THE EXAMPLE OF THE ROPE AND THE SNAKE

by Satyanarayana dasa

... in the last verse and now in this verse Prthu Maharaja starts speaking about devotional service although it is mixed with knowledge. These two verses can be compared as jnana-misra-bhakti. And in the next two verses he will speak about pure devotional service. Prthu Maharaja is explaining the all strata beginning from the original state of material conditioning and raising to the point of what the sadhaka has to do. Then, how he devolops knowledge and the ultimate conclusion is in devotional service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Because the Kumaras are coming from the jnana-marga, they have spoken much about jnana or knowledge which involves asakti, attachment to the Lord which means that one has to detach from the material world. This verse and the previous ones they have clearly spoken that one should not become attached to the material world but rather one should understand that this material world is also situated in the Lord and in this way one comes to the vasudeva consciousness (vasude va sarvam iti sa-mahatma su-durlabhah). This is how one may use the path of jnana to attain devotional service. But the ultimate conclu sion is in devotional service. As it was said previously, attachment to this material world is the cause of one's destruction. When the senses become attracted to this material world or material sense objects, the intelligence is lost. Just as the water is sucked away by the kusa grass that is growing around the lake, the senses suck away the intelligence of the living entity. This is one type of fall-down as Krsna says in Bhagavad-gita buddhi-nasat pranasyati; "intelligence is lost" means that the intel ligence to differentiate between matter and spirit is lost. Otherwise materialistic people are also very intelligent in performing their material activities.

But there is a bigger danger than that - it is the misundestanding of one self as the ultimate reality. This is the greatest obstacle in the path of devotional service much worst than falling down into the pull of material sense gratification. This is, according to Srila Prabhupada, like 'commiting spiritual suicide', because his own 'self' is completely lost. He cannot again come to the path of devotional service, because his concept becomes totally changed. Therefore the vaisnavas always speak very strongly against this concept of 'oneness' with the Supreme Lord. The four Kumaras explained that there is four paths: dharma, kama. artha, moksa. Out of those, moksa is the supreme. Now they want to clarify that this path of liberation is not 'oneness' with the Lord. This liberation is dealing with service to the Lord, not the sahujya- mukti. Raghunatha dasa Goswami says in his "Mana-siksah" that this sahu jya-mukti it is like a tigress which devours everything. This path of liberation will completely devours the soul whereas the material sense gratification only devours the intelligence. This is because in that state one thinks that he has no existence, he is 'one' with the Su preme. One's personality is completely lost. Then there is no question of devotional service after that. Therefore Srila Prabhupada says that this argument which is used by the impersonalists should not be misunderstood because this same argument is also found in the scriptures. Mostly of the arguments that the impersonalists use, they are actually found in the scriptures but they twist the meaning and they bewilder the simple people. They used such highly complicated words that the common man cannot understand what is the real significance of the example. There is a saying in english that 'if you don't understand something then just beleive it'. They don't understand so they think it must be true. Now we will attempt to explain what is this vivarta-vada and what is this example of the rope and the snake so popular among impersonal ists. Then impersonalists they have these three terms: sat, asat and mithya. Sat means 'real' , which always exists in past, present and future. There will never be time when it will not exist. Asat means which is 'unreal', it never existes. Like somebody saying, "I saw a rat with a trunk". The rat doesn't have a trunk and will never have a trunk. This is called 'asat', which will never exist. Then there is 'mithya' that they explain that is neither real nor unreal. Mithya should not be confused with 'false'. The word used also is 'unexplicable'. One cannot explain what is it. This example of snake and rope explains these three things. They say that it is like if there is a rope and you see it in the darke ness, (not complet darkness otherwise one could not see it) you may think that maybe it is a snake. And automatically you become terri fied. But when you put on a torchlight you realize that actually there is no snake, it is only a rope. They say that this snake that it is perceived when there is improp er light, this is not real snake, because if it was real it should exist even when one put the light on it. And it is not unreal, it means it is not that it not exists, because if it is completely non- existent then one do not fear it, one will not perceive it when there is darkness. Therefore the impersonalists say that this appearance of snake at that time, is the work of maya. This snake manifestation is called mithya and it comes into existence by the mercy of maya. Maya performs two activities: first it covers the intelligence and then supplies the object for the intelligence. If the knowledge is covered that is not sufficient; a new object has to be given to replace the previous object. Just like a magician, he may throw a stone in the sky and when the stone is falling it turns into coins. There are two things he does: firstly he covers the stone and secondly he produces the coins in the place of the stone. Similarly Maya is divided in two sections: one covers the rope and the other gives rise to the snake. And that snake is vivarta, which means an illusory transformation, or an illusory appearance of the object. For the impersonalists illusion doesn't mean false, they called it mithya. Then the snake is the vivarta of the rope. These are the examples they give to understand. Brahman is sat (like the rope) and this universe is mithya, which is like the vivarta of Brahman. This is the philosophy of vivarta-vada often refered as Mayavadi because this vivarta is hapenning due to Maya. This is only a vivarta, this is not reality is not Brahman. Therefore their philosophy is 'brahman satyam, jagat mithya, jiva-brahmeva naparah' (?) which means that Brahman is satyam (real) and jagat is mithya (illusory neither real nor unreal). Because if it is real must exist even in Brahman and if it is unreal we shoul not perceive it now. Thus they say that the jiva is only Brahman not different from it. This is how they propound their philosophy and then they use the word adhyasa which means super-imposition. This snake of vivarta is super-imposed unto the rope by Maya. They say that this material world is adhyasa or super-imposition unto Brahman and this happens by the work of Maya. Therefore as we put some light on the snake then one realizes the rope. Light means knowledge. In the same way if we understand knowl edge from the sruti, from the statements of the Vedas such as "tatt vamasi" (I am that), "aham brahmasmi" (I am Brahman) and we meditate upon this then this athyasa or super-imposition will be removed be cause when there is knowledge, this vivarta cannot exist. The illusion of something is removed when one gets knowledge of the basis of that illusion on which the illusion is existing. Because this material world is appearing illusory in Brahman, if one knows Brahman then this illusion will disappear, we will not see it.

The fallacy in this example is that there are no such things as three categories. There are not sat, asat and mithya, there are only two categories: there is only sat and asat. There is no such thing as neither real nor unreal (mithya). No one perceives it, therefore it cannot be explained. Although they say that this illusion is inex plicable but the thing is, this does not exist therefore this is asat. What is the explanation for one's perception of the snake in the rope? The person who is perceiving the snake in the rope has experi enced the snake before, either by hearing about or seeing in photograph or movie, or actually having seen a real snake. He has an experience of snake. And because snake is the cause of death which is the greatest fear for the living being, this knowledge is very strong ly situated in the mind. Of the four activities, eating, mating, sleeping and fearing, this last one is the more prominent. This fear of death is naturally situated and therefore those objects that give us fear are very strongly situated in our samskaras or impressions in the heart. So when he sees the rope which has some similarity to the snake, immediatly the impression of the snake become prominent in the mind and that is super-imposed on the rope and he starts thinking 'it is a snake'. He is actually neither seeing the rope nor the snake because there is improper light. He just puts on his own experience unto the rope and he starts to beleive that it is a snake and becomes fearful. The super-imposition is actually not a creation of maya, it comes from his own mind and the test is if the person has not experi enced a snake in his life, either by hearing or seeing, he will not think that this rope is a snake. Why maya is not getting a snake for him? For example if there is a small child, if he sees this rope in a little darkness, he will not fear it, he will even catch it because he does not know what snake means, he is not afraid of it. And such baby is not Brahman realized. They say when one is Brahman realized maya cannot create any illusion for him out of shyness. Darkness cannot come in front of light. But the fact is, if the person who is ignorant and who is also bound in the three modes of material nature why is he not also perceiving snake in this rope? Basically this super-imposition is coming from one's own mind and thus these examples when they are given, the purpose beyond them is to become free from the attachment to this material world. In the last three verses Prthu Maharaja was speaking with the Kumaras about detachment. They said that everything in this material world is blessed to be destroyed by time. So one should not become attached and engrossed, one should realize that one is transcendental to these things. So this meditation on the last verse and this verse is for this understanding that 'I am not this body'. But just as the snake is only experienced when I am super-imposing in, if there is no real snake, then cannot be an experience of snake and there cannot be an illusion. Illusion cannot be created. So, just as the rope is real, the snake is also real although the real snake is not present in that place, it is present in his samskaras, in the impressions within his

mind. And the impressions become active by similarity or by medita tion. Therefore Madvacarya said 'brahman satyam, jagat satyam' , jagat is also satyam because it is also energy of the Lord. Our philosophy is that this jagat is a manifestation of the Lord's external potency and because the Lord is real, His energy cannot be unreal or illusory. But this is a different type of energy from the internal energy. This external energy goes through changes or trans formations but it is also eternal. This is called the changing reali ty. The Vaikuntha planets are not undergoing the transformations of creation and destruction. Otherwise energy cannot be created or destroyed. And because this is also an energy that they also accept, otherwise it is impossible to explain the creation. If the energy is there how the energy will be destroyed? Actually it is not destroyed but transformed into a different realm(?) of energy. This example of the rope and the snake is just there to help us to understand the ephemerial nature of this material world. And because this world is temporary, everything is in transition one cannot derive real happiness from it. The Kumaras are recommending that one should surrender to the Lord. And this Lord is not the same as the jiva. Why? Because it is said here that the Lord is liberated, He is pure and He is free from the material world. He never comes under illusion. The living entity fall under the illusion and when he is under such illusion one cannot say that he is mukta, liberated. If he would be mukta there would be no need to give him any instructions. This 'eternal liberated' can only be applied to the Supreme Lord. The Lord is beyond the reactions of karma. He is not under the influence of Maya. Only the living entities under the influence of Maya have to suffer the reactions of their karma. When the living entity becomes free from maya then automatically he becomes free from the reactions of his karma. The impersonalists say that there is no meaning that one should surrender. This verse explains very nicely the real purport of this example of the rope and the snake. When one becomes free from attach ment to this material world, then one becomes qualified to perform pure devotional service.

Another way of analysing these things is that, they have spoken from Texts 18 to 40 (about 23 verses) and one should study what they said in the beginning and what they have just said in the concluding verses. In the beginning verses, when they were congratulating Prthu Maharaja they said "my dear King you are very fortunate because you have a great attachment to glorify the lotus feet of the Lord who is the killer of the Madhu demon." Then in the concluding verses (39 and 40) again said "one should worship Vasudeva and that is the easiest way to get rid of this bondage to the material world".

Similarly there are another means to analyse 'abhyasa'. Abhyasa means repetition. What is that one thing which has been repeated in these statements? And if we see the word 'rati' has been repeated four times - it means attachment to hear the Lord's katha. And he talks so

much about associating with devotees and hearing Krsna-katha. From repetition we can understand that he is speaking about devotional service not merging into Brahman. So, by this analysis we can under stand that their purpose is not to speak about Brahman realization.

A man is sleeping and is having a nightmare, suddenly a tiger appears in a dream. Then the man becomes very fearfull and due to this fear he wakes up. Although this tiger is illusory, under the modes, and the speculative state is free from the modes, but it has the power to uplift him from this dream state to the awakened state. This is the example the impersonalists give.

They divide the reality in three: the ultimate reality, the practi cal reality and apparent reality. All their statments are part of the practical reality but they have the power to uplift one to the ulti mate reality. But the defect in this example is: this tiger was experienced when he was awake. It is not that without experience of tiger he would dream about it and would fear it. If he would see something new like that he would not fear it. The fear appears because of experience during the awaken state. The tiger has to exist on the awaken platform and that is why it has the power to uplift one.

Dreams are real otherwise we could not perceive them. But they are not absolutely real as this material world is not absolutely real. There is an object in the mental platform. Like if we close our eyes we still can see an object just seen previously, because the image is formed in our minds. If it was not formed in our minds it means that it is completely unreal then we could not perceive it.