Lucy Cornelssen, Hunting the 'I', #13

February 22, 2005

Excerpt from

chapter: The Snake in the Rope

book : Hunting the 'I'

author : Lucy Cornelssen

………………

The dominating Hindu-philosophy of today is the Advaita-Vedanta; and Ramana Maharshi is considered the most prominent figure representing this philosophy.

'A-dvaita' means 'not-two', the 'One without a second'. There is only One principle, Brahman, essence and substance of all and everything; diversity is merely appearance. Brahman as the ultimate nature of man is called Atman, the Self, merely for convenience's sake; Atman is Brahman. The world too is Brahman; to see it as the world of diversity is Maya, illusion.

The idea of Maya is the point where the antagonists of Advaita-Vedanta attack the system as showing inconsistency against its principle of A-dvaita, Maya being 'second' to account for diversity, which cannot be included in 'the One!'

Ramana Maharshi supported Sri Sankara and the Advaita-system:"The tantriks and others of the kind condemn Sri Sankara's philosopy as Maya-path without understanding him aright. What does he say?

He says: (1) Brahman is real; (2) The universe is a myth; (3) Brahman is the universe.He does not stop at the second statement but continues to supplement it with the third. What does it signify? The universe is conceived to be apart from Brahman, and that perception is wrong. The antagonists point to his illustration of 'the snake in the rope'. In dim light one can think a coiled rope to be a snake. This is unconditioned superimposition. After the truth of the rope is known, the illusion of the snake is removed once and for all.

But they should also take into account the conditioned superimposition, i.e., 'the water in the mirage'.

"The mirage does not disappear even after we know it to be a mirage. The vision is there, but the man does not run to it for water. Sri Sankara must be understood in the light of both these illustrations. The world is a myth. Even after knowing it, it continues to appear. It must be known to be Brahman and not apart." (Ramana)

………………..

But these explanations [ see Talks, 315 & Talks, 20 ] do not make Ramana Maharshi a philosopher. His Great Experience was not a result of a study of Advaita-philosophy, but the basic event which enabled him to confirm that great intuition of yore.

He simply states what he sees and that is the same as Sankara and the ancient Rishis had seen and which everybody will see who follows his Path up to the end. That behind the appearance of the forms is the true nature of the world as Brahman. However, all their explanation and deductions cannot prove their vision, as long as he who doubts cannot see what they see.And he cannot see it as long as both of them use different ways of perceiving. No logical philosophical demonstration can prove what the realized one sees: That the Self is not only his true nature, but also that of the world. And he perceives it as distinctly as 'a fruit on the palm of his hand'.

That was the reason, why Ramana Maharshi used to divert the conversation as soon as it was convenient, when it had turned to Maya. Actually the problem, Maya, is no problem at all, being no obstruction in the Path. When Suka, the son of the sage Vyasa, realized the Self, he did not believe either himself or his father, who confirmed his achievement, because he felt that he had not yet solved the riddle of the world as Maya. Thus his father sent him to Janaka, the royal sage. King Janaka put him to several tests, which the youthful Suka passed in the calm and composed way of a real sage. Accordingly King Janaka confirmed his Self-realisation. Suka remonstrated: 'But there is still the problem of Maya ...'

King Janaka smiled. "Drop it!"

The same moment Suka 'saw' that the Truth of the world was the same as his own Truth.

……………..

Take Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.