Our Fundamental Error - Part 8 of 11

[Guest guest]

Thus all conditions are effectively fulfilled. In the first, the object is

evident rather than actually perceived; in the second, the object is partly

unknown; the third condition is not compulsory; the fourth condition is

effectively fulfilled because we have prior experience of an unreal

anaatmaa. Therefore the objections are not valid and the adhyaasa is

possible.

 

In fact, this is only a provisional refutation of the objector and a

defensive argument, to satisfy both aastika and naastika philosophies. It

uses the same scientific reasoning that was used for the objections. He then

goes on to provide a more complete response and offensive argument for

aastika objectors. He says that the entire rope-snake analogy is only an

illustration of the concept of adhyaasa and is not intended to be used to

prove the aatmaa-anaatmaa situation This must use the Vedas as pramaaNa (a

source of knowledge) and not rely solely on scientific reasoning. In fact,

even if scientific argument disproved the rope-snake adhyaasa, this would

not affect scriptural based arguments for the aatmaa-anaatmaa adhyaasa.

 

Furthermore, Shankara points out that the other aastika philosophies have

already implicitly accepted the aatmaa-anaatmaa adhyaasa. All of these

systems talk about aatmaa and accept the Veda's assertion that it is

eternal. They realise that it refers to 'aham' or 'I' and claim that this

is immortal. And yet they are conscious of the their experience of 'I am a

human being', 'I am a father' etc., which clearly refer to anaatmaa.

Therefore, according to their systems, these statements must be erroneous.

Statements such as 'I am the body' are examples of superimposition of the

aatmaa onto the gross body; a form of adhyaasa. If they deny this, they will

be reduced to the stance of materialism. Thus they cannot object to this

special case of aatmaa-anaatmaa adhyaasa. Therefore they must accept the

more general case, even though they might not have realised it.

 

Because they had already implicitly accepted the aatmaa-body adhyaasa

without applying their four objections, they have forfeited the right to

claim that these apply in other cases. For example, as has already been

said, the aatman is not directly perceivable. But this did not stop the

objector accepting that the aatman was not the body.

 

Shankara goes on to say that, although the example of the rope and snake is

not based on shruti, we cannot legitimately object to that either because,

like it or not, that is our experience. The objector can try to explain it

but he cannot question it. The aatmaa-anaatmaa error, on the other hand, is

based on shruti so that, again, we can try to explain but we cannot question

it. The explanations given by the various philosophies may differ but the

error cannot be denied.

 

Degrees of Error

 

In fact the aastika philosophies all agree that there is aatmaa-anaatmaa

adhyaasa; they just disagree about the extent to which this occurs. If the

three statements: - I am mortal; I am a doer; I am an enjoyer; are

considered, the Nyaaya and Vaisheshhika schools of philosophy claim that the

first statement is an error but the second two are facts. Saa~Nkhya and Yoga

schools, on the other hand, say the first two are errors and only the third

is a fact. According to an advaitin, all three are errors. ....end Part 8

 

Dennis