Our Fundamental Error - Part 6 of 11

[Guest guest]

Shankara's discussion of adhyaasa

 

This effectively divides into six topics: - the definition of error,

objections to the theory as described, answers to these objections, showing

the possibility for error, proof of the theory, conclusion.

 

Definition of adhyaasa: - Shankara gives two definitions. The simpler is

that it occurs when the attributes of one thing are superimposed on another.

Thus a snake is seen instead of a rope or silver is seen on the inside of a

shell. The second suggests that it occurs when a previously experienced

object is seen instead of the actual. This accounts for the fact that a

snake could not be seen instead of the rope unless the observer knew what a

snake was and had previously seen a real one (or an image of one). The third

indirect definition is the one mentioned earlier; that it occurs when real

and unreal are mixed up.

 

Objections to the theory: -

 

Other systems of philosophy claim that, although the rope-snake error is

acceptable, the superimposition of anything onto the aatman is not possible.

The argument is that any superimposition requires four conditions to be

satisfied.

 

1. Perception. The object being covered must be directly perceivable, as is

the rope in the rope-snake example. The aatman is not an object and cannot

be perceived.

2. Incompletely known. The object must be incompletely known, as one is

ignorant of the fact that the rope is a rope. In the case of the aatman,

however, the advaitin accepts that the aatman is self-evident and always

conscious - how can there be ignorance with regard to something that is

self-evident?

3. Similarity. There must be some similarity between the actual object and

its superimposition, just as a rope and snake have a basic similarity (one

could not mistake the rope for an elephant, for example). But there is total

dissimilarity between the aatman and anything else. E.g. aatmaa is the

subject, anaatmaa is the object; aatmaa is conscious and all pervading,

anaatmaa is inert and limited etc.

4. Prior experience. In order to make the mistake, we must have had prior

experience of that which is superimposed. We could not see a snake where the

rope is unless we knew what a real snake was. Whilst this is possible in the

case of the rope-snake, it is not possible in the aatmaa-anaatmaa case

because we would have to have prior experience of a 'real' anaatmaa and it

is part of the fundamental teaching of Advaita that there is no such thing;

there is only the aatman.

 

Accordingly, in the case of the aatmaa-anaatmaa, not one of these four

conditions is satisfied. Therefore superimposition of anaatmaa onto aatmaa,

the fundamental cause of our error according to Shankara, is not possible -

so says the objector. ..end Part 6