vivekananda at BTINTERNET.COM
Sat Feb 20 11:44:06 CST 1999
From: Srinivas Sista <sista at ecn.purdue.edu>
To: vivekananda at btinternet.com <vivekananda at btinternet.com>
Date: 20 February 1999 15:43
Subject: Re: Maya
>> jay replies
>> Let me restate that the efforts Nandaji has put in by giving such sincere
>> and humble replies are truly appreciated.
>> The assertion made by Sri Nandaji and agreed by Sri Vyasji: -
>> The illustration about the "snake in the rope" DOES reflect the
>> between 'maya and brahman'
>> We re-examine the Absolute (parmartika) point of view. - Again the reply
>> simply says
>> 'the absolute just is' --- there is no snake , rope, illustration hence
>> validation about the above statement is possible.
>> We now re-examine the Relative (Vyahavarik as you call it) point of view.
>> The world in this state is talked about as becoming rather than being -
>> hence the problem and hence the solution call it 'illusion'- excellent!
>> But how about our statement made above - ''The snake in the rope DOES
>> reflect the relationship between maya and brahman?'' Can this statement
>> confirmed from the above? Is the snake being or becoming - is the rope
>> being or becoming? From my little knowledge I would say both are becoming
>> (changing - part of the relative world). Neither is being. So how can we
>> an illustration where we have:
>> becoming(snake) related to becoming(rope) = becoming(maya) related to
>> Becoming+becoming = Becoming+being ??
>> If this statement were ever proved to be true Vedanta would become a mere
>> subsection within what is called physical sciences.
>> So I am still at a loss on the assertion made by the two learned
>> ''The illustration of 'snake in the rope' DOES reflect the relationship
>> between maya and brahman.
>> Would any other learned list members like to help us out?
>> Vivekananda Centre London
Sri Srinivasji has kindly contributed to this theme as under
>The problem seems to be this:
>You are giving a status of 'becoming' to the rope too.
>Where as the illustration is meant to make you understand that the
>snake is the superimposition and the rope is the ever existent reality.
>You are including the rope into the relative world based on the
>theories of physical reality. The illustration does not permit that.
>The 'snake' is a result of the property of 'conceptual-projection'
>on the actual reality the 'rope'. The 'rope' here is not a projected
>On a global level, the entire creation, cosmos, beings, ..etc
>is all a conceptual-projection. So a question for investigation is,
>if all this is a conceptual-projection, what is the actual?
>The problem is, we look for an answer in the space of conceptual-projection
>again! So we have to be careful about the answers we come up with.
>Any answer we come up with is part of the conceptual space. So enjoy!
I am not sure if this message was meant to come directly to me or to go to
For the benefit of all I am posting the response back via the mail list.
Many thanks for your well thought out reaction. If I understand rightly you
that the example is supposed to give different valuations to the rope and to
the snake. (rope should be taken to be absolute like Brahman) - then the
equation would work out.
But then can you really make the assertion that:-
The 'snake in the rope' DOES illustrate the relationship between maya and
You have requalified your statement - the requalification is not trivial it
is a serious one.
Maybe other learned members will give us the benefit of their wisdom.
Vivekananda Centre London
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list