Guest guest Posted February 12, 2001 Report Share Posted February 12, 2001 Dennis Waite wrote: > > Adhyaasa > > [...] ... Shankara's aim > is to show that the Brahmasuutra is compatible with Advaita Vedanta. His > claim is that adhyaasa causes the cycle of birth and death with its > concomitant suffering. Once the error is removed, that is the end of the > cycle. dennisji, my big question is: the end of the cycle for whom? for the jivatman? if so, there's a duality firmly in place! such theorized liberated soul must be thus *apart* from brahman, since [fundamentally] brahman's maya projected into the leela is an *eternal* dynamic. to clarify, [i believe it's] the end of the cycle of: *ego* [being defined as the notion of a separative identity]. and not the end of the cycle of the jivatman's manifestation within the manvantara which, by definition, is the very nature of brahman. the classic idea re the 'liberation from the cycle of samsara' needs to be further scrutinized and clarified. namaste, frank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 12, 2001 Report Share Posted February 12, 2001 Adhyaasa Adhyaasa means error or mistake. This is the basis of Advaita Vedanta and of Shankara's interpretation of the Brahmasuutra. The doctrine of Advaita Vedanta rests upon the four aphorisms in the Vedas: consciousness is Brahman; that thou art; I am Brahman; this self is Brahman. Shankara's aim is to show that the Brahmasuutra is compatible with Advaita Vedanta. His claim is that adhyaasa causes the cycle of birth and death with its concomitant suffering. Once the error is removed, that is the end of the cycle. Errors can arise for various reasons. When I act without knowledge, I commit an error. Even if I know that I am ignorant I am still making a mistake. For example, lack of knowledge of Sanskrit can cause errors in these notes. Even if I know the word I may still make typographical mistakes. Here the error is due to lack of awareness, which is also effectively ignorance, since I am not conscious that what is being typed is not what was intended. Errors may also arise if the instruments of knowledge are defective, for example if I am colour-blind or if there is insufficient illumination. In all of these cases, I am ignorant of the truth and, more importantly, I take the false as real and possibly the real as false. The price of these mistakes is suffering. Ignorance is the source of error and error causes suffering. The solution is therefore knowledge - knowledge of Brahman (Brahmavidya) brings realisation and release from suffering. All techniques, yoga, paths etc. are only methods for preparing the mind to receive that knowledge. 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 (vyaavahhaarika) 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. …end Part 4 Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2001 Report Share Posted February 15, 2001 Dear Frank, I do not disagree! These are not 'my' ideas but an attempt to transcribe the previous posts. Surely, hoever, Shankara is pefectly aware of this. Since the concept of samsaara is necessarily rooted in vyaavahaara, it must be fine to talk about birth and death mustn't it? Duality is (by definition) 'firmly in place'! However, please begin a discussion about what is meant by 'liberation from the cycle of samsaara'. Personally, I would just have said that it means removal of the avidyaa that caused the thought that there was such a thing in the first place (and the identification with a body-mind that might be trapped in it). Regards, Dennis Dennis Waite wrote: > > Adhyaasa > > [...] ... Shankara's aim > is to show that the Brahmasuutra is compatible with Advaita Vedanta. His > claim is that adhyaasa causes the cycle of birth and death with its > concomitant suffering. Once the error is removed, that is the end of the > cycle. dennisji, my big question is: the end of the cycle for whom? for the jivatman? if so, there's a duality firmly in place! such theorized liberated soul must be thus *apart* from brahman, since [fundamentally] brahman's maya projected into the leela is an *eternal* dynamic. to clarify, [i believe it's] the end of the cycle of: *ego* [being defined as the notion of a separative identity]. and not the end of the cycle of the jivatman's manifestation within the manvantara which, by definition, is the very nature of brahman. the classic idea re the 'liberation from the cycle of samsara' needs to be further scrutinized and clarified. namaste, frank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2001 Report Share Posted February 16, 2001 >Dennis Waite wrote: >> >> Adhyaasa >> >> [...] ... Shankara's aim >> is to show that the Brahmasuutra is compatible with Advaita Vedanta. His >> claim is that adhyaasa causes the cycle of birth and death with its >> concomitant suffering. Once the error is removed, that is the end of the >> cycle. > >dennisji, my big question is: the end of the cycle for whom? > >for the jivatman? if so, there's a duality firmly in place! >such theorized liberated soul must be thus *apart* from brahman, >since [fundamentally] brahman's maya projected into the leela >is an *eternal* dynamic. > >to clarify, [i believe it's] the end of the cycle of: *ego* [being >defined as the notion of a separative identity]. and not the end >of the cycle of the jivatman's manifestation within the manvantara >which, by definition, is the very nature of brahman. > >the classic idea re the 'liberation from the cycle of samsara' needs >to be further scrutinized and clarified. Frank - there is nothing wrong in the classic idea of the "liberation of the cycle of samsaara" - The whole discussion and the liberation is for them one who feels he is bound - I am a jiiva is the notion of the jiivaatma - that is the same as the ego. I am the pure aatma is the correct state of affairs as well as correct understanding. The cycle of samsaara belongs to jiiva (jiiva automatically implies the egoist state). Adyaasa is an explanation of the error involved for the questioning mind - how come the all pervading reality thinks is that it is this notional mind with limited body. manvatara etc are all explanations to the ego-centric jiiva - it is a cock-and bull story for the questioning mind which wants to knows how did all started etc. Since the creation, sustenance and annihilation etc are all notions of the mind, which is itself a product of adhyaasa. I donot see any problem in the adhyaasa that was discussed unless I missed something. Hari Om! Sadananda >namaste, >frank > -- K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.