Purnamadah Purnamidam ....Snake and Rope

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> Namaste Shri Maniji,

>

> advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani> wrote:

> >

> > Namaste, All

> >

> > 2) A SNAKE WAS SEEN EARLIER OR SNAKE-KNOWLEDGE/MEMORY WAS

THERE

> FOR ONE TO SUPERIMPOSE A SNAKE ON A ROPE DUE TO IGNORANCE. IS

THERE A

> WORLD SEEN EARLIER OR THAT WORLD-KNOWLEDGE/MEMORY ON THE PART OF

THE

> SUPERIMPOSER WHO SUPERIMPOOSES THE WORLD ON BRAHMAN? IF SO, WHAT

WAS

> THAT WORLD, WAS IT ALSO A SUPERIMPOSITION ON BRAHMAN AT THAT TIME?

> >

> > My above questions are based on the pre-requisites for a

> superimposition to take place, i.e. (1) superimposer (a sentient

> entity), (2) ignorance on the part of that entity (3) an object on

> which superimposition is made (4) memory of an object seen earlier

at

> some other place/some other time so that, that object is

superimposed

> on the object on which superimposition is made. The object seen

> earlier must have some attributes similar to the attributes of the

> object appearing before one and on which superimposition is made.

For

> example, a pot is not superimposed on a rope, it can be a snake or

a

> stick or a garland, i.e. there must be similarities in the

attributes

> of both superimposed and on which superimposition is made, say

just

> like rope and snake.

> >

> > THESE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN OCCUPYING MY MIND FOR A LONG TIME.

> >

> > I HOPE OUR LEARNED MEMBERS CAN HELP.

> >

> > WITH WARM REGRDS AND HARI OM

>

>

>

> This is a very very very deep question. I've been thinking on it

for

> the last two months, and though I have a vague feel of something,

I

> haven't a firm grasp on it. Like you, I would welcome comments on

the

> topic from our learned members.

>

> Regards,

> Chittaranjan

 

Namaste!

 

I agree this is a deep question, but I sense a danger of carrying

the analogy too far, too literally. Sure, someone who has never seen

a snake will not mistake a rope for a snake.

 

To me, the analogy conveys the idea that there is a deeper reality

behind all we perceive and we do not recognize that reality.

Instead, we go about naming, classifying and evaluating the things

we see.

 

If I were to take a different analogy, say sound (vibrations) and

music, and try this principle - everything that is heard is

vibrations but we take it to be different melodies, and other

sounds. We fail to recognize the reality which is just vibration.

Instead, we talk in terms of good music, cacophonous noise, and so

on. We name the melodies as this raga or that, carnatic or rock or

jazz. Now if someone composes an original tune then how do we

recognize that to be a new melody? Where was the memory of the tune

till then? Yet the potentiality for all new tunes is already there

in vibrations.

 

I hope I am making sense. The only point I want to make is that

analogies have limitations and need not be analyzed beyond that.

 

Just my limited understanding. I hope to hear more from others and

learn.

 

Harih Om!

Neelakantan

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Neelakantan" <pneelaka@s...> wrote:

> advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

> <chittaranjan_naik> wrote:The only point I want to make is

that

> analogies have limitations and need not be analyzed beyond that.

 

 

Namaste,

 

I agree with Neelakanthanji.

 

These two references may be worth studying for the

understanding of adhyasa :

 

advaitinBrahmasuutra%20Notes/

 

(5 files on adhyasa ; notes by K.Sadananda)

 

http://www.thedivinelifesociety.org/download/vedbegin.htm

 

(Sw. Sivananda - Vedanta for Beginners; lists

numerous 'analogies' as approximations to understand the relationship

between the manifest world and unmanifest reality.)

 

Regards,

 

Sunder