the impossible task of reconciling the contradictions of the Upanisads and reducing them to a harmonious and consistent whole is to be attempted at all, Sankara's system is about the only one that could do it ! But more than this it would seem impossible to concede.
It is essential, however, to ascertain the sense in which Sankara uses the term maya in his commentary. Is it with him an equivalent of avidya, or does it denote the illusory universe itself ? In summarizing the teaching of the bhasya, Dr.Thibaut seems to take the former view, for he says (on page XXV )--"Brahman is associated with a certain power called maya or avidya to which the appearance of this entire world is due. This power cannot be called 'being' (sat), for 'being' is only Brahman; nor can it be called 'non-being' (asat) in the strict sense, for it at any rate produces the appearance of this world. It is in fact a principle of illusion; the undefinable cause owing to which there seems to exist a material world comprehending distinct individual existences. Being associated with this principle of illusion, Brahman is enabled to project the appearances of the world in the same way as a magician is enabled by his incomprehensible megical power to produce illusory appearances of animate and inanimate beings. Maya thus constitutes the upadana material cause of the world."
After a very careful perusal of the entire bhasya with this point in view, I have come to the conclusion that the above description of maya is incorrect,--that the word maya is nowhere used by Sankara as a synonym of avidya, but is expressly said to be produced by it,--and that in no sense whatsoever does he regard it as the cause of the world. Now for the proof of this. In the opening part of Book II, in 2. 1. 9, 2. 1. 21 and 2. 2. 29 we read as follows:-- "प्रथमेऽध्याये सर्वज्ञः सर्वेश्वरो जगत उत्पत्तिकारणं मृत्सुवर्णादय इव घटरुचकादीनाम् । उत्पन्नस्य जगतो नियन्तृत्वेन स्थितिकारणं मायावीव मायायाः ॥" "यथा स्वयम्प्रसारितया मायया मायावी त्रिष्वपि कालेषु न
