The Absolute breaks up its wholeness and develops the reality of self and not-self. The self is God, and the not-self the matter of the Universe. All Hindu systems of philosophy posit these two ultimate principles. In the Samkhya it is purusha and prakrti ; in the Vedānta it is Īśwara and māyā ; in Vaishnavism it is Krishna and Radhā ; and in Shaivism it is Shiva and Shaktī. Māyā, Radhā and Shaktī are respectively the intellectual, the emotional and the volitional aspects of the same thing viz. prakrti. Krishna, Shiva and Īśwara too are one in essence.

At this point I would like to introduce the reader to the Vedic concept of Dimensions (Table 1 – Maya_Dimensions). This will be further developed in later chapters, however, the four poises given by R. fit in well with this picture. There does appear to be some confusion in the terminology in various texts and considering the verbal to written changes of this knowledge over the millennia minor distortions are bound to happen. The OBSERVER is shown as “Four Eyes” at four levels of our Consciousness. The higher dimensions unfold in this Consciousness as the “Four Poises” or as the Mind, Id, Ego and Super-ego.(The full size picture can be viewed by clicking on Table 1…..)Dimensions1

  1. māyā5 : as Concealment : Sir R. feels that the phenomenal things conceal “something more” which is behind them. He contends that our logical inquiry into the nature of reality is blocked because the manifested world hides the unity and harmony of the whole.

As the manifested world hides the real from the vision of mortals, it is said to be delusive in character. The world is not an illusion, though by regarding it as a mere mechanical determination of nature unrelated to God, we fail to perceive its Divine essence. It then becomes a source of delusion……God seems to be enveloped in the immense cloak of māyā. R. depicts the world as a source of delusion, not an illusion [8]. The world deludes, he generalizes, when the perceiver fails to perceive it as it really is – related to God. The implication is that the problem of māyā is inherent in the attitude of those who perceive, not in that which is perceived……The term illusion is generic; the term delusion is specific.