M.I./G.I.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Advaitins,

When used by Shankara the confusion analogy (snake/rope, nacre/silver)

operates under two interpretations. One I call the Modest

Interpretation and the other the Grand Interpretation. In the preamble

to B.S.B. it is the Modest Interpretation (M.I.) that is to the fore.

Here the movement of the inert object to the consciousness of the

subject is likened to the movement of the 'snake' to the mind of the

confused. The M.I. allows us to get the sense what occurs in normal

perception without going into the detailed ontology; upadhis, vrittis,

sakshi and the like, which is the domain of the explication of V.P.

This is underlined by the fact that Shankara does not go into the

details of how confusion operates or the various theories about it.

 

The Grand Interpretation (G.I.) whereby the snake represents false

cosmic projection, Maya, illusion and the like is the one we are all

familiar with, so much so that when the snake/rope confusion is

mentioned we are automatically led into it by association. Due to its

drama G.I. has come to predominate and a symptom of that is the detailed

examination of the various forms of delusion, illusion and confusion

together with the poetic extension of the analogy far past its original

scope. Thus 'the fangs of the snake have been drawn', the 'rope is but

a charred simulacrum and can no longer bind us' and we hear of mirages

that cannot quench thirst.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.