[Advaita-l] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: [advaitin] rope has some problem in rope snake analogy :-)

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Shri Bhaskar ji,

Thank you for indulging me by responding to my multiple-choice question
paper. I can assure you that the intent is only to seek alignment & common
ground. :)

However, observing that your responses were not 'from the choices
provided', I have taken the liberty to find the appropriate match based on
your responses. If you feel any of these are inappropriate, kindly correct
me. There are 4 responses, marked with **, that require your explicit
review. The questions are: Q3, Q12, Q13 and Q15.

For alignment, I have also mentioned my responses to all these questions.
Note: Terms 'sat' and 'asat' are only used relatively within the context of
the scenario and the object of cognition. I am not using them in their more
generic terms to denote Brahman or something like hare's horns respectively.

This also summarizes our discussion as it stands. I have provided detailed
explanations below this summary, resulting in a rather long post, but which
can be conveniently removed in subsequent threads for brevity. Kindly
review & confirm on the below summary, before I can move on to my
observations and resume on the original topic.

>From Ram's current perspective:
Q1: What, per his understanding, is the locus of the object of his
cognition - rope? Object on the floor / mind?
Bhaskar ji: object on the floor
Vikram: object on the floor

Q2: What is the relative ontological status of the rope as the object? Sat
(vyavaharika) / mithya (pratibhasika) / asat?
Bhaskar ji: sat (vyavaharika)
Vikram: sat (vyavaharika)

Q3: What is the relative ontological status of the snake as the object? Sat
(vyavaharika) / mithya (pratibhasika) / asat?
Bhaskar ji: asat **
Vikram: asat

>From Shyam's current perspective:
Q4: What, per his understanding, is the locus of the object of his
cognition - snake? Object on the floor / mind?
Bhaskar ji: object on the floor
Vikram: object on the floor

Q5: What is the relative ontological status of the snake as the object? Sat
(vyavaharika) / mithya (pratibhasika) / asat?
Bhaskar ji: sat (vyavaharika)
Vikram: sat (vyavaharika)

Q6: What is the level of reality of his experience of his body shivering
from the cognition of the snake? Vyavaharika / pratibhasika?
Bhaskar ji: vyavaharika
Vikram: vyavaharika

>From the rope's current perspective:
Q7: Hypothetically, if the rope has cognitive awareness, does it cognize
itself as possessing the nature & attributes of a rope or a snake? Rope /
snake?
Bhaskar ji: rope
Vikram: rope

>From Ram's new perspective:
Q8: Has there been any change in his cognition of the object? Yes/ no?
Bhaskar ji: no
Vikram: no

>From Shyam's new perspective:
Q9: What now, per his current understanding, is the locus of the object of
his current cognition - rope? Object on the floor / mind?
Bhaskar ji: object on the floor
Vikram: object on the floor

Q10: What now, per his current understanding, is the locus of the object of
his earlier cognition - snake? Object on the floor / mind?
Bhaskar ji: locus of snake was in the mind but the reason for this
cognition is the ajnana about the object on the floor
Vikram: locus of snake was in the mind but the reason for this cognition is
the ajnana about the object on the floor

Q11: What is the relative ontological status of the rope as the object? Sat
(vyavaharika) / mithya (pratibhasika) / asat?
Bhaskar ji: sat (vyavaharika)
Vikram: sat (vyavaharika)

Q12: What is the relative ontological status of the snake as the object?
Sat (vyavaharika) / mithya (pratibhasika) / asat?
Bhaskar ji: **
Vikram: mithya (pratibhasika)

Q13: What now is the level of reality of his experience of his body
shivering from the cognition of the snake? Vyavaharika / pratibhasika?
Bhaskar ji: vyavaharika **
Vikram: vyavaharika

>From the rope's new perspective:
Q14: Hypothetically, if the rope has cognitive awareness, has there been
any change in its cognition of its nature & attributes? Yes / no?
Bhaskar ji: no
Vikram: no

Furthermore,
Q15: When did Shyam realize that his experience was an adhyasa (error /
avidya / ignorance) of "rope misunderstood as a snake"? End of part 1 or
end of part 2?
Bhaskar ji: end of part 2 **
Vikram: end of part 2

On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 3:46 AM Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com>
wrote:

>
> If I understand your position correctly, the perceived snake is purely a
> "mental imagination" and doesn't have any reality whatsoever (paramarthika
> / vyavaharika / pratibhasika) outside the mind. Thus the locus of the
> snake, even while being perceived as such, is the mind alone.
>
>
>
>    - One thing we have to keep in mind that ‘deep’ analysis of all
>    analogies with regard to anyathAgrahaNa can happen only after the posterior
>    knowledge of the object being perceived (yathArtha jnana).  If rajju is
>    perceived as rajju no problem no talks,  likewise, if the snake is really
>    there also no talks and no problem with regard to authenticity of
>    cognition.  Problem and deeper analysis required only when the rajju is
>    perceived as sarpa and later realization of this misconception and correct
>    understanding of actually existing thing.  And it can also be said that if
>    one thinks that there is sarpa (in place of rajju) and run away from that
>    place forever without trying to ascertain what exactly is there then also
>    the deep discussion is not required rather will not take place at all.  So,
>    all these discussions would take place only ‘after’ the dawn of yathArtha
>    jnana of the rajju rather getting rid of ayathArtha jnana of rajju.  Hope
>    you are with me here 😊
>
>
Agreed.


> Let's consider the following scenario - Part 1:
> Ram and Shyam are walking in Ram's house. In a dimly-lit corridor they
> perceive a long thin curled "object" lying on the floor, which actually is
> a rope. Ram cognizes it as a rope and is indifferent to it. Shyam cognizes
> it as a snake, becomes fearful and starts shivering.
>
> From Ram's current perspective:
> Q1: What, per his understanding, is the locus of the object of his
> cognition - rope? Object on the floor / mind?
>
>
>
>    - From Ram’s perspective it is vyavahAra yOgya rajju only that is what
>    he sees.
>
>
>
The object is rajju, yes, but my question is the locus of this cognized
rajju. Would you say the locus is the "object on the floor" or the "mind"?
Based on your response for Q4, I am noting this down as "Object on the
floor".


> Q2: What is the relative ontological status of the rope as the object? Sat
> (vyavaharika) / mithya (pratibhasika) / asat?
>
>
>
>    - As said above, vyavahAra yOgya rajju which he uses daily to draw the
>    water from the well 😊
>
>
>
Fitting your response to the above choices, I am noting down the answer is
"sat (vyavaharika)".


> Q3: What is the relative ontological status of the snake as the object?
> Sat (vyavaharika) / mithya (pratibhasika) / asat?
>
>
>
>    - This question does not arise at all as you yourself confirmed he
>    looks at it ‘as it is’ and is indifferent.
>
>
>
True. However if one were to ask Ram this question, is it fair to say the
response would be "asat" (please reference 'Note:' above)?


> From Shyam's current perspective:
> Q4: What, per his understanding, is the locus of the object of his
> cognition - snake? Object on the floor / mind?
>
>
>
>    - In this story of rAma-shyAma, the ‘Aspada’ for the cognition of
>    snake is,  the object on the floor and cognition of sarpa is due to this
>    object on the floor.  ( Please note I am not taking the exceptions of
>    adhyAsa as explained by bhAshyakAra in adhyAsa bhAshya and I am just
>    replying to your questions based on your story at rAma’s house 😊 )
>
>
>
Fair enough. Noting down your response as "object on the floor".


> Q5: What is the relative ontological status of the snake as the object?
> Sat (vyavaharika) / mithya (pratibhasika) / asat?
>
>
>
>    - From the shyam’s current perspective ( which is quite evident that
>    there will be a talk about future realization of something else!!) it is
>    ‘snake’ that he is perceiving.  And shyAm’s current perspective he is
>    ‘just’ seeing the snake without thinking about rope nor anything he would
>    entertain anything about his memories of snake.  ( again please note I am
>    not considering smruti rUpa, pUrva drushtAvabhAsa etc. which bhAshyakAra
>    clarifies and am just going with the flow of your story).
>
>
>
Going by the word 'just' and the earlier agreed remark, I am noting down
your response as "sat (vyavaharika)"


> Q6: What is the level of reality of his experience of his body shivering
> from the cognition of the snake? Vyavaharika / pratibhasika?
>
>
>
>    - Shivering of his body ‘as real as’  his seeing the snake on the
>    floor.
>
>
>
Going by response to Q5, noting down as "vyavaharika"


> From the rope's current perspective:
>
>
> Q7: Hypothetically, if the rope has cognitive awareness, does it cognize
> itself as possessing the nature & attributes of a rope or a snake? Rope /
> snake?
>
>
>
>    - I am afraid hypothetically also this question is not valid!!  It is
>    just like asking  barren women has two sons rAma and shyAma and who is
>    elder and who is younger?? 😊 the basic premise of this question
>    itself is wrong because of the simple reason it is the problem of shyAm
>    does not have anything to do with rajju.  bhAshyakAra himself says there is
>    no aNumAtramapi change in rajju even when one is seeing it as something
>    else!!
>
>
>
Agreed. Since there is not even an iota of snake in the rope, for explicit
response and alignment, I am noting this down as "rope".


>
> Next, let's continue with the scenario - Part 2:
>
>
> Seeing Shyam fearful, Ram clarifies that "it is just a rope". On hearing
> these words, Shyam recognizes the object as a rope. His fear is gone but
> his body is still shivering
>
>
>
>    - Yes
>
>
> From Ram's new perspective:
> Q8: Has there been any change in his cognition of the object? Yes/ no?
>
>
>
>    - Where is the question of Ram’s new perspective here?? Earlier did he
>    have some other perspective??  He was / is seeing rope as rope only !!  is
>    it not??
>
>
>
Yes. But being explicit and unambiguous I did not wish to presume there was
no new perspective. This also keeps the narrative cleaner in the summary. I
will note down your response as "no".


> From Shyam's new perspective:
> Q9: What now, per his current understanding, is the locus of the object of
> his current cognition - rope? Object on the floor / mind?
>
>
>
> Ø     His current understanding or locus of his earlier misunderstanding
> (as sarpa) is rope or object what exactly lies there on the floor.
>
>
>
Noting down your response as "object on the floor".


> Q10: What now, per his current understanding, is the locus of the object
> of his earlier cognition - snake? Object on the floor / mind?
>
>
>
> Ø     He understands earlier also there was rope only and by mistake he
> took it as snake and thanked Ram for helping him to get rid of his
> misconception.  (anyathAgrahaNa or adhyAsa).
>
>
>
Agreed. But my question is - with his current new understanding that the
locus of the rope is the "object on the floor", what is now his
understanding of the locus of his earlier cognition as the snake? Does he
still feel that the earlier cognition of the snake is still the "object on
the ground" or does he realize that the locus was his "mind"? Going with
your response to Q9 & Q12, is it safe to mark this as "locus of snake was
in the mind alone but the reason for this cognition is the ajnana about the
object on the floor"?


> Q11: What is the relative ontological status of the rope as the object?
> Sat (vyavaharika) / mithya (pratibhasika) / asat?
>
>
>
>    - I think you are repeating the questions phrasing it differently !!
>    aren’t you??
>
>
>
No, the question is distinct and intentional. With the realization of the
object as the rope, and based on your responses to Q2 and Q5, is it fair to
note down your response as "sat (vyavaharika)"?


> Q12: What is the relative ontological status of the snake as the object?
> Sat (vyavaharika) / mithya (pratibhasika) / asat?
>
> Ø     His realization fetched him the knowledge that there was / is never
> snake out there and snake was only in his mind due to his ajnAna about the
> rajju (jnana abhAva of the actually existing rajju)
>
>
>
This is an important question and I would request you to please respond on
the current ontological status of the earlier cognized snake. I would like
to highlight your response "snake was only in his mind due to his ajnAna
about the rajju"; Particularly the word 'due' marking the relationship
between the cognition and its cause.


> Q13: What now is the level of reality of his experience of his body
> shivering from the cognition of the snake? Vyavaharika / pratibhasika?
>
> Ø     Again his realization is that there was a  mistaken knowledge
> (mithyAjnAna) about rajju caused him the shivering etc. with regard to
> non-existing sarpa.
>
>
>
Yes, but what is the level of reality of the continued shivering? Going by
response to Q6, can it be said that this is still "vyavaharika" as the body
is still actually shivering?


>
> From the rope's new perspective:
> Q14: Hypothetically, if the rope has cognitive awareness, has there been
> any change in its cognition of its nature & attributes? Yes / no?
>
>
>
>    - Rope and analogy is there for the one who is taking the sarpa for
>    rajju and it is not there to talk anything about inert thing rajju
>    (strictly within this drushtAnta) whether rajju has undergone any change or
>    not during ayatArtha jnana or after yathArtha jnana is the head ache of the
>    cognizer not the cognized rope (aspada or adhishtAna).
>
>
>

Agreed. I just want to be explicit that throughout the entire scenario,
from the rope's perspective, there has never been an iota of snake on the
rope. If it had cognitive self awareness, it would always cognize itself
only as the rope. So marking this response as "no".


> Furthermore,
> Q15: When did Shyam realize that his experience was an adhyasa (error /
> avidya / ignorance) of "rope misunderstood as a snake"? End of part 1 or
> end of part 2?
>
>
>
>    - What is your answer to this question??  When Shyam realized the rope
>    jnana?? End of Part 1 or 2 or in between at some point of time when Rama
>    helped and educated him ??
>
>
>
My response, within the mentioned choices, is "end of part 2", since at the
"end of part 1" Shyam had the cognition of a snake as the object on the
floor. This includes the time after "end of part 1" when Ram helped and
educated him. Going with your response for Q12, marking the same for you.


>
> As an additional request, as it would help streamline deeper discussion, I
> would like you to please indulge in reviewing alignment of the 50 points I
> shared in the link ->
> https://archive.org/details/reflections-on-fundamentals-of-advaita
>
> >  Would look into it prabhuji but you have to be mentally prepared to
> accept the new perspectives on those points ofcourse based on shankara’s
> PTB.  😊
>
>
>

Bhaskar ji, I am a seeker of Truth and not a reviewer or a judge or an
upholder of a particular sampradhayam. Thanks for providing your opinion on
the other thread.

with humble prostrations,
Vikram

>