Māyā
ātma-māyām ṛte rājan
ātma-māyām ṛte rājan parasyānubhavātmanaḥ |
na ghaṭetārtha-sambandhaḥ svapna-draṣṭur ivāñjasā ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 2.9.1)
[Śukadeva to Parīkṣit:] “Without the māyā of the Self, O King, a relationship of that which is distinct [from material objects] and constituted of consciousness with [material] objects does not actually occur, as [no relationship] of the seer of a dream [with objects in a dream actually occurs].”
doṣa-mūlaṁ hi jīvasya parama-tattva-jñānābhāva eva
doṣa-mūlaṁ hi jīvasya parama-tattva-jñānābhāva evety uktam—‘bhayaṁ dvitīyābhiniveśataḥ syāt’ ity ādau, ‘īśād apetasya’ ity-ādibhiḥ | atas taj-jñānam eva śuddhatvam … |
(Prīti Sandarbha: 1)
“The root of the jīva’s deficiency (doṣa) is only the absence of awareness of the Supreme Entity (Parama-tattva), as stated by [the phrase], ‘For one who is averse to the Lord’ (Īśād apetasya) in [the verse] bhayaṁ dvitīyābhiniveśataḥ syād … [i.e., SB 11.2.37]. Therefore, only awareness of him [i.e., the Supreme Entity] is purity.”
bahu-rūpa ivābhāti
bahu-rūpa ivābhāti māyayā bahu-rūpayā |
ramamāṇo guṇeṣv asyā mamāham iti manyate ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 2.9.2)
“The ātmā [i.e., “self”] appears as if to be of many [different] forms [i.e., those of a child, an elder, etc., and those of a human, a deva, an animal, etc.] through māyā, which is of many [different] forms, and, enjoying amid its [i.e., māyā’s] guṇas [i.e., within various bodies, etc.], thinks of ‘my’ and ‘I’ [i.e., identifies with these forms fabricated by māyā].”
yadaivam etena viveka-hetinā
yadaivam etena viveka-hetinā
māyāmayāhaṅkaraṇātma-bandhanam |
chittvācyutātmānubhavo’vatiṣṭhate
tam āhur ātyantikam aṅga samplavam ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 12.4.34; cited in Paramātma Sandarbha: 84)
“O King! When in this way the ātma’s [i.e., the self’s] bondage—the notion of ‘I’ constituted of māyā—is cut away with the sword of discernment and one is situated in unwavering experience of the Ātmā, then that is called absolute dissolution [i.e., mukti].”