Mandukya Karika, verse 3.24

Sanskrit text, IAST transliteration and English translation

नेह नानेति चाऽऽम्नायादिन्द्रोमायाभिरित्यपि ।
अजायमानो बहुधा मायया जायते तु सः ॥ २४ ॥

neha nāneti cā''mnāyādindromāyābhirityapi |
ajāyamāno bahudhā māyayā jāyate tu saḥ || 24 ||

24. From such Scriptural passages as, “There is no multiplicity in Ātman”, “Indra through Māyā”, we know that the Ātman, though ever unborn, verily appears to have become many (only) through Māyā.

Shankara Bhashya (commentary)

It may be asked how the changelessness (Ajāti) of Ātman is the final conclusion of the Śruti. In reply it is said that if creation were real, then the existence of the variety of objects would be absolutely real. Consequently there ought not to be Scriptural texts implying their unreality. But there are such Scriptural texts as, “In this (Ātman) there is no multiplicity,” etc., which negate the existence of duality. Therefore creation (imaginary) has been imagined in order to help the understanding of the non-duality of Ātman. It¹ is like the story of Prāṇa. And this is further borne out by the use of the word, “Māyā” denoting unreality (in connection with creation) in such Scriptural texts as “Indra² through Māyā assumed diverse forms”.

(Objection)—The word denotes knowledge (Prajñā).

(Reply)—It is true, but sens e-knowledge is illusory. The word³ “Māyā” is used to denote that (sense-) knowledge. Hence there is no blemish (in such use of the word). The word “Māyābhiḥ” (through Māyā) in the Scriptural text means through sense-knowledge, which is illusory. For, the Scripture again says, “Though unborn he appears to be born in many ways.” Therefore Ātman passes into birth through Māyā alone. The word “Tu” (“verily”) in the text (of the Kārikā) denotes certainty, that is to say, it⁴ indicates that creation is possible only through Māyā or illusion and not in any real sense. For, birthlessness and birth in various forms cannot be predicated of the same object, as fire cannot be both hot and cold. Further, from such Śruti passages as “How can there be any delusion and any grief for him who sees unity,” etc., we know that the knowledge of the unity of Ātman is alone the conclusion of Śruti on account of the (good) result it brings to the knower. Again, the perception of differentiation implied by creation has been condemned in such Śruti passages as, “He goes from death to death (who sees here many)”.

Anandagiri Tika (glossary)

¹ It is, etc.—As the Śruti described the disputes of Prāṇa and the sense-organs in order to prove the superiority of the vital breath (Mukhya Prāṇa), so also creation has been described in order to help the understanding of the student to grasp the unity of Ātman. (See Karikā 3-15).

² Indra—The word is used here in the sense of the Supreme Lord.

³ The word, etc.—The word “Māyā” is sometimes used to denote empirical knowledge or the knowledge derived by the contact of the sense-organs with their objects. This knowledge does not indicate the Highest Consciousness or the knowledge of Reality. Hence creation through Māyā is necessarily illusory.

⁴ It, etc.—If one believes in creation then the only plausible explanation is that of the Vivartavāda and not any other theory such as Pariṇāmavāda.