superimposition (adhyAsa) part - 1

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

I had the good fortune to study and reflect on the adhyAsa bhAshhya

(introductory chapter of the brahmasUtra bhAshhya of Shri Shankara)

during the new year break. I do not have the original but have access

to commentaries by Swami Vireswarananda, Thibaut and Radhakrishnan.

BrahmasUtra bhAshhya of Shri Shankara is considered (quite correctly

in my view) the highest intellectual output of a human in the past

many hundreds of years, and this includes Einstein's General Theory

of Relativity. I give below my understanding of the important concept

of superimposition. All of us on this List know that superimposition

plays a major role in the intellectual understanding of advaita.

 

Superimposition is the appearance, in the form of memory, of

something previously experienced in some other place. It involves

the non-grasping of the distinction of two things leading to one

being superimposed on the other. Another way to describe it is to

attribute to a thing of properties contrary to those belonging to

that thing. All the above descriptions imply that it involves the

appearance of the properties of one thing in another.

 

Now, in ignorant state, we do not see superimposition and regard

what our sense organs perceive (the duality of the jagat) to be

real.

 

In semi-knowledgeable state (in which most of us are in), we see

superimposition. But strictly, superimposition (of the jagat on

Brahman) is an impossibility and is still a product of our ignorance,

as I will try to show in the following paragraphs. [Thus when we say

loosely that jagat is superimposed on Brahman, that statement is still

a statement in ignorance].

 

I define the jagat as the world phenomenon of the pairs of opposites.

If there is superimposition, we need to see what is superimposed on

what; is it the jagat on Brahman or Brahman on the jagat? As discussed

earlier, superimposition is seeing the properties of one in the other.

 

Brahman superimposed on the jagat: i.e. jagat is the sub-stratum

(like the rope in a snake on the rope example) and is a reality. This

scenario contradicts our understanding of superimposition (i.e.

the appearance, in the form of memory, of something previously

experienced). Brahman is never expereienced before, and hence this

superimposition is untenable.

 

Jagat superimposed on Brahman: This is not tenable either. Brahman

is not an object which can be perceived by the senses, like the

rope. Brahman cannot be an object of perception. As such, it

cannot be the sub-stratum of a superimposition for an object like

the jagat. [brahman is the innerself of everyone, the Atman and

therefore can never be separate and in front of a person, like

for e.g. the rope, hence cannot be the sub-stratum for jagat to

be superimposed on it.]

 

The only thing that can be superimposed on a subject is a subject

and the only thing that can be superimposed on an object is an object.

The only subject is I, the Consciousness, the Atman, the Brahman.

Superimposition of an object on a subject is an impossibility.

 

Shri Shankara says, that yet, the human, because of ignorance,

does not distinguish between the subject and the object and

superimposes one on the other and their attributes as well. Thus

a product of ignorance is to mix up the real and the unreal and

usages of phrases like "This is mine", "That is I" and so on.

The mind, the body, and the sense organs which are superimpositions

on the Self make the Self erroneously to be an enjoyer of the

fruits and doer of the actions. The true Self can never be an

object of knowledge, can never be an enjoyer of fruits or doer

of the actions.

 

I have a bit more to say on this, but I will stop at this stage,

and if there is interest, I will post the latter part of this

essay later on. Comments are most welcome, leading on to clarification

of concepts.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

This is a request for clarification from people who have studied the

adhyAsabhAshhya of Shri Shankara and the question relates to the

superimposition of an object on a subject.

 

Any superimposition (I defined what superimposition is, in the last post)

is within the realm of ignorance and does not lead to real understanding

of the thing that is superimposed.

 

In discussing superimposition of an object on a subject, Shri Shankara

is quoted as saying (I do not have the original bhAshhya, but have

commentaries on it by Thibaut, Vireswarananda and others):

 

"Objection: How can one superimpose an object on the interior Self

(pratyagatman), which is not an object? One can superimpose an object

only on another object that is before him, and you have just told us

that the self is entirely different from "That".

 

Answer: The Self isn't nonobject in an absolute sense, for It is the

object of our notion of "I" and is directly known to everyone.

Furthermore, your alleged rule that one can superimpose an object

only on another object that is before him has exceptions: we

superimpose blue color on AkAsha (the sky), which is not an object

of perception. So our position is not inconsistent."

 

The above quote is from Potter "Advaita vedanta up to Sankara and

his pupils". Similar quotes on this particular objection and answer

are in Thibaut, and Vireswarananda. Particularly, Thibaut says

".... Nor is it an exceptionless rule that objects can be superimposed

only on such other objects as are before us, i.e. in contact with

our sense organs; for non-discerning men superimpose on the ether,

which is not the object of sensuous perception, dark-blue color.

Hence it follows that the assumption of non-Self being

superimposed on the interior Self is not unreasonable."

 

Or in other words, as I understand, Shri Shankara condones ('condones'

may not be the right word (too strong), 'recognizes' may be too weak

a word) the superimposition of the blue color on the sky, and says it

is one example of superimposition of an object on a subject.

 

My question is: is it ? Is the sky a subject in this example? As per

my understanding, sky is also an object; it may be beyond the sense

perceptions but we can infer it from other evidences. The only difference,

as per my understanding, between blue sky and yellow tiger is: both blue

and yellow are superimposed on the two objects, the sky and the tiger.

The only difference between the two objects is: tiger is perceivable by

the senses, sky is not, but both are objects. Then, why does Shri Shankara

call the superimposition of the blue on the sky as similar to the

superimposition of an object on the subject? Am I missing some point

in the logic here?

 

Superimposition of an object on an object is a valid superimposition

although it leads to unreal knowledge of the object that is

superimposed. Superimposition of an object on a subject is an invalid

superimposition (although we do it regularly because of ignorance).

The ego, the mind, AkAsha, God are all objects which we do not grasp

through the sense organs, but can make inference about them by other

means of evidence. But still, they are objects. However, the SELF is

the only subject, and is the Consciousness, I. As was pointed out

sometime ago in another thread (Atman - Brahman), Atman, the

Consciousness (I) is the only thing there is. Brahman (or what we know

as Brahman) also merges into Atman.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

Greetings:

 

Thanks for posing an interesting question for contemplation. I

hesitated to answer your question because I have not studied the

adhyAsabhAshhya of Shri Shankara. My answer is strictly based on my

understanding your article.

 

There is a clear distinction between blue-sky and yellow-tiger. The

yellow and tiger are two separate entities and are distinguishable.

Yellow is an experience and tiger is another experience. We can have

yellow leaf and a white tiger. Blue-sky is the experience of the sky

(purest) and blue and sky are indistinguishable! The blue is the

illusion created by our ignorance and with the knowledge, we can

understand sky. This example is very similar to the famous rope and

snake example and also the ghost and the post example. Can we say that

the snake is superimposed on the rope? Similarly the ghost is not

superimposed on the post. Finally, the blue is not superimposed on the

sky!

 

One of the reasons for the confusion is due to the application of the

subject-object framework to resolve this problem. The subject-object

framework is quite powerful but it requires deeper understanding of the

distinction between subject and object. The subject is the CAUSE and

the object is the EFFECT. One effect can be superimposed over another

effect. But superimposing the effect on the cause is meaningless.

 

Examples:

 

1 Sun is the cause and light is the effect. Light can't be superimposed

on the sun.

2 Self (Consciousness) is the cause and the world is the effect. We

can't superimpose the World on the Self.

 

For those who want to learn more about the true nature of the Self and

the subject-object distinctions, please refer to The ChAndogya

Upanishad.

--

Ram Chandran

Burke, VA

 

 

Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy writes:

 

Namaste.

 

..............My question is: is it ? Is the sky a subject in this

example? As per my understanding, sky is also an object; it may be

beyond the sense perceptions but we can infer it from other evidences.

The only difference, as per my understanding, between blue sky and

yellow tiger is: both blue

and yellow are superimposed on the two objects, the sky and the tiger.

The only difference between the two objects is: tiger is perceivable by

the senses, sky is not, but both are objects. Then, why does Shri

Shankara call the superimposition of the blue on the sky as similar to

the

superimposition of an object on the subject? Am I missing some point in

the logic here?.........

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Shri Ram Chandran and thanks for your post on the topic.

Let me respond to the latter half of your post first and then to the

first part.

 

You wrote:

>

> One of the reasons for the confusion is due to the application of the

> subject-object framework to resolve this problem. The subject-object

> framework is quite powerful but it requires deeper understanding of the

> distinction between subject and object. The subject is the CAUSE and

> the object is the EFFECT. One effect can be superimposed over another

> effect. But superimposing the effect on the cause is meaningless.

>

> Examples:

>

> 1 Sun is the cause and light is the effect. Light can't be superimposed

> on the sun.

> 2 Self (Consciousness) is the cause and the world is the effect. We

> can't superimpose the World on the Self.

>

> For those who want to learn more about the true nature of the Self and

> the subject-object distinctions, please refer to The ChAndogya

> Upanishad.

> --

 

 

I beg to differ from the first part of the above paragraph. In my view,

the subject-object way to look at It is the easiest way to distinguish

between Atman and the upAdhis. You peel out all the objects of experience,

and what you are left with is the only subject, the I - the Consciousness.

Contrary to that being a problem, I think it is a brilliant way in which

the upAdhis can be recognized and thrown away. Intellectual feel for Atman

(however abstract it is) is much better facilitated by the subject-object

approach which Shri Shankara uses in the adhyAsa bhAshhya.

 

On the other hand, the cause and effect approach has limitations (as we

understand the words cause and effect in the English language) and in fact

leads to erroneous conclusions. Strictly, Brahman is NOT the CAUSE of the

jagat. The cause for the jagat is our ignorance. Thus looking at it as

CAUSE and EFFECT is, in my view, erroneous.

 

I came across a statement (I cannot recall where but can dig it up as I

read that only a week or so ago) which says that one who looks for cause

and effect all the time goes from birth to birth to birth.

 

Shri Ram Chandran further wrote

>

> Thanks for posing an interesting question for contemplation. I

> hesitated to answer your question because I have not studied the

> adhyAsabhAshhya of Shri Shankara. My answer is strictly based on my

> understanding your article.

>

> There is a clear distinction between blue-sky and yellow-tiger. The

> yellow and tiger are two separate entities and are distinguishable.

> Yellow is an experience and tiger is another experience. We can have

> yellow leaf and a white tiger. Blue-sky is the experience of the sky

> (purest) and blue and sky are indistinguishable! The blue is the

> illusion created by our ignorance and with the knowledge, we can

> understand sky. This example is very similar to the famous rope and

> snake example and also the ghost and the post example. Can we say that

> the snake is superimposed on the rope? Similarly the ghost is not

> superimposed on the post. Finally, the blue is not superimposed on the

> sky!

 

What you are calling CAUSE - EFFECT, I am calling subject - object.

You said "... superimposing the effect on the cause is meaningless.".

But that is what we are doing all the time, in our ignorance. Atman is

the subject ["cause" in your terminology], and the body, mind and ego

are the object ["effect" in your terminology]. Every instant of our

life, we superimpose the object on the subject, erroneously I must add.

I agree with you that it is meaningless, but that is what we do and

that is the functioning of the jagat. Recognition that it is meaningless

is itself an advancement.

 

Blue sky, yellow tiger, snake on a rope, ghost on a post are all

examples of superimposition of an object on another object. Once the

ignorance is removed, the sub-strata of the superimposition shines

brightly and the superimposed object disappears. We see the post for

what it is. There is no longer a ghost.

 

Please allow me to clarify my understanding of this object on object

superimposition, with snake on the rope as an example. We have seen

the snake before and have remembrance of the snake in our memory

somewhere. When we see the rope, we mistake it to be a snake, i.e.

we superimpose the snake on the rope. Until our ignorance (of this

particular situation) is removed, we think it is a snake. Once the

ignorance is removed, the rope will shine in its correct form. Reason

for this superimposition is ignorance. In this example, both rope

and snake are objects which can be perceived by the sense organs.

 

Now let us take the blue sky. Difference in this case is the sky

cannot be perceived by the sense organs (unlike the rope of the

previous example), but presence of the sky can be inferred from

other evidences. Sky is still an object, although not directly

perceivable. [A similar example of inference can be when we infer

there is a fire from the smoke, although we may not be able to see

the fire]. The point I was trying to make in the last post was that

both rope and sky are objects, one directly perceivable, the other

inferrable. So, blue sky and snake on a rope are both examples of

object-on-object superimposition.

 

Object-on-subject superimpositions are: This is mine; That is I, This

is my understanding, etc.

 

I got the feeling (may be wrong understanding) reading various

commentaries on adhyAsa bhAshhya that Shri Shankara put the blue sky

in the object-on-subject superimposition category and I was wondering

if it is so, or can it be put in the object-on-object category. In the

ultimate, every superimposition will reduce to object-on-subject

superimposition only. Thus, this (whether object-on-object or

object-on-subject) may be a mute point, after all.

 

> Ram Chandran

> Burke, VA

>

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

>

> Namaste, Shri Ram Chandran and thanks for your post on the topic.

> Let me respond to the latter half of your post first and then to the

> first part..............

 

 

Greetings Gummuluru:

 

Thanks for your beautiful explanations. You have justified by hesitation

and thanks again educating me. I am glad to see Shri Sadanand's

participation and his extensive comments. I hope to see participation

from others and leave this topic to the experts.

 

Thanks again,

 

--

Ram V. Chandran

Burke, VA