Bhaskar ji's question on adhyasa

bhaskar :

 

 

 

Swamiji here interprets superimposition as *adhyAsa* instead of

 

adhyArOpa...as far as my knowledge goes adhyAsa is *misunderstanding* &

 

adhyArOpa is " because of this misunderstanding* I see one thing for

 

another...in swamiji-s rope -snake analogy, misunderstanding of rope is

 

*adhyAsa* (it is subjective defect pertains to mind) and due to this

 

adhyAsa (ignorance) we *see* snake in place of rope...snake is

 

adhyArOpita,

 

which is objectively superimposed on rope...Here *feeling* the presence

 

of

 

snake is adhyArOpa and *seeing* the snake on rope is

 

*adhyArOpita*...shankara uses adhyAsa & avidyA alternatively...but I

 

dont

 

think same thing he does with respect to *adhyAsa* &

 

*adhyArOpa*...kindly

clarify

 

 

Dear Bhaskarji:

In the Adhyasabhashya Shankara raises the question: Ko'yam Adhyaso naameti?

What is this Adhyasa? Reply: Smriti rupaH paratra purvadrsta-avabhasaH = It is

a cognition of the nature of recollection of something seen before. He further

says: tathaa cha loke anubhavaH -shuktikaa hi rajatavat avabhasate, ekaschandra

sa-dvitiiyavaditi.= there is this experience in the worldly parlance: the

mother-of-pearl appears as silver, the moon that is really one, appears to be

one with an other moon.

 

From this we see that Shankara uses the word avabhasa to mean adhyasa and

maintains it in the example too. In the example it can be said: a person 'sees'

silver where there is shuktikaa. Shankara does not distinguish between adhyasa

and adhyaropa. When something has to 'appear' to a person, he must be only

'seeing' it.

In my understanding, there is no ground to distinguish between adhyasa and

adhyaaropa.

Adhyasa: BaalaaH aakaashe ……adhyasyanti = children 'posit'dirt etc. on pure

sky.= conjecture, imagine, speculate, etc as per thesaurus.

Adhyaaropa: Superimpose as per your meaning. See the commonality between

superimposition and POSITing.

 

Although the term 'adhyaropa' is not used in the adhyasa-bhashya, there are

two clear indicators in this portion: Tametam Evam-lakshanam Adhyaasam panditaaH

Avidyeti manyante. The Ratnaprabha clarifies: (In the light of our earlier

determining 'avabhasa' cognition of one thing as another, as the meaning of

adhyasa), adhyasa is termed as avidya because it is avidya kaarya, the effect of

ignorance. First there is ignorance of the rope and then this ignorance gives

rise to the error: this is a snake. Then, further down in the adhyasabhashya we

have a clarification by Acharya himself: Adhyaso Naama Atasmin tad buddhiriti

avochama. = We said earlier that Adhyasa is cognising one thing in another, ie.

seeing the snake in what is not a snake actually. So from this clarification

also we are able to conclude adhyasa is not different from the adhyaropa as

defined by you. The Bhamati also uses the words 'aropa' in this section while

explaining adhyasa and avabhasa. It is not that first

one superimposes and then sees. Actually, in our experience, the cognition is

itself the superimposition. What gives rise to the cognition/superimposition is

the basic ignorance about the rope. Here is something that I find it difficult

to express in English. As you seem to know kannada, I shall write out my

understanding about the basic avidya thus: Vidye illaddu avidyeyalla.

Vidyeyalladdu avidye. (In English it may be put as 'Non-vidya' or no-vidya is

not avidya but it is 'not-vidya' which is avidya)If it is the former, there can

be no explanation for the superimposition/projection, for there will be the

defect of 'Abhaavaat bhaavotpattiH' which has been rejected by the Acharya in

the Gita bhashya? in connection with the discussion on pratyavaaya arising out

of non-performance of nityakarma. If the latter kannada definition of avidya is

taken there is no difficulty in explaining the subsequent error, projection.

 

Does the Acharya make the subjective – objective difference between adhyasa

and adhyaropa as you have shown? In the first definition of adhyasa for koyam

adhyaaso question, he said smritirupa…………avabhasaH. In the example he said

shuktikaa hi rajatavad avabhasate. In the second time recalling of the

definition he said: atasmin tad buddhiH is adhyasa. See the consistency in the

Acharya's usage of the words.

 

Pl come out with your views. After all we are here only to strengthen our

understanding.

subb

 

 

 

Shopping

Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Shopping

 

 

Subb - for some reason my mail is not picking up your post - I am not

sure why?. I have to go my hotmail address.

 

Anyway an intersting discussion. I am attempting to tanslate you kannaada

statement (without knowing kannada)

 

"Avidya is not non-apprehension - advidya is misapprehension."

 

 

Actually non-apprehension leads to misapprehension when the mind is at work.

with out the mind present there can be pure non-apprehension such as in deep

sleep state. So avidya involves both aavaraNa and vikshepa. aavaraNa

involves non-apprehension and vikshepa involves mis-apprehension.

 

Please continue the discussion.

Hari OM!

Sadananda.

 

>V Subrahmanian <subrahmanian_v

 

.. Here is something that I find it difficult to express in English. As you

seem to know kannada, I shall write out my understanding about the basic

avidya thus: Vidye illaddu avidyeyalla. Vidyeyalladdu avidye. (In English

it may be put as 'Non-vidya' or no-vidya is not avidya but it is 'not-vidya'

which is avidya)

 

_______________

Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!

http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

Dear Bhaskarji:

 

Humble praNAms Sri V. Subramamanian prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Kindly allow me to share my understanding.

 

VS prabhuji:

 

In the Adhyasabhashya Shankara raises the question: Ko'yam Adhyaso

naameti? What is this Adhyasa? Reply: Smriti rupaH paratra

purvadrsta-avabhasaH = It is a cognition of the nature of recollection

of something seen before. He further says: tathaa cha loke anubhavaH

-shuktikaa hi rajatavat avabhasate, ekaschandra sa-dvitiiyavaditi.= there

is this experience in the worldly parlance: the mother-of-pearl appears

as silver, the moon that is really one, appears to be one with an other

moon.

 

bhaskar :

 

First, kindly accept my heartfelt praNAms to you prabhuji, for quoting

shankara bhAshya..(nowadays it is indeed a very rare thing to see in this

list!!!)

 

Now, coming back to the point, yes, shankara says adhyAsa is nothing but

paratra pUrvadrustA avabhAsaH...but question needs to be asked here is

*at the first place why this cognition of *something else* taking place

here?? If we have the right knowledge of shuktika, there is no question

of *cognition* of rajata in place of shuktika right

prabhuji!!....shankara trying to draw our attention here to that

point..i.e. *misconception* of mother of pearl...this misconception

(adhyAsa) is what shankara trying to clarify here...AND NOT the

*cognition* of pearl per se.... In short, shankara's insistence here is

adhyAsa/avidya about mother of pearl and not the *perception* of silver.

Perception of silver taking place due to our ignorance regarding mother

of pearl..Here misconception (adhyAsa/avidyA) about shuktikA comes first,

subsequently resultant cognition of something else takes place..in the

above case it is silver. Further, here misconception is subjective and

cognition is objective.

 

VS prabhuji:

 

From this we see that Shankara uses the word avabhasa to mean adhyasa and

maintains it in the example too. In the example it can be said: a person

'sees' silver where there is shuktikaa.

 

bhaskar :

 

yes, and it is coz. of adhyAsa about shuktikA.

 

VS prabhuji:

 

Shankara does not distinguish between adhyasa and adhyaropa. When

something has to 'appear' to a person, he must be only 'seeing' it.

 

bhaskar :

 

Yes prabhuji, but as you know, in drAstrAntika it does not apply..since

brahman is not an objective to cognize!! shAstra deliberately attribute

certain features which will be rescinded and ultimately it leads us to

the realization of the true nature of self.

 

VS prabhuji:

 

Although the term 'adhyaropa' is not used in the adhyasa-bhashya, there

are two clear indicators in this portion: Tametam Evam-lakshanam

Adhyaasam panditaaH Avidyeti manyante. The Ratnaprabha clarifies: (In

the light of our earlier determining 'avabhasa' cognition of one thing as

another, as the meaning of adhyasa), adhyasa is termed as avidya because

it is avidya kaarya, the effect of ignorance. First there is ignorance

of the rope and then this ignorance gives rise to the error: this is a

snake. Then, further down in the adhyasabhashya we have a clarification

by Acharya himself: Adhyaso Naama Atasmin tad buddhiriti avochama. = We

said earlier that Adhyasa is cognising one thing in another, ie. seeing

the snake in what is not a snake actually. So from this clarification

also we are able to conclude adhyasa is not different from the adhyaropa

as defined by you.

 

bhaskar :

 

I hope I've clarified this point above...adhyAsa means misunderstanding ,

this is the defect of the antaHkaraNa or mind ...due to adhyAsa one

mistakes one thing for another that really which does not exist...that

false appearance is called adhyArOpa or adhyArOpita..this is what I

believe subtle mesg. conveyed by shankara in adhyAsa bhAshya..due to

adhyAsa there is adhyArOpa..This can be illustrated as ..the non-dual

brahman is misunderstood naturally by the mind such as world or univer

etc. this misunderstanding which pertains to the mind/upAdhi is called

adhyAsa. And due to this adhyAsa he assumes the brahman as the world

this is adhyArOpa. So the world is called adhyArOpita (adhyastha or

vikalpita)..(adhyArOpa apavAdAbhyAm nishprapaNchaM prapanchyate). This

is ofcourse from the transactional view point. the same has been called

as *parataNtra saMvrutti or loukika saMvrutti* in kArikA.

 

While on the subject it is worth to be noted that there are two types of

adhyArOpa. One is due to innate avidyA of the common man which we have

discussed above and another one is deliberate device adopted by the

scriptures to make us to realize the ultimate nondual nature of brahman.

This scriptural adhyArOpa is called *kalpita saMvrutti* in kArika.

 

VS prabhuji:

 

As you seem to know kannada, I shall write out my understanding about the

basic avidya thus: Vidye illaddu avidyeyalla. Vidyeyalladdu avidye. (In

English it may be put as 'Non-vidya' or no-vidya is not avidya but it is

'not-vidya' which is avidya)If it is the former, there can be no

explanation for the superimposition/projection, for there will be the

defect of 'Abhaavaat bhaavotpattiH' which has been rejected by the

Acharya in the Gita bhashya?

 

bhaskar :

 

Not exactly prabhuji...we cannot apply this same rule to every

analogy...in the adhyAsa bhAshya itself shankara clarifies this by giving

the example of *blueness of sky*...Though *sky* as such will not be there

for superimposition..we do superimpose the *blueness* on sky...As you

know, shankara takes this analogy to explain how on the *unobjectifiable

atman* superimposition can take place!!

 

Please read it in kannada * illi vidye illaddu (abhAva) yemba prashneye

baruvudilla...vidye allada avidyeye mUla kAraNa adhyArOpakke*....

 

VS prabhuji:

 

Does the Acharya make the subjective ? objective difference between

adhyasa and adhyaropa as you have shown? In the first definition of

adhyasa for koyam adhyaaso question, he said smritirupa????avabhasaH. In

the example he said shuktikaa hi rajatavad avabhasate. In the second

time recalling of the definition he said: atasmin tad buddhiH is adhyasa.

See the consistency in the Acharya's usage of the words.

 

bhaskar :

 

I cannot precisely pinpoint where exactly shankara differentiate the

adhyAsa & adhyArOpa..But my guruji while doing bhAshya shAnti has

explained how the adhyAsa is different from adhyArOpa which I've

explained above to the best of my ability...Anyway, for your ready

reference you can check shankara's gItA bhAshya on kshEtra-kshEtrajna

vibhAga yOga...wherein shankara puts these two words (adhyAsa/mithAjnAna

and adhyArOpa)...he says * adhyArOpita sarparajatAdi saMyOgavat

sOtmadhyAsarUpaH kshEtra-kshEtrajna saMyOgO mithyAjnAna

lakshaNaH..(better see the original text..my transliteration not

good)..Here shankara saying the false appearance of the snake and silver

is called adhyArOpita and the misunderstanding is called adhyAsa.

 

Finally, according to my understanding, avidyA is equal to adhyAsa and

mAya is adhyArOpita. You can refer sUtra bhAshya AraMbhaNAdhikaraNa also

wherein its been said mAya is *avidyAkalpita*. The difference between the

adhyAsa and adhyArOpa is very subtle. The misunderstanding is there in

the antaHkaraNa in the first place and then he feels a thing that which

is not there..somewhere else in sUtra bhAshya (most probably in 4th

adhyAya of sUtra...but not sure) shankara uses the words like *pratyEti

atra* & *pratItilakshaNArthaH*.. the word *pratyEti atra* shows the

adhyArOpa is due to adhyAsa and the word *pratItilakshaNArthaH* shows

adhyArOpita, the false appearance.

 

VS prabhuji:

 

Pl come out with your views. After all we are here only to strengthen

our understanding.

 

bhaskar :

 

prabhuji, I've dealt with this subject in much more detail earlier when

adhyArOpa apavAda was the monthly topic for discussion...I dont know how to

get you the link for that mail...I think it must be there in file

section...if your time permits kindly go through it & pass on your

comments.

 

Humble praNAms onceagain

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar