vivekananda at BTINTERNET.COM
Sun Feb 21 02:17:46 CST 1999
>> jay replies
>> Dear Srinivasji
>> I am not sure if this message was meant to come directly to me or to go =
>> to the list.
>> For the benefit of all I am posting the response back via the mail list.
>Sorry! I hit the reply and did not check the address.
>Thanks for posting it back to the list.
>> Many thanks for your well thought out reaction. If I understand rightly =
>> are saying
>> 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 =
>> equation would work out.
>> But then can you really make the assertion that:-
>> The 'snake in the rope' DOES illustrate the relationship between maya =
>Sure. Perhaps you feel that this illustration does not accurately represent
>the status of maya. Then you should give your reasons for feeling that way.
>The statement 'relationship between brahman and maya' should be considered
>carefully. I will give a loose example:
> A person imagines a picture. What is the relationship between
> the person and the imagined picture? What is the relationship
> the person and the power of imagination. Depending on which
> one is termed maya(picture or power to imagine), the answers
> In the former no relationship, in the latter it is not apart from
> the person.
>> You have requalified your statement - the requalification is not trivial
>> it is a serious one.
>I meant it to be serious. I hope you will continue enquiry until doubts
Thank you for your very valuable input Srinivasji.
let us get back to the main theme
'The snake in the rope DOES illustrate the relationship between maya and
You have kindly said that the rope should not be taken a a rope but as
Brahman and you have also kindly resent the message explaining that it is
like viewing a picture.
You view Brahman as you view the rope? Then brahman becomes a mere subject
of your imagination.
When I said the qualification is non trivial I meant if you replaced the
rope with say a string or a thread - that may be called a trivial
qualification and we can take that but this further qualification to the
concept of brahman as subject of the mind is worrying.
I also agree with you and take in your point that I have to continue to work
on this until the doubts in my mind are cleared.
Vivekananda Centre London
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
List archives : http://listserv.tamu.edu/archives/advaita-l.html
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list