinative faculty.
157. That the Atman as the abiding Reality is different from the body, its characteristics, its activities, its states, etc., of which It is the witness, is self-evident.
211. This self-effulgent Atman which is distinct from the five sheaths, the Witness of the three states, the Real, the Changeless, the Untainted, the everlasting Bliss – is to be realised by the wise man as his own Self.

But then a question arises as there is no second knower, after discarding all sheaths as non real, what remains to be seen or to be known? Here comes the Master’s reply highlighted with bold fonts below. Atman alone cognises itself and there being none else, the Atman is itself the Supreme Brahman.

212. The disciple questioned: After these five sheaths have been eliminated as unreal, I find nothing, O Master, in this universe but a Void, the absence of everything. What entity is there left forsooth with which the wise knower of the Self should realise his identity.
213-214. The Guru answered: Thou has rightly said, O learned man ! Thou art clever indeed in discrimination. That by which all those modifications such as egoism as well as their subsequent absence (during deep sleep) are perceived, but which Itself is not perceived, know thou that Atman – the Knower – through the sharpest intellect.
215. That which is perceived by something else has for its witness the latter. When there is no agent to perceive a thing, we cannot speak of it as having been perceived at all.
216. This Atman is a self-cognised entity because It is cognised by Itself. Hence the individual soul is itself and directly the Supreme Brahman, and nothing else.
220-222. Similarly, discarding the body, the Buddhi and the reflection of the Chit in it, and realising the Witness, the Self, the Knowledge Absolute, the cause of the manifestation of everything, which is hidden in the recesses of the Buddhi, is distinct from the gross and subtle, eternal, omnipresent, all-pervading and extremely subtle, and which has neither interior nor exterior and is identical with one self – fully realising this true nature of oneself, one becomes free from sin, taint, death and grief, and becomes the embodiment of Bliss. Illumined himself, he is afraid of none. For a seeker after Liberation there is no other way to the breaking of the bonds of transmigration than the realisation of the truth of one’s own Self.
225. Brahman is Existence, Knowledge, Infinity, pure, supreme, self-existent, eternal and indivisible Bliss, not different (in reality) from the individual soul, and devoid of interior or exterior. It is (ever) triumphant.
239. Sages realise the Supreme Truth, Brahman, in which there is no differentiation of knower, knowledge and known, which is infinite, transcendent, and the Essence of Knowledge Absolute.

269. Realising thy own Inmost Self, the Witness of the Buddhi and its modifications, and constantly revolving the positive thought, "I am That", conquer this identification with the non-Self.

Now. Shri Soma wishes to impose a state of stone like silence or an absence of any and all phenomenal activity for the Self Realised sage. But what does Shri Shankara say regarding the Brahman, one without a second?

291. That in which there is this reflection of the universe, as of a city in a mirror – that Brahman art thou; knowing this thou wilt attain the consummation of thy life.
294. But the real ‘I" is that which witnesses the ego and the rest. It exists always, even in the state of profound sleep. The Shruti itself says, "It is birthless, eternal", etc. Therefore the Paramatman is different from the gross and subtle bodies.

351. The Supreme Self is ever of the nature of eternal, indivisible knowledge, one without a second, the Witness of the Buddhi and the rest, distinct from the gross and subtle, the implied meaning of the term and idea "I", the embodiment of inward, eternal bliss.

504. The properties of things observed do not affect the Witness, which is distinct from the, changeless and indifferent – as the properties of a room (do not affect) the lamp (that illumines it).
510. Let there be changes in the Prakriti in ten, a hundred, or a thousand ways, what have I, the unattached Knowledge Absolute, got to do with them ? Never do the clouds touch the sky !
511. I am verily that Brahman, the One without a second, which is like the sky, subtle, without beginning or end, in which the whole universe from the Undifferentiated down to the gross body, appears merely as a shadow.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So, is Brahman devoid of all sense functions and mind and is ever asleep like a fool or is Brahman like a mind-less sense-less stone? Actually, Shruti says that Brahman, though devoid of eyes and legs sees with thousand eyes and moves with thousand legs. So, how come a knower of Brahman remains senseless?

Atman is the sole knower. There is no other knower. So, who else will know it but itself? It is Self evident to everyone. Only some initiate Buddhists deny it. Atman is the witness of modifications of Mind (Prakriti) too. Being witness it is never tainted just as objects in space cannot taint the space.

Is Brahman a human or a stone? If not then comparing apples and diamonds is wrong, not even apple and oranges since both are fruits. Brahman has its attributes - action at a distance, Cassimir Effect; only that we do not fully understand it.

Don't take knowing as a human knows, since Brahman is not a human (again, wrong comparision). How does the earth know that there has been a supernova 11 light-years away and shakes, even if very slightly. By gravity waves. Our sages, my homage to all of them, but they were not aware of these things. Our children and their children will know more than what we know today. No blame accrues to us for that as also to the sages. Yes, Brahman is unchangeable, uninvolved, and therefore untainted (your statement, as if Brahman was a person who could be accused of taking a bribe). I agree to that.

We should relate what is in our scriptures to what science knows today. Surprisingly, there is no conflict as people fear. That will make Hinduism stronger. Conflict arises when we do not want to revise our views as in Abrahamic religions (since scriptures are taken to be the word of God).

 

[atanu]

Universe of three existential states: sleep, dream, sleep, that we inhabit will never be cognised if the Brahman was only the transcendental ekapada (one footed) Turiya. But akshara (the indestructible) Aum is the totality. It has three phenomenal 'derived' stations (A, U, and M) and one transcendental unseen-uniferable foot known as the Fourth or the Turiya.

Turiya -- the advaita atman, must be realised as one's atman. In Turiya there is nothing, no division, no external or internal. It is Brahman. Being the very the essence of cognition of the three phenomenal states of sleep, dream, and waking, who can impose the state of senseless-ness on Turiya?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Brahman is not 'ekapada' (one-footed), it has 'Maya' to go along with it, inseparable companion, the creatrix of all these dramas, in Hindu parlance -Shakti.