PDA

View Full Version : The real meaning of the word Mithya in Advaita VedAnta



devotee
31 October 2012, 11:49 PM
Namaste,

1. MithyA means "Unreal". I found a question being raised again and again by some people not well versed in Advaitic philosophy :

If this world is "unreal" then you too are unreal and this whole talk is unreal ... you don't exist etc. etc. Now that contradicts our understanding that if I don't exist then who is participating in the discussion, who is striving for liberation etc. etc.

So, what exactly does "MithyA" mean ? If I say that this world is MithyA, does it make the world non-existent ? Does it make births, deaths, bondage, liberation non-existent ? If that is so, what is the use of treading any path for liberation by one who is already non-existent ?

2. If there is really Non-duality ... how come multiplicity is there is the universe ? If there is really Only One, how come there is Brahman and Jiva, births and death, bondage and liberation ? What goes into birth after birth, if there is really Non-duality ?

*********

It is not that these issue have not been addressed before but I would like to keep all valuable ideas in one thread. So, I invite all members who are either Adavitins or who are not against Non-duality to participate in this thread and offer their valuable points.

I would request that people who are dualists should take care that this thread is not derailed and if required they participate only after this discussion has progressed to a significant extent. It is a difficult issue to understand and therefore trying not-to-understand will certainly ensure that one doesn't understand.

OM

wundermonk
01 November 2012, 12:34 AM
As I understand, "real" is what is unsublateable in the past, present and future. A dream is un"real" from the POV of the waking world because it is sublated on waking up. Likewise, our waking world is un"real" from the POV of Brahman-consciousness because on dawn of Jnana, the waking world is sublated.

Talk of "real" or un"real" needs to be done relative to a frame of reference.

Seeker123
01 November 2012, 01:13 PM
Namaste,

Good topic.

Real always exists independently. As an example it is said in the clay world Clay is real. What about the clay pot? Clay pot cannot exist independent of clay so clay pot cannot be real. Also in a matter of time clay pot is subject to destruction and it resolves to Clay. But clay pot is not unreal because we can touch it, feel it etc. So clay pot is just mithya, i.e. that which has name and form but no independent existence. So Mithya is neither real or unreal. If we replace clay with gold and clay pot with ornament we get another useful example.

If we look at the whole world everything is just name and form. If we keep digging into it we soon come to sub atomic particles then what? Vedanta states that there is one Sat (reality) for everything.

devotee
01 November 2012, 11:21 PM
Namaste WM and Seeker,

Very good answers from both of you ! Thanks.

Let's analyse what has been offered here and where we go from here :

WonderMonk offers :

i) Real is that which is not sublateable in the past, present in future : That means it remains unchanged (to be called what it was earlier with all attributes or the lack of it) irrespective of changes in time. That is quite logical as anything if changes into something else with passage of time, that thing can't be called Real.

ii) Second and very very important point that has been offered here that the words "real" and "unreal" should be used by taking due care of frame of reference from which we are speaking.

This appears to be quite logical and yet we mess up often by mixing the frame of references when drawing our inferences while discussing. I will elaborate on this part in detail later.

Seeker's explanation has much more clarity. He offers :

a) Reality exists independently ... that means almost similar to what WM offers in his first point but is a step ahead as it takes into account even other factors and not only time. So, irrespective of effects of various factors, the Reality must exist as It is.

b) A very important point has been offered here which hits the nail directly on its head : Mithya is neither Real nor Unreal (in fact, if the second point of WM is examined closely, it too says the same thing).

That is the most important point about the word "Mithya". How ? Sankaracharya says, "Brahman satyam jagan Mithya, Jeevo Brahmaiva naaparah". Now, here we cannot translate Mithya as non-existent ... if that is so, Jagat would become non-existent and that would make the Jeeva too non-existent. So, Sankaracharya then mean to say that "non-existent entity is actually existent" ... which becomes ridiculous !

Why does it become ridiculous ? Because :

a) We violate the frames of references --- From the absolute state Jagat is "unreal" a i.e. when you are not influenced by the state of Jagat ... but when one is within Jagat and perceiving something ... it is "real" within framework of Jagat.

b) We mistranslate the word Mithya as "Non-existent" when Mithya means that the thing being called Mithya is not actually what it appears

*****

All the matter within this world is made up of Protons, Neutrons and Electrons (let us assume that we are not going to break these particles further) ... in some matters some particles are more and some are less. In fact our body too, is made up of the same atomic particles i.e. the Protons, Neutrons and the electrons. Now, there are two things kept side by side one is Honey and other is Potassium Cyanide. What is the difference between between the two substances at sub-atomic levels ? : Nothing. Both are made up of the same substances. What are you actually getting by eating Honey or Potassium Cyanide ? Some amount of Protons, some amount of Neutrons and some amount of electrons. So, can one eat Potassium Cyanide in place of Honey ? No. Why ? Because from the framework of eating activity, you are not a heap of protons, neutrons and electrons alone but a human being and Potassium Cyanide is not just another heap of protons, neutrons and electrons but a poison for a human body.

In the above example, the three particles which remain unchanged during the process (let's assume that these three particles are unchanging during the processes we are discussing) so, these are "real" and the "Honey" or the "Potassium Cyanide" is Mithya from sub-atomic levels but at the same time, we cannot ignore the fact that eating, nutrition and poisoning activities are at gross level and not at sub-atomic levels, so when we are acting at gross level, it would be foolish to use the axiom of sub-atomic level.

OM

shiv.somashekhar
02 November 2012, 08:03 AM
Let us keep things simple.

Mithya = unreal.

This is how the word is used by Advaita (waking up from a dream, etc) and also by rival schools.

The confusion is only due to ignoring the Vyavaharika/Paramartika paradigm.

Nirguna
03 November 2012, 09:07 AM
Namaste to All,

As I understand it, it depends with what you compare Mithya.
It is seen as "unreal" only when you compare it to the Ultimate Reality-Brahman. But from our material dualistic, perspective the world is 100% real.
Since we are finite in thought, we cannot perceive the in-finite, so we see the world with dualities, as separate, etc.... But the Ultimate-Truth, everything is ONE, without dualities, without separation, so the world cannot be real.
When you realize yourself as the infinite Brahman, all dualities cease, there is no birth and death, since birth and death is under the influence of time, but in the Ultimate non dual reality, there is no influence of time, time is santana (eternal) there is no cause-effect, birth-death, light-dark, being-nonbeing, etc...
Ignorance is what causes multiplicity and duality, more knowledge also leads to more ignorance, that's why Advaita says that the goal is to realize yourself as the ONE, not to seek more knowledge.
The one who realized his/her nature as the absolute Brahman, the Atman (self) is free from all limits, dualities, bondage, birth, death, etc.... He becomes one with the Supreme, like a wave in the ocean.

---Nirguna

devotee
04 November 2012, 01:39 AM
Good post, Nirguna ! Welcome to the forum ! :)

OM

sanathan
05 November 2012, 11:29 PM
Explanations about "Mithya" are good and understandable..but the core point missed is "why sat which is satyam transformed into mithya world?" when the mithya jeeva state is not desirable.

Sorry but this is my opinion:

I don't think you people are trying to findout the TRUTH without prejudice , you have certain thoughts and trying to prove them without even looking into sruthi or logic.

devotee
07 November 2012, 03:35 AM
Explanations about "Mithya" are good and understandable..but the core point missed is "why sat which is satyam transformed into mithya world?" when the mithya jeeva state is not desirable.

Sorry but this is my opinion:

I don't think you people are trying to findout the TRUTH without prejudice , you have certain thoughts and trying to prove them without even looking into sruthi or logic.

Again in the fray ? I think you said that you were not interested in a discussion with me and I also stated that. If you are a "Know-all" person why discuss anything at all ? BTW, please note this :


the core point missed is "why sat which is satyam transformed into mithya world?

Why not answer some basic questions first, if all facts must have a valid "why" ?

a) Why does a certain wavelength of sun-light appear as blue and not red ?
b) Why men have two feet and not ten ?
c) Why women only give births to children and not men ?

etc.
etc.

Please don't answer ... think on your own as I don't want to discuss anything with you.

OM

Lokavidu
07 November 2012, 08:17 PM
mithyA literally means 'incorrectly' or 'false'
(http://www.advaita.org.uk/sanskrit/terms_mn.htm)

I got this story from Acharya Sadananda,
(http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/terror_sadananda.htm) :

"There is story in the yoga vAsiShTha: Rama, after listening to the advaita teaching which states that everything is mithyA, wanted to test vAsiShTha, his guru. As he was coming to the palace, he sent a wild elephant to chase vAsiShTha muni. Obviously, vAsiShTha ran away to avoid getting hurt. Rama then questioned him as to why he had run away, when the elephant was only mithyA. vAsiShTha answered that his running away was also mithyA."


so mithyA in Advaita Vedanta means neither real nor unreal

the world is not real since it always changes, the world is not un-real too since we can experience it.

so in the same order of reality, the world, you, me and animals are real.

Physicists know that gold, iron, clay are made from atom, there are no really difference in type of atom between gold, iron and clay, only their sub-atomic configuration are different so some become gold, iron or clay, but the physicists still have to pay different prices for each of them when he buy gold, iron or clay.

sanathan
07 November 2012, 08:54 PM
Why not answer some basic questions first, if all facts must have a valid "why" ?

a) Why does a certain wavelength of sun-light appear as blue and not red ?
b) Why men have two feet and not ten ?
c) Why women only give births to children and not men ?

etc.
etc.

Please don't answer ... think on your own as I don't want to discuss anything with you.

OM

In fact, every thing has an answer , otherwise..we are no more rationalists..don't you know all of the above have specific answers?
Everything in the world has a specific meaning and purpose of its own..

Why do you feel angry when I ask questions.

I just raised the concern on the explanation of mithya ..why and how does it occured if there is/was only ONE pure conciousness..it is as simple as that.

kallol
08 November 2012, 02:26 AM
The answers are already there.

Mithya is our universe and is a product of the limited senses & mind we have. Real is elusive most but only known to few.

Mithya is the temporary & apparent form of the real. Real is the base, substratum, the permanent and all pervading.

Mithya is correlated to Maya and Real to Brahman.

devotee
17 November 2012, 01:42 AM
In fact, every thing has an answer , otherwise..we are no more rationalists..don't you know all of the above have specific answers?
Everything in the world has a specific meaning and purpose of its own..
Sorry, didn't see your answer as I didn't expect one from you.

There is no "final" answer to any "why". You can only answer intermediate "why"s. However, I can see that you are unable to see as I do.

OM

mile83
17 November 2012, 01:53 PM
I like the analogy he uses with that cosmic play where everyone gets a life-script? Is that a Neo-Advaita idea?? I seriously don't know.

devotee
20 November 2012, 02:35 AM
I like the analogy he uses with that cosmic play where everyone gets a life-script? Is that a Neo-Advaita idea?? I seriously don't know.

I would say, "NO". It is a poetic way of saying the Truth ... that is all.

OM

brahman
24 November 2012, 03:06 AM
In fact, every thing has an answer , otherwise..we are no more rationalists..don't you know all of the above have specific answers?
Everything in the world has a specific meaning and purpose of its own..

Why do you feel angry when I ask questions.

I just raised the concern on the explanation of mithya ..why and how does it occured if there is/was only ONE pure conciousness..it is as simple as that..instead of trying to answer it in logical way or with the help of sruthi, you are trying to play emotional game. chill out! the way you are discussing is not suitable to your position.




Dear sanathan,


Totally endorse the sentiments expressed on this regard.

Then you wrote: everyTHING has an answer .

Again would like to stand up for this but with a minor clarification that the Absolute is not a THING as we think!!! In fact the truth is ineffable.

------------------------

Then,
if the truth is ineffable, why should we discuss these contrarily issues under the banner of Advaita is another questions of ever ending paradox.

Brahma Vidya is Sarva Vidya Parthishta as Mundaka Upanishad expounds it, vaguely reads ‘the science of the Absolute is the science of all sciences.

How can the science of all sciences be a like 80’s weather forecast of the All India Radio, it predicts very early in the morning ‘today it might or might not rain, today it might or might not storm beware’ Beware of what? The puzzle!!!

One holding mithya trapeze, another with dream trapeze in hand, how long do we dodge and play trapeze on ropes like this? Leaving one trapeze and holding on to the other when tired of another or to show a miracle!!!

Ultimately the blame goes to principal preachers like Sankara, etc. Every kind teacher of perennial wisdom was aiming largely at people’s peace of mind, solidarity and social fulfillment remains largely forgotten or unheard of.

Isn’t it hard time we start to speak in terms METHODOLOGICAL parlance putting this layman exegetics in the melting pot consciousness? Love:)

yajvan
24 November 2012, 05:49 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Excuse my late arrival on this topic... What little value I may add is more of specificity then of broad-base ideas, yet me thinks its germane to the conversation at large.


mithyā is derived (contracted) from the term mithūyā́ . We know that mithyā is the wife of a-dharma.


This mithyā is defined ( which is different then what it means) as:

invertedly , contrarily , incorrectly , wrongly , improperly
falsely , deceitfully , untruly
not in reality , only apparently Now, the application of the word to thinking and philosophy makes the meaning arise , and becomes the core for this overall conversation our esteemed HDF posters are debating and reviewing at large. For me, I will keep to the sidelines and see how this all unfolds.

Yet that said, within the purview of kaśmir śaivism we see the universe as the expansion ( non-difference) of śiva ( so say the āgama-s). The point is this... if this universe is ~unreal~ then it suggests that śiva also must have this same classification, and this does not meet the knowlege offerings that are within the śāstra-s.

praṇām

devotee
26 November 2012, 11:49 PM
Namaste Yajvan,


hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Excuse my late arrival on this topic... What little value I may add is more of specificity then of broad-base ideas, yet me thinks its germane to the conversation at large.


mithyā is derived (contracted) from the term mithūyā́ . We know that mithyā is the wife of a-dharma.


This mithyā is defined ( which is different then what it means) as:

invertedly , contrarily , incorrectly , wrongly , improperly
falsely , deceitfully , untruly
not in reality , only apparently Now, the application of the word to thinking and philosophy makes the meaning arise , and becomes the core for this overall conversation our esteemed HDF posters are debating and reviewing at large. For me, I will keep to the sidelines and see how this all unfolds.

Yet that said, within the purview of kaśmir śaivism we see the universe as the expansion ( non-difference) of śiva ( so say the āgama-s). The point is this... if this universe is ~unreal~ then it suggests that śiva also must have this same classification, and this does not meet the knowlege offerings that are within the śāstra-s.

praṇām

There can be two distinct views on Advaita :

a) The Self/Brahman/Shiva has become all this.
b) The Self/Brahman/Shiva has apparently become all this.

In a) there is transformation of Self/Brahman/Shiva which if accepted, tend to make original before-creation- Shiva/Self/Brahman Not-Shiva/Not-Self/Not-Brahman after creation. However, it has been refuted without a doubt that Brahman/Shiva/Self remains unchanged. If that is so, we have no option but to take shelter under Vivarta-vaad i.e. the it is all apparent which matches with Shruti.

Now, what of Shiva ? When we are talking from point of view of Kashmir Shaivism, we must see Shiva as Brahman Himself/Itself. If Shiva doesn't change before and after creation, then this whole creation must be MAyic alone. Now, why Kashmir Shaivism sees it as an expansion of Shiva ? In my opinion, in absence of Shiva there can't be any creation at all ... its existence draws its validity only upon presence of Shiva as the source. So, if seen in that way, it is all expansion of Shiva alone. But this expansion, in my humble opinion can be perceived only as apparent. Where would Shiva expand to ? That space has to be Shiva alone.

OM

brahman
26 November 2012, 11:49 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté




mithyā is derived (contracted) from the term mithūyā́ . We know that mithyā is the wife of a-dharma.


This mithyā is defined ( which is different then what it means) as:

invertedly , contrarily , incorrectly , wrongly , improperly
falsely , deceitfully , untruly
not in reality , only apparently Now, the application of the word to thinking and philosophy makes the meaning arise ,


Yet that said, within the purview of kaśmir śaivism we see the universe as the expansion ( non-difference) of śiva ( so say the āgama-s). The point is this... if this universe is ~unreal~ then it suggests that śiva also must have this same classification, and this does not meet the knowlege offerings that are within the śāstra-s.

praṇām






Dear Yajvan,

Vedanta sees Brahman as the ultimate reality, the word Brahman literally means “that which is on the constant process of growth” or “that which is all-inclusive” is also significant.

Hence the upadana(the material) of the world remains Brahman itself.

Now we see it in the light of a classical example in Vedanta that is the ‘pot and the clay’

In the case of clay shapes, clay remains the material forming it.

In order to separate out various shapes and to communicate to others, we formulate names for each shape as pot, cup, vessel, vase etc.

The existence of the clay is irrefutable, we see it, and we experience it, it is not unreal. What unreal in the current situation is the ‘names and forms’ assumed out of the clay material.

This unreality is of an epistemological one. Not ontological.

Ontologically ‘clay’ alone exists, epistemologically ‘pot’ exits.

This stand of Vedanta is known as Sat-karana vada( the theory that cause alone is real).

The causal substance in the case of this apparent world is Brahman, thus Brahman alone has real existence; all that appears as the world is nothing but various apparent names forms superimposed on Brahman.

What mithyā is the ‘names and forms’, not Brahman is thus made clear.


I guess this meets the ideas offered in the Sastras too.

Vednata uses the terminology Brahman, the terminology of the ‘principal Upanishads’ where KS make use of the word Siva from its agama pramanas.




http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SdYXxCHRMaY/ULRT765TngI/AAAAAAAABBc/9k_r3_nMOzQ/s1600/Untitled-1.jpg

---------
Note for others: A clear understanding of what cause is and what effect is warranted in order to perceive the idea in full strength for contemplation.
---------
Love:)

markandeya 108 dasa
21 July 2018, 01:40 PM
Namaste,

Rather than start a new thread i thought maybe it would help provide some background the to the word mithya and bring forward some other views for further reflection, as this is just an entry for consideration and to help with mindfulness Satipaá¹­á¹­hÄna. and supportive practices.

Satipaá¹­á¹­hÄna is a compound term that has been parsed (and thus translated) in two ways, namely Sati-paá¹­á¹­hÄna and Sati-upaá¹­á¹­hÄna. The separate terms can be translated as follows:


Sati - Pali; Sanskrit smá¹›ti (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smriti). Smá¹›ti originally meant "to remember," "to recollect," "to bear in mind," as in the Vedic tradition of remembering the sacred texts. The term sati also means "to remember." In the SatipațțhÄna-sutta the term sati means to remember the wholesome dhammÄs, whereby the true nature of phenomena can be seen,[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satipatthana#cite_note-FOOTNOTESharf2014942-3) such as the five faculties (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indriya), the five powers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Strengths), the seven awakening-factors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Factors_of_Enlightenment), the Noble Eightfold Path (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path), and the attainment of insight (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-sectarian_Buddhism#Insight).[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satipatthana#cite_note-FOOTNOTESharf2014942-943-4)
Upaá¹­á¹­hÄna (Sanskrit: upasthÄna) - "attendance, waiting on, looking after, service, care, ministering"[web 1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satipatthana#cite_note-PTS-Upa%E1%B9%AD%E1%B9%ADh%C4%81na-5)
Paá¹­á¹­hÄna - "setting forth, putting forward;" in later Buddhist literature also "origin," "starting point," "cause
Wikipedia ( not my favourite but can be useful as a starting point for further research, but offers something valid here)

wholesome dhammÄs~ Wisdom state, prasade unified state of shiva shakti





I will try to keep this short as possible. sati in pali is remembrance through awareness and same as smá¹›ti (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smriti) in sanskirt , I know it has meaning in the way that Vedic Shastras are complied, but for the sake of this I am only using smá¹›ti (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smriti) as waking up, or remembering our natural state of awareness, from this state even if one has never read Vedic texts or cannot understand Sanskrit the two will be the same in essence. Then as one developes sati~smá¹›ti (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smriti) the texts and experience of life perfectly compliment each other and help with brahma jnana, expansion of our original consciousness.



Sub note

Sati-paá¹­á¹­hÄna and Sati-upaá¹­á¹­hÄna, at some point i would like to explore more in language and communication at another time, as there are two forms of mindfullness and strike at the heart of the teachings, one form of awareness in dharma is dealing with mind and external senses and the other form of mindfulness is supra~mental or para~transcendent. TBC


Back to Mithya ( hopefully to aid in removing it ) .....


mithya as I am understanding at the moment is related to false perception or imposition on the mind. As in the previous comments mithya is sometimes known as unreal or an illusion, then it gets applied to all things. More often to the world that we live in.

If we say the world is an illusion then it causes all sorts of problems because we know that experience in this world is not an illusion, our idea of the world or our view of the world maybe an illusion but we exist and the world is very real, the illusion is somewhere in our consciousness, perception of mind which ever one of these words we wish to choose, a thorn in the Third eye, dharma chaksu.

The word world is usually taken from the sanskrit loka, but as I understand from the texts and with some experience that loka doesnt mean the planet earth, so loka is not the world as a planet, but as an abode or quality of our state of being, I dont know sanskrit very well but am prepared to make a bold enough claim that all the sanskrit words reflect a state of consciousness, state being used in a loose way to refer to a quality of consciousness. And the outside world is not spoken about very much, for this we have secular educations, empirical sciences/knowedges, gross knowledges. Not that it dismisses the outside but deals specifically with consciousness, which then effects the outside world, so in a indirect way its included.

Consciousness is divided into 4 parts as per Vedanta

Jagrat sense consciousness
Svapna mind consciousness
Sushupti consciousness without mind or sense consciousness
Turiya Unchanging Ultimate Consciousness

This same structure is given in Bhagavad Gita

Chapter 3: Karma-yoga


TEXT 42
indriyani parany ahur
indriyebhyah param manah
manasas tu para buddhir
yo buddheh paratas tu sah

SYNONYMS
indriyani—senses; parani—superior; ahuh—is said; indriyebhyah—more than the senses; param—superior; manah—the mind; manasah—more than the mind; tu—also; para—superior; buddhih—intelligence; yah—one which; buddheh—more than the intelligence; paratah—superior; tu—but; sah—he.


TRANSLATION
The working senses are superior to dull matter; mind is higher than the senses; intelligence is still higher than the mind; and Shiva is even higher than the intelligence.

Indriyas~ senses
manah~ mind
Buddhi~Prajna
Sah~Turiya



Vedanta or Dharma vidyas or sciences start from senses consciousness and then refines, not goes more gross into the outside world.

Lokas~abodes are related to the first 3 states or spheres, so world loka is better understood ( at least for me, at this time ) as a state of our own personal awareness, which can either be in sense consciousness, mind consciousness or without sense and mind consciousness. 3 three conscious statesare not permanent states and depend on certain conditions or not lasting as permanent abodes, not permanent means they are shifting realities, simple awareness can understand this, we have many states of mind through the day, happy, sad, feel heat or cold and so on in so many varieties, its normal part of life, what the dharmas margs path of truths try to teach us is not be attached or disturbed.

within these 3 states there are many varieties

Mind and sense consciousness are related and work together in the same dynamic, when mind goes outwards it develops senses and seeks contacts to the objects of the senses. When mind turns inwards the senses are not seeking outward stimulation but is absorbing inwardly. This will be another subject which then deals with early stages and experiences of Dhyana and more subtle and refined aspects of the inward sense loka abode of consciousness.


Maya gets translated as illusion, ma meaning to measure and ya appearance, maya is not illusion, it just appears to be an illusion, and again as I am knitting this together is related to mana or lower quality of mind devoid of Buddhi or wisdom, when Buddhi comes into mind we wake up and we actually see that maya is actually mahamaya, the outside world didnt change our loka our consciousness state changed, because when we get glimpses nothing really changes outside, the world is the same, same body, same circumstances same everything yet the imposition on the mind mithya has been removed. We still live on the same planet, eat and drink and everything is still normal but the lokas, abode or quality of consciousness has shifted into something more para~transcendent, we have left a lower lokas behind, left a world behind, but remain in the same world, same sun will come up next say and so on.

Mithya sees and experiences birth and death, when in reality there is not birth and death as a finality, there are just changes in appearances maya is changing appearances, the measurement of maya just means there is causation, phenomenon movement is based on causation, the mixing of the elements which starts in the subtle, they can be measured to come degree but are beyond all measurements as the external world or all phenomenon is an eternal realm or continuous realm of cause and effects samasra included in samsara the cycle is nirvana.

To conclude for now with a simple example

4 people are standing in the same field and it is raining and they are becoming drenched

One will be in sense consciousness
One will be in mind consciousness
One will be in wisdom consciousness
One will be in original consciosness

they are all standing in the same field getting drenched by the rain, but all will experience the same situation differently.

the field and standing in the field and getting drenched in the rain is not an illusion only to see the whole reality of that of that experience maybe covered by mithya a a false impediment veil in perception