The Difference Between Māyā, Śakti, and Prakṛti
By editor - 30.4 2024
Table of Contents
1 Illustration Through an Example
2 Illustration Through a Buddha Story
3 Layering of Māyā, Śakti, and Prakṛti
4 The Origin of Māyā in Spiritual Reality
5 Distinction of Two Kinds of Māyā
6 Impersonalist Misrepresentations
7 Distinction Between Puruṣa and Śakti
8 Three Components of Experience
Illustration Through an Example
The Vedic texts employ three terms—Māyā, Prakṛti, and Śakti—to describe material nature. They are often used interchangeably although they are not identical. They are also not completely separable. In this article, I will discuss the differences between these three terms and their respective functions. I will begin with an example, and identify different features of our experience. I will call these features Māyā, Prakṛti, and Śakti, without an explanation. However, as we progress, I will explain each of them.
Let’s begin with an example. Suppose that I am hit by another person. I feel pain in my body. But this is not all. Additionally, my ego is also hurt. I feel angry and upset. However, if the situation is inappropriate or not conducive to a response, I might control my anger with my willpower and not react to the attack.
In this situation, the pain in the body is Prakṛti, my feeling of anger and hurt is Māyā, and my willpower to control my anger is Śakti. The three are not identical because (a) I might feel pain and yet it is possible that my ego may not be hurt, and (b) I might feel pain and my ego may be hurt but I might still try to control the anger. In the first case, there is a difference between Prakṛti and Māyā; in the second case, there is a difference between Māyā and Śakti. However, this distinction is not always seen. Typically, the moment I am hit, I get angry and respond aggressively. Then, Prakṛti controls Māyā which controls Śakti.
This mutual triggering of Māyā, Prakṛti, and Śakti can also be seen in the person who attacks me. He may be upset or angry, which is Māyā. He may not be able to control his anger with his willpower, which is Śakti. The absence of control may result in him hitting me with his hands, which is Prakṛti. In this case, Māyā controls Śakti, which controls Prakṛti. Each of the three can be controllers and controlled. In each case, there is a specific sequence to the cause-effect relationship. Hence, we cannot say that there is always one cause and one effect. We also cannot mutually separate Māyā, Prakṛti, and Śakti.
Illustration Through a Buddha Story
There is a famous Buddha story about two arrows. A man approaches Buddha and asks Him about the cause of pain and suffering. Buddha tells him: The pain is inescapable but the suffering is avoidable. Buddha gives the example of being hit by an arrow, which results in pain. But as a result, the person hit by the arrow is again hit by a second arrow—the piercing of his ego. The second arrow, according to Buddha, is optional. The first arrow is probably inescapable. Buddha teaches the person to distinguish between pain and suffering and understand that the suffering is completely within his control.
When someone hits me, the pain is unavoidable as it is created in Prakṛti. However, if my ego is not hurt, then I will not feel angry, humiliated, or disrespected. I won’t have to think about how to react. The pain of being hit will subside in a moment. The whole thing will be over in a few seconds. Conversely, if my ego is hurt due to being hit, then I will carry the anger, humiliation, and hurt for a long time. If I respond, I might dramatically escalate the situation, which may then lead to more problems. All this will probably elongate not just my pain but also my suffering. However, this elongated suffering was avoidable.
Layering of Māyā, Śakti, and Prakṛti
This distinction depends on Māyā, Prakṛti, and Śakti. Māyā is the deepest layer of covering on the ātmā. It makes the ātmā feel inadequate, incomplete, insufficient, and inferior. The net effect of Māyā on the self is the feeling that “I am not”. The feeling is caused by the absence of wealth, power, influence, beauty, knowledge, or freedom, which is Prakṛti. However, the feeling of inadequacy, incompleteness, insufficiency, and inferiority is Māyā. One can be poor, weak, ignorant, ugly, unknown, and bound and yet not feel inferior. One may have wealth, power, influence, beauty, knowledge, and freedom and yet feel inferior. The presence or absence of inferiority is neither fully determined by nor fully independent of the attributes of superiority. Then, even if a person feels inferior, he may not have the endurance, willpower, and resilience to pursue the attributes that will restore his inferiority to superiority.
The typical situation for everyone is that the sense of inferiority creates anger in a person. He cannot stand the absence of self-worth. He wants to restore his pride. He gathers willpower, resilience, and courage to acquire the attributes that will restore his sense of pride and self-worth. However, if he is unable to muster that courage, willpower, and resilience to acquire the attributes that will restore his sense of self-worth, then he falls into even deeper self-loathing and sense of personal inferiority. A person who has tried to restore his self-worth and failed, becomes nihilistic or suicidal. He is a nihilist if he thinks that nobody can do anything. He is suicidal if he thinks that only he cannot do anything.
Based on the distinction between Māyā, Prakṛti, and Śakti, there are different paths of upliftment in the Vedic texts. Those who want to go enjoy a better material life, try to change their Prakṛti; they get better bodies, go to a better place in the universe, and enjoy heavenly pleasures. Better than them are yogis who try to develop willpower, resilience, and endurance through austerities; they pursue Śakti. But even better than them are devotees who try to overcome their sense of inferiority by devotion to Bhagavān; they conquer Māyā because they are happy serving Bhagavān even in a weak and helpless condition.
The Origin of Māyā in Spiritual Reality
By definition, Bhagavān is the completeness of knowledge, beauty, independence, fame, wealth, and power. In contrast, the ātmā has properties of Bhagavān in miniscule. When the ātmā feels jealous of Bhagavān, it is trapped in Māyā, which is the sense of inferiority, incompleteness, inadequacy, and insufficiency. The material existence begins if an ātmā feels inferior compared to Bhagavān. This feeling gives birth to the desire to become equal to Bhagavān. The ātmā enters an imaginary competition with Bhagavān, trying to prove to himself, that he is no less than Bhagavān. Since this competition is imaginary, therefore, Māyā is also called delusion. The desire can never be fulfilled permanently.
Māyā is described in many ways. One, it is the sense of inferiority. Two, it is jealousy. Three, it is the lust for greatness. Four, it is the anger at one’s perceived smallness. Five, it is the delusion that one can become equal to Bhagavān. Six, it is the goal to become Bhagavān. Seven, it is the false belief that the goal is about to be achieved. Eight, it is the false belief that one has already become Bhagavān.
To simplify these descriptions, we can summarize Māyā as the inner conflict between inferiority and superiority. The perceived inferiority of the self gives rise to the desire to attain superiority. This desire is occasionally, temporarily, and partially fulfilled giving rise to the hope that it will be fulfilled completely. Then the hopes are dashed and the person returns to the feeling of inferiority, angry at the perceived smallness, lusting for greatness, imagining that greatness is within reach, and endeavoring to get it again, only to be frustrated repeatedly. Under the influence of Māyā, a person is caught in the inner battle between contradictory pictures of the self—Am I great or am I worthless? He cannot accept that he is worthless and he cannot get the greatness of Bhagavān. He lives continuously in inner conflict.
There is only one solution to the problem of Māyā—become devoted to Bhagavān, just like a part of a body serves the whole. The part cannot become whole. But the part need not feel inferior to the whole, and enter into a competition with the whole. Only devotees of Bhagavān conquer Māyā. Everyone else keeps imagining that they are going to become great or that they have already become great.
Distinction of Two Kinds of Māyā
Bhagavān is greatness. Those who think that greatness doesn’t exist are either nihilists or suicidal. However, those who want to become that greatness are also hopeless fools. The devotees of Bhagavān are neither of these. They partake in Bhagavān’s greatness by expanding it, for His glory, and His happiness. Bhagavān gives them His greatness and expands that greatness by which they do greater and greater things. But there is no competition between Bhagavān and His devotees. The devotee’s qualities of greatness and the resulting actions are simply to expand the glory and happiness of Bhagavān. If a devotee cannot expand Bhagavān’s glories for His happiness, he feels unhappy, but not for himself. He does not get the feeling of inferiority, the desire to acquire superiority, or the desire for competition with Bhagavān. The devotee just feels inadequate that he has not succeeded in expanding the glories of Bhagavān for His happiness.
Hence, Māyā is also divided into two parts—Mahā-Māyā and Yoga-Māyā. The devotees of Bhagavān always feel inadequate that they haven’t adequately expanded the glory of Bhagavān for His pleasure. Since this expansion is potentially infinite, therefore, every finite expansion of Bhagavān’s glories seems inadequate. The competitors of Bhagavān feel inadequate that they are not yet on par with Bhagavān. In both cases, there is a sense of inadequacy, incompleteness, insufficiency, and inferiority. But Mahā-Māyā is nihilistic, suicidal, and depressing. However, Yoga-Māyā is enlivening, hopeful, and exciting. A devotee feels that even as he has not done enough to expand the glories of Bhagavān for His pleasure, even as his life has been totally wasted, there is no loss of hope or enthusiasm because Bhagavān is already great.
Hence, Mahā-Māyā can also be characterized as false ego and its refutation—I am not great, I try to become great, I fail, and I get depressed. However, Yoga-Māyā is the true ego, and its affirmation—Bhagavān is great, I try to expand His greatness, I don’t feel I have done nearly enough, but I remain grateful for the opportunity and excited about the future prospects.
Once Māyā is understood, then Prakṛti and Śakti are easy to understand. Prakṛti is just Bhagavān’s greatness. Śakti is the willpower to increase this greatness. When a person comes under the influence of inferiority, he tries to acquire Bhagavān’s greatness for himself, fails in the endeavor, becomes depressed, and loses the willpower to try again. Of course, Mahā-Māyā doesn’t allow a person to rest in peace; a person is repeatedly triggered into feelings of inferiority, anger to conquer that inferiority, and struggle to establish superiority, which fails and takes a person back to depression, and then again anger.
Impersonalist Misrepresentations
Impersonalists don’t know the difference between the two kinds of Māyā. They think that any feeling of inadequacy, incompleteness, insufficiency, and inferiority is bad. They try to convince themselves that they are eternally and perpetually great. This conviction is not long-lasting because it is the continuation of the same mindset of trying to prove one’s greatness under the influence of Mahā-Māyā. Generally, people suffering from a deep-seated sense of inferiority take to impersonalism to quickly and cheaply elevate themselves to the highest status of greatness. However, it is a short-lived delusion. It temporarily ends the cyclical attempts to prove one’s superiority and failure in those attempts. But it doesn’t make one Bhagavān. Eventually, the impersonalist falls from his self-appointed delusional state of greatness into the grip of Mahā-Māyā.
We cannot be eternal happy trying to prove our greatness or giving up the attempt to establish greatness by assuming that we are already great. Eternal happiness is expanding Bhagavān’s greatness. The eternal truth is not cyclical change or static finality. The eternal truth is continuous and endless expansion.
Impersonalists also confuse Māyā and Prakṛti to say that the world is an illusion. The fact is the opposite. The world is real but we are illusioned into thinking that this world is meant for proving our greatness when the world is Bhagavān’s greatness meant for expanding His greatness. Thereby, the impersonalist tries to renounce the world but the devotees don’t. The devotees talk about renouncing the illusion that the world is meant to establish our greatness. But that is not renouncing the world. It is engaging the world in expanding Bhagavān’s greatness. Hence, the devotees don’t make a stark distinction between the material and spiritual worlds because both worlds can be used to expand Bhagavān’s greatness. The impersonalist desires liberation from the world. The devotee is happy even in the material world if he gets the opportunity to expand Bhagavān’s greatness and therefore doesn’t aspire for liberation.
The distinction between matter and spirit is stark for the impersonalist because he contrasts them as illusion and truth. However, if this world was completely an illusion, then even talking about liberation from this world would be an illusion. However, if the world is meant for expanding Bhagavān’s greatness, then the world is not an illusion although the attempt to establish one’s greatness is an illusion.
Distinction Between Puruṣa and Śakti
Each person is capable of infinite Śakti, which means willpower, although, under the control of Mahā-Māyā, this Śakti is missing. We might ask: What is willpower and how does it differ from free will? Willpower is the ability to fix our awareness on something; free will is the ability to choose what to fix our awareness on. The capacity for free will is called Puruṣa and the willpower of that person is called their Śakti. Every Puruṣa doesn’t have Śakti, which means that even if they want something, they don’t have the power to focus. They try a little, are troubled by the difficulty, and succumb to their weakness for convenience. Therefore, Śakti is acquired by austerity, which means tolerating difficulties against convenience.
Under the influence of Mahā-Māyā, Śakti is occasionally activated (when we are angry or lusty) and then deactivated (when we are discouraged and depressed). Thus, Śakti is controlled by Māyā. Willpower is not always constant. It comes and goes, rises and falls, depending on our current emotional state.
However, a devotee’s Śakti is never deactivated because he never becomes hopeless, provided he has become free of Māyā. Even if he doesn’t get success—i.e., Prakṛti (knowledge, beauty, independence, fame, power, and wealth)—he remains willful due to his inner excitement arising from devotion to Bhagavān. Bhagavān gives the devotee Prakṛti to fulfill his desire to expand Bhagavān’s greatness and glory. Bhagavān gives the devotee the Śakti to persist on a difficult path. If a devotee is eager to expand Bhagavān’s glories, then Bhagavān is eager to expand a devotee’s glories. If a devotee is eager to serve Bhagavān, then Bhagavān is eager to serve the devotee.
Three Components of Experience
The tripartite distinction between Māyā, Prakṛti, and Śakti helps us understand, explain, and predict experiences. Hence, this distinction is experientially confirmed. Māyā is the innermost reality, Śakti is the intermediate reality, and Prakṛti is the outermost reality. Therefore, by and large, Māyā controls Śakti, which controls Prakṛti. However, in some extraordinary cases, each of the three can cause the other two. By a good emotional state, we can get willpower and then results. By willpower, we can get a good emotional state and then results. By results, we can get a good emotional state and then willpower.
Each of the three can be cause or effect, although typically there is a hierarchy from Māyā to Śakti to Prakṛti. All three must be combined to produce experience. There is no experience if these three are separated. These three are also three aspects of a person. Hence, they are three, and yet, they are one.
Different Vedic texts place greater emphasis on one of the three because (a) each of the three is immensely complex, and (b) each of the three can be the cause or effect. Generally, Vaiṣṇava texts emphasize Prakṛti, Shakta texts emphasize Śakti, and Shaiva texts emphasize Māyā. However, no text neglects any of the three completely. In former times, Brahmanas studied the Veda as a whole. If they were not experts in everything, they consulted those who were experts in other subject matters. Different schools of Veda were neither exclusive nor contradictory. Exclusivism and contradictions have been created in the last few centuries because all the schools declined, each school wants to prove its supremacy over others, and they neither have the capacity nor inclination to understand others.
Through such neglect, however, we lose the capacity to reconcile different portions of Veda and fail to understand, explain, and predict our own conscious experience. The simplification of philosophy doesn’t simplify reality. Simplification only makes reality incomprehensible. Conflicting schools with conflicting claims confuse a sincere student of Veda. Ultimately, under that confusion, the person gives up trying to understand reality. Therefore, the combined understanding is not just in the interest of Veda but also of each student of Veda. If the combination is neglected, then the whole is rejected. That is because the three aspects of reality are inseparable. They are not just three things; they are also one thing.