Māyā And Model

Shūnyam is not a Model. It does not mount on assumptions, nor take life in ‘Belief’, is not extended in binary divides, is not a concept, is not an idea.


The Thinker in Rodin Museum in Paris

The word ‘Model’ is etymologically related to the Sanskrit Māyā, from the root Ma: To Build’ and Manas [an early version of the modern: ‘Mind’]. 

A ‘Model’ is a creation, a re-construction of the original, not the real-thing but its re-presentation. A Model of Reality, not the Real McCoy.

A toy-car is a model. So is a doll’s-house. But the most important models are mental-models, the ones we build inside our heads using things that ‘double’.

Sign and Symbol that refer and come alive in such building blocks as the Alphabet, the Number System and other such kits of complex referencing signs. All mediums in fact conducive to referential traffic.

An understanding built on Assumptions and corresponding Beliefs, conceptualized in binary structures [True: False; Up: Down] and expressed in the vocabulary of Signs and Symbols [typically Language and Logic],  is called a ‘Model’.

So what is my First Assumption? That there is such a thing as a ‘Me’ with such things called ‘Assumptions’ stuffed inside my head. Sort of like socks in a drawer.


Cut once; get two. A pair is the first and minimal unit of division, the elemental DNA, the fundamental building block, of every Man-Made Model.

To Model in sign and symbol is to think in Binaries, rudimentary to complex. The expansions of Model are done through referential systems, mainly Language and Logic as mediated through the Meta-Trinity.

And once you grant the pair a self-evident truth, a string of irrefutable derivative extensions follow. And on this platform, all major Religions have erected their models of Divinity and Philosophy and Science, their altars of Truth.

This is the ancient metaphoric twosome of Purusha and Prakriti, loosely translatable as ‘Man and Nature’ or in folk-form, ‘Axle and Wheel’.

Subject and Object, Center and Circumference, True and False, Right and Wrong, Witness and Witnessed, Existent and Transient, Real and Illusion, Sacred and Profane, Achievement and Shortfall.

Spiritual and Material. Transcendent and Immanent, the Inner-Inviolate versus the Outer-Defiled, an immaculate, permanent, pure Heaven in contrast to a violated, transient, impure World.

And the Diva of all Divides: ‘I’ and ‘Not-I’.


Our attachment to Models, our faith in them, is directly related to our implicit conviction on the presence of an ‘Independent and Separated ‘Self”. The deeper that conviction the more our world is made up of Models.

And just as you need to abandon the boat you cross the river with, you need to let go this notion of ‘Model’, this pedagogic device once it has served its purpose [‘The Central Metaphor’].

Just as there are no ‘Independent and Separated ‘Selves” to unite as there never was an ‘Independent and Separated ‘Self” to begin with, there are really no ‘Models’ floating around to unmodel, to take-apart. The notion of ‘Model’ is itself very much a Modeled-Idea.

And in exact parallel, there is nothing ‘Erroneous’ about Double. Accuracy and Error are themselves ‘Doubled Ideas’, as is the very notion of ‘Double’.

As tediously repeated, it is all about catching the beam in your own eye.


[Watch Out. To elaborate breezily on Model as an ‘Interpretation’ and equate a Modeled-Reality to an ‘Interpreted Reality’ is to miss the point. The very notion of ‘Interpretation’ is a Modeled-Idea. Fresh Academics and Deconstructionists are the most susceptible to this take.]

3 thoughts on “Māyā And Model”

Comments are closed.