Dreams as explained by discussions on pramanas

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Venkat,

Thanks for the response. At the outset, I would like to tell that my first

name is "chandrasekaran" and would like to be addressed thus. Thanks.

> Dear Bhagavtas/Sri. Venkatraman,

>KEY POINT: There is no question of talking about effect independent of

>cognition. For example, suppose one shuts off all his sense organs;

>some time after that, an object is placed before that individual. Can the

>object act as a catalyst? No!

 

I think, you missed my point in the previous mail. I fully agreed and even

established that cognition is the very basis of the experience. I never rejected

it. I only said that being an unquestioned agent in experience, cognition is not

the object under question.

We show heat to wax; it melts and drops into a warp and a doll is made;

Here in this example I would equate heat => rope-snake; molten wax =>

cognition;

doll => fear. Do you agree the sequence?

If so, let's see what is the cause for the doll. molten wax is indeed the

basic

material cause for the doll. But without heat the wax wouldn't have taken the

form

of a doll. So the essential cause is heat. It's out of place to question the

agent

"molten wax". It's an unquestionable agent like cognition in the case of fear.

So

no question about experience will target cognition as its object. Do you agree?

 

Again, I never said object alone is the cause of experience. My statement is

assuming cognition is there. That's why I many times asserted the basic

importance

of cognition in an experience. But you will also agree that cognition has a

dependency on external sense contact. In your words "triggering agent". The

question is only about this trigerring agent and not the intermediate

indispensable agent viz., "cognition". The question about experience will be

useless in itself if it targets "cognition" as its object.

 

Here is how I would like to re-present the question:

" cognition is always real and experience is always real. no question about

these aspects. it is the objects that are real and unreal. question is if unreal

objects can induce experience at all".

I say yes, because when a false-snake (unreal object. rope is real. snake is

unreal. but it's snake that is crux here) is seen, cognition of snake is

triggered

by the unreal snake. The cognition of snake which is real in turn gives rise to

experience of fear which is also real.

You will agree that without a real/unreal snake in front, the cognition itself

wouldn't have got triggered. Note that this is assuming that the person's sense

organs are not shut off. I am assuming cognition is constantly present.

Otherwise

there is no talk of experience. And note that cognition is internal and is not

part of the question.

>Please note, we are discussing a topic that belongs in a metaphysical

>paradigm.

 

Yes. I agree. But metaphysical realm has a dependency on the external things

in

this case. The question itself is not about metaphysical object.

 

Yes, as you said, it's a real object that leads to experience in the case of

rope-snake since rope is real. But I think the essence of the argument may not

be

referring to the object as a mere physical entity. Along with the physical

entity

the false form with which that object appears is what is meant by unreal object

in

the case. rope-snake may be a bad example for treating an unreal object in that

sense. Why can't we take mirage or the "lizard carcass" case which I discussed

earlier ? In these cases clearly the objects that induce the experience are

false in the physical sense too.

 

adiyEn,

chandrasekaran.