Lucy Cornelssen - The Snake in The Rope

[Guest guest]

THE SNAKE IN THE ROPE

 

In modern civilization man is no longer at the centre

as Man; he is brought up to be a useful tool serving the

process of production. To further this purpose his training is

aimed at an intense development of his intellect. There would

be nothing to object to in this process if the intellect would

be kept within the limits of its own sphere. The realm of

theoretical knowledge only so far as it is leading to practical

application. That may include scientific thought, but it is a

poor and even dangerous guide in question of the hidden

truth of Man, World and God, which are to be discovered

only by faculties far subtler than those of the biologically

reacting mechanism of the brain. Still the human mind has

also tried to usurp this higher dimension for itself; the various

systems of philosophy are the results.

 

The dominating Hindu-philosophy of to-day 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

philosophy 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.

“The antagonists continue. With the conditioned as well

as the unconditioned illusions considered, the phenomenon of

the water in a mirage is purely illusory because that water cannot

be used for any purpose, whereas the phenomenon of the world

is different, for it is purposeful. How then does the latter stand

on a par with the former?

 

“A phenomenon cannot be a reality simply because it serves

a purpose or purposes. Take a dream for example. The dream

creations are purposeful; they serve the dream purpose. The

dream-water quenches dream-thirst. The dream-creation,

however, is contradicted in the two other states. What is not

continuous cannot be real. If real, the thing must ever be real,

and not real for a short time and unreal at other times.

“So it is with magical creations. They appear real and are

yet illusory.

 

 

“Similarly the universe cannot be real of itself...that is to

say apart from the underlying Reality.” (Talks, 315).

And: “Maya is used to signify the manifestation of the

Reality. Thus Maya is only Reality.” (Talks, 20).

But these explanations 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.

 

In Reality in Forty Verses, v.3, Ramana Maharshi answers

the problem in a similar way:

“ ‘The world is real’... ‘No, it is a false appearance’; ‘The

world is sentient’... ‘No, it is not’; ‘The world is happiness’...

‘No, it is not’... ... what is the use of such disputes? That state is

agreeable to all in which, ignoring the world, one knows one’s

Self, abandoning both unity and duality, and the ego-sense is

gone.”

 

Realisation of the Self does not mean finding the solution

to each and every intellectual problem, but leaving them behind.

The Self does not see any problem. It is always the restlessness

of the mind that creates problems, in order to have a reason to

be busy in the attempt to solve them.

The Snake in the Rope