of the word; and in the latter the word is given as one of the equivalents of avyakta in Katha 3. 11. In this latter passage we also have the adjective मायामय where the word maya retains its usual sense of illusion. It reads thus:-- "अविद्यात्मिका हि बीजशक्तिरव्यक्तशब्दनिर्देश्या परमेश्वराश्रया मायामयी महासुप्तिर्यस्यां स्वरूपप्रतिबोधरहिताः शेरते संसारिणो जीवाः ।" When however, we come down a few centuries to the time of Sayana we find maya used very differently; and, in his Panchadasi I. 14–17, it is regarded as the associate of Isvara, whilst avidya is that of Jiva. This view now prevails everywhere and would seem to have been in Dr.Thibaut's mind when he wrote the above.
III.
As already pointed out, the Mayavadins insist upon the unreality of all phenomena, and even of God and individual souls as distinct entities, Brahma being the only existent thing. On account, however, of the apparent separate existence of deity and humanity, writers of this school employ the epithets para, mukhya, and nirguna to designate pure unassociated Brahma, and apara, amukhya and saguna to distinguish that portion of Brahma which, through association with avidya, is looked upon as God. The latter is also called paramatman and paramesvara. This distinction is not recognized by Ramanuja who seems to have based his system on the teaching of schoolmen older than Sankara; and the extraordinary way in which even Sankara again and again ignores the distinction propounded by himself is an additional proof, to my mind, that his system was a departure from the then-existing one from which he found it difficult to free himself. Let me demonstrate this by examples. In 1. 1. 11, 1. 2. 14, and 4. 3. 14, we read as follows:-- "द्विरूपं हि ब्रह्मावगम्यते नामरूपविकारभेदोपाधिविशिष्टं तद्विपरीतं च सर्वोपाधिविवर्जितम् । ………… एवमेकमपि ब्रह्मापेक्षितोपाधिसम्बन्धं निरस्तोपाधिसम्बन्धं चोपास्यत्वेन ज्ञेयत्वेन च वेदान्तेषूपदिश्यते" । "निर्गुणमपि सद्ब्रह्म नामरूपगतैर्गुणैः सगुणमुपासनार्थं तत्र तत्रोपदिश्यते" । "तत्र
