Question about Snake/Rope Analogy

[Kismet]

I have a question, in Advaita, about the snake and rope analogy. I wonder if the following could be construed as an accurate summation of what it means, or what it could be taken to mean in some interpretation:

One is walking hither thither in the forest when one sees the rope. Now, it happens he thinks it is a snake. But why should this have ever happened? Is it because he believes that it is a snake, or is it because he misperceives it to be a snake? I think there is a difference, and that these two views mutually exclude one another. Let me explain:

In the first scenario, one goes out into the forest and is consciously on guard against snakes. It is his vigilance which causes him to knowingly be on the look out for snakes, so it may be said that his belief that snakes are out there is a pre-emptive attempt not to be deceived by what might be a snake but could very well not be. Because the person is intelligent enough to suppose that there might be other things besides snakes which merely look like them but are otherwise harmless, one nonetheless wills a sort of ignorance so as to protect himself, as there would be no time to scrutinize his situation without potentially getting bitten. Hence, one willingly chooses to see reality a certain way, due to his desire for self-preservation.

In the second scenario, one also goes out into the forest. Like the person in scenario one, this person is also vigilant and knows all about snakes. The difference is, he does not overlay his belief about snakes on his forest landscape. He does not, in other words, project his fears consciously outward. Rather, he simply knows what snakes look like and, if he sees certain conditions of snake, he will immediately flee, regardless if those conditions of length, shape, contour and so on are only that of a rope. This person does not derive his illusion of snake from a belief primarily, but simply due to his seeing a certain pattern in nature from which he derives snake. Thus, in the first case one willingly sells himself an illusion due to his circumstances; in the other he is enthralled by the illusion itself, via an optical stimuli which alone is powerful enough to weave the illusory net.

The difference between these two approaches is diametrically opposed. One takes center stage in the individual, from his own locus. It is his belief which, when it is projected, causes a negative feedback loop which makes the rope appear as a snake by weaving together various necessary and sufficient conditions into a continuous, sustained illusion. Without the belief held to by the person, the trickery would fall apart and be without a ground, so to speak. As it stands, the perception is recycled, reinforcing the belief, and thus the apparent reality in a vicious circle.

On the other hand, if the rope is simply misperceived, then the illusion does not revolve around any mistaken belief system. Rather, it is simply the necessary conditions themselves which have not been tabulated correctly, and one is satisfied at seeing a snake merely by virtue of purely external pressures: outward sense datums which impinge themselves on awareness and inductively present a conclusion: yes, this seems like a snake, not because I believe it to be so, but because this idea I am receiving presents me with that belief.

Now, which of these approaches do you think best fits the Advaitin interpretation and why?

[philosoraptor]

Pranams,

I don't have the original texts on me at this moment. But I did find this writeup on the net from a Chinmayananda follower:

Analogy of the Rope and the Snake

This example originates from the commentaries of GauDapaada on the MaaNDuukya upanishhad. Seeing a rope in the dark, it is mistaken for a snake - an error or adhyaasa. We mistakenly superimpose the image of an illusory snake onto the real rope. In just such a way we superimpose the illusion of objects etc. upon the one aatman.

If there is total dark, we would not see the rope so could not imagine it to be a snake. Hence 'ignorance is bliss', as in deep sleep - there can be no error. Similarly, if there is total light we see the rope clearly - in complete knowledge, we know everything to be Brahman. Knowledge is also bliss! The error occurs only in partial light or when the eyes are defective. Then there is partial knowledge; we know that some 'thing' exists. This part, that is not covered by darkness or hidden by ignorance is called the 'general part' and is 'uncovered' or 'real'. That the 'thing' is actually a rope is hidden because of the inadequate light or knowledge. This specific feature of the thing, that it is a rope, is called the 'particular part' and is covered. In place of the covered part, the mind substitutes or 'projects' something of its own, namely the snake.

In the example then, when we say "there is a snake", there is a real part and an unreal part. The real part is "there is"; this is the 'general part'. The unreal part, the snake, only appears to be there because the 'particular part' - the rope - is covered. If light (i.e. knowledge) is made available, the rope is now seen. The 'general part', "there is" remains unchanged but the 'particular part', which was previously projected by the mind, is now uncovered and revealed to be a rope. The snake has not 'gone away' since it never existed, except in the mind of the observer, where it might have given rise to very real fears and physical effects (fast heartbeat, sweating etc.).

From the point of view of actual reality (paaramaarthika), only the rope is real, the snake does not exist. For a perceiver who sees a snake, that snake is 'relatively' real (vyaavahaarika) and causes as much mental suffering as would a truly real snake. There only ever was a rope but the ignorance of this in the mind of the perceiver creates the illusion of a snake and the suffering follows. Once light (i.e. the light of knowledge) is introduced, the mistaken perception of the particular part is corrected; the unreal snake disappears and the real rope is revealed. The associated fear etc. also disappears.

What has happened is that a valid means of enquiry has been undertaken into the nature of the particular part to reveal the truth of the matter. The valid means of enquiry in this example was the torchlight. It was appropriate because the mistake was brought about by the dim light. Prayer or meditation would not have been appropriate and would not have revealed the rope. The method has to be appropriate to the nature of the error. Since ignorance of our true nature is the reason for samsaara, the appropriate means of enquiry for removing the error is self-knowledge.

Reading it, I don't get the sense that a priori assumptions makes that much of a difference. The problem occurs due both to limited perception as well as incorrect deduction based on limited perception.

His point appears to be that there is a difference between actual reality and "illusory" reality, the latter being subjective. But his critics point out that the illusion of a snake was merely due to wrong perception and not indicative of a different reality per se.

[brahman]

I have a question, in Advaita, about the snake and rope analogy. I wonder if the following could be construed as an accurate summation of what it means, or what it could be taken to mean in some interpretation:

One is walking hither thither in the forest when one sees the rope. Now, it happens he thinks it is a snake. But why should this have ever happened? Is it because he believes that it is a snake, or is it because he misperceives it to be a snake? I think there is a difference, and that these two views mutually exclude one another. Let me explain:
................................................
................................................
................................................


Now, which of these approaches do you think best fits the Advaitin interpretation and why?

.

Question: Now, which of these approaches do you think best fits the Advaitin interpretation and why?


Dear Kismet,

With no scope of solving this issue correctly, I would like to share some views of non-dualists on the two tough scenarios pointed out by you.

As the actualities of the non-contemplative mechanistic world are outside the scope of Vedantic speculation, Vedantic methodology reduce the multiple possibilities and the pluralistic probabilities of psychological result of perception and learning and reasoning to a single notion called KNOWLEDGE and gains a fuller status of an epistemological frame of reference for their speculation.

That is, perception, belief, faith, opinion, sensing, reasoning etc... are reduced to a single notion called knowledge, which could be ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.

All philosophical enquiry presupposes distinction between truth and falsehood or even more precisely ‘what is apparent’ and what underlies the appearance. A search as such helps the seeker envisage the true value content of life, which is happiness, as the ultimate goal as recognition. No philosophing serves as the inciting cause of unhappiness.
And the FEAR factor is treated as the axiological frame of f reference of this particular speculation. This is 'fear' is not to be treated as an emotion experienced in anticipation of some specific pain or danger, but to be viewed in the wide range of Upanishads quotes such as ‘dvitIyAd vai bhayam bhavati’ etc... (Brihad I. iv. 2 which is vaguely translated as ‘Fear indeed arises from second’)

When ‘the visible’ is superseded by the ‘intelligible’, the language reaches its limitation, examples, analogies and proto-linguistic expressions etc. tends to play the major role is a practical consequence that follows naturally, for which Sankara is innocent but the science Vedanta is not an exception to it.

When common life experiences give personal assurance for truths, elaborate laboratory experiments as in modern science induces lesser values, such could be the reason Vedanta resort itself to less complicated but casual examples as it’s favourite to arrive at certitudes, the rope and the snake, is not to be mistaken. Love

.

[Kismet]

Reading it, I don't get the sense that a priori assumptions makes that much of a difference.

They do not make much of a difference when it comes to the mistaken identity of the thing perceived... but I think when it comes to a knowledge-base, as the grounds or justification of what one perceives, a difference here exists. Perhaps when the writer talks about "superimposing" the image of the snake, is where the real problem lies. After all, in what way or shape does this mistake occur?

The problem occurs due both to limited perception as well as incorrect deduction based on limited perception.

Yes, but what I would like to hazard is that, at some level, could this not be construed as a choice? I'm sure you have heard of this: "doxastic voluntarism?" With limited perception only, there is no such thing as choice, only ignorance. A belief system bought into through choice, however, is a different animal, and it effects one's entire view to what knowledge in a given instance consists of, does it not?

His point appears to be that there is a difference between actual reality and "illusory" reality, the latter being subjective. But his critics point out that the illusion of a snake was merely due to wrong perception and not indicative of a different reality per se.

I do not think it is indicative of a different reality, per se, unless it can be construed as a strictly secondary, marginal existence.

[wundermonk]

After all, in what way or shape does this mistake occur?

Note sure if this is going to address directly your OP but here is my understanding of Advaita's analysis of erroneous perception.

Advaita believes that the true content of any perception is "this"ness. In a perception that is verbalized as "This is a pot", 'this' refers to existence - which is Brahman. The 'pot', etc. arises due to prior knowledge/memory and is based on names/forms which is not granted an ontological existence that is on par with the direct perception of 'this'ness. Advaita differentiates between savilkalpa pratyaksha (determinate perception) and nirvikalpa pratyaksha (indeterminate perception). The later is pure consciousness unblemished by any differentiation.

Now, what happens when we experience/verbalize the following: "This is a snake." when what we see is actually a rope?

As long as we do not gain knowledge of the rope, we will continue with the mistaken belief that that was a snake. However, when knowledge of the rope arises, it also becomes clear that our earlier experience was NOT veridical and at no point in time was it a valid perception.

[Kismet]

As the actualities of the non-contemplative mechanistic world are outside the scope of Vedantic speculation, Vedantic methodology reduce the multiple possibilities and the pluralistic probabilities of psychological result of perception and learning and reasoning to a single notion called KNOWLEDGE and gains a fuller status of an epistemological frame of reference for their speculation.

I may be missing something, or perhaps seeing something that isn't there, but when you say "knowledge" I don't think it can exist in a vacuum, or that it can be condensed to a "single notion." Knowledge needs a type of support structure, I think. And this leads to various background/auxiliary assumptions/hypotheses.

That is, perception, belief, faith, opinion, sensing, reasoning etc... are reduced to a single notion called knowledge, which could be ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.

The how and why, is this the case? When I have knowledge of, say, a perception, I also bring to the perception a type of filter. So when I see a sideways square I don't think "sideways square" - I think diamond. In the same way with the rope, one can very clearly ask: what is the source of the false or 'wrong' 'knowledge' of the snake?

All philosophical enquiry presupposes distinction between truth and falsehood or even more precisely ‘what is apparent’ and what underlies the appearance. A search as such helps the seeker envisage the true value content of life, which is happiness, as the ultimate goal as recognition. No philosophing serves as the inciting cause of unhappiness.
And the FEAR factor is treated as the axiological frame of f reference of this particular speculation. This is 'fear' is not to be treated as an emotion experienced in anticipation of some specific pain or danger, but to be viewed in the wide range of Upanishads quotes such as ‘dvitIyAd vai bhayam bhavati’ etc... (Brihad I. iv. 2 which is vaguely translated as ‘Fear indeed arises from second’)

I can see what you mean by fear being an "axiological frame of reference" - and this is consistent with my belief-based interpretation. But fear is then only the trigger for the motive. The actual cause of the misperception is something else.

When ‘the visible’ is superseded by the ‘intelligible’, the language reaches its limitation, examples, analogies and proto-linguistic expressions etc. tends to play the major role is a practical consequence that follows naturally, for which Sankara is innocent but the science Vedanta is not an exception to it.

Here I must concede a lack of understanding. Unless you are saying interpretation cuts out at some point in these matters? Then I would agree. Still, I'd like to milk things for all they are worth.

When common life experiences give personal assurance for truths, elaborate laboratory experiments as in modern science induces lesser values, such could be the reason Vedanta resort itself to less complicated but casual examples as it’s favourite to arrive at certitudes, the rope and the snake, is not to be mistaken. Love[/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT]

.

The example may be casual, but it still leads to some complex questions. A testament to the endurance of the Vedanta philosophy I suppose.

[Kismet]

Advaita believes that the true content of any perception is "this"ness. In a perception that is verbalized as "This is a pot", 'this' refers to existence - which is Brahman. The 'pot', etc. arises due to prior knowledge/memory and is based on names/forms which is not granted an ontological existence that is on par with the direct perception of 'this'ness. Advaita differentiates between savilkalpa pratyaksha (determinate perception) and nirvikalpa pratyaksha (indeterminate perception). The later is pure consciousness unblemished by any differentiation.

Sounds like a knowledge filter to me. On a par with projection of a mistaken identity.

Now, what happens when we experience/verbalize the following: "This is a snake." when what we see is actually a rope?

The belief that is already there superimposes itself on the rope, or in the world's case, the substratum (Brahman).

As long as we do not gain knowledge of the rope, we will continue with the mistaken belief that that was a snake. However, when knowledge of the rope arises, it also becomes clear that our earlier experience was NOT veridical and at no point in time was it a valid perception.

I see that you fall hard on the belief-interpretation side of the coin (or so at least I interpret). It was as though the belief existed incipiently, and molded itself onto a real entity, taking its illusory power therefrom. Thank you Wundermonk, you have cleared up quite a bit actually.

[brahman]

.

Dear Kismet,

I may be missing something, or perhaps seeing something that isn't there, but when you say "knowledge" I don't think it can exist in a vacuum, or that it can be condensed to a "single notion." Knowledge needs a type of support structure, I think. And this leads to various background/auxiliary assumptions/hypotheses.

That’s right, knowledge needs a type of support structure. It is knowledge itself (prajnanam barhama etc.. to be noted).

If it be said that the knowledge is the support structure for knowledge, it is equal to say, knowledge is in knowledge, is a logical fallacy called Aatmaashraya आत्माश्रय– दोष or tautology in Western logic.

The how and why, is this the case? When I have knowledge of, say, a perception, I also bring to the perception a type of filter. So when I see a sideways square I don't think "sideways square" - I think diamond. In the same way with the rope, one can very clearly ask: what is the source of the false or 'wrong' 'knowledge' of the snake?

Just as a movie cannot be successfully projected onto a white screen in brilliant sunlight, even so man cannot experience the phenomenality of the external world and his several worlds of subjective fantasy without there being nurtured in him the darkness of ignorance, the veiling power of Consciousness.

I can see what you mean by fear being an "axiological frame of reference" - and this is consistent with my belief-based interpretation. But fear is then only the trigger for the motive. The actual cause of the misperception is something else.

Sankalpa or willful imagination of the two, I and Mine, the Consciousness becomes functional as binary consciousness as knower and known, the result of which is Fear, the sole creator of the multiple/parallel worlds.

Here I must concede a lack of understanding. Unless you are saying interpretation cuts out at some point in these matters? Then I would agree. Still, I'd like to milk things for all they are worth.

It’s like dogs bite its own tail; there is no end to it as the eternal and the transient remaining non-dual is not acceptable to any logic.


The truth is that the two does exist inseparably as One, in-spite of the fact that very single Darsana is trying to unite it!!!

The example may be casual, but it still leads to some complex questions. A testament to the endurance of the Vedanta philosophy I suppose.

You are a very interesting poster, please do keep going Kismet, Love

.

[devotee]

Namaste Kismet,

You do raise intelligent questions !

You have given two scenarios to explain "how/why rope is perceived as a snake" ... I would say both the scenarios are not apt to describe the actual phenomena as Advaita says.

a) First scenario presupposes existence of fear and knowledge of something for perceiving that out of fear and preconditioning of the prior knowledge.

b) The second scenario presupposes knowledge of something and getting biased by that preconditioning of that knowledge.

It is not like that. It is a much more intelligent phenomena and quite interesting. MAyA (the veiling power of Brahman) is the cause of the three MAyic states. What does it do ? MAyA veils the Reality i.e. the Brahman (fourth state) and apparently (as we create many illusionary things by our power of mind in dream) creates three states. Here the Mind is "created" ... actually the mind draws its Consciousness (it is like reflection of light from one sun to many water filled pots) from the same underlying Brahman but as mind it sees multitude where there is only One. So, the Reality (i.e. Brahman) is not seen ... the world is seen. Now this world is seen as per rules within the MAyic existence and not because of fear or preconditioning of the mind ... if the fear is there and preconditioning is there in mind .... then we get mentally abnormal perception .... but the perception in MAyic state by mind is as per strict rules applicable in MAyic states.

Let's understand that the mind which perceives the other things is apparently created and controlled by another entity of the three MAyic states i.e. the Pranja or the God state of Brahman ... so it ensures a logically existing well designed world on the real substratum i.e. Brahman's fourth state. Let's keep in mind that though this Creator and Controller is coming into existence by MAyA ... it Itself is not disillusioned ... it is Brahman alone with its omnipotence and omniscience.

Let's keep in mind that we see diamond where the Brahman is ... we also see coal where the Brahman is ... we see a dog where the Brahman is ... we see a girl/a boy/the Sun/Moon ... etc. where the Brahman is. If it was due to preconditioning due to whatever reasons, only one thing should have been seen due to a particular preconditioning, which is not the case here.

I hope it clarifies a very difficult issue that you have raised.

OM