Whence Adhyasa

March 24, 2002

Dear Dennis, and all others interested in this subject, namaste,

When you originally asked the question, ’Whence Adhyasas’ you did

so in the context of a seeming problem that was raised by Douglas Fox’s’

assertion that the cause of Adhyasa could not be answered by three

possible alternatives 1) That Brahman is the cause 2) That something

independent of Brahman was the cause 3) That we ourselves are the

cause. I would like to attempt an answer to your question ‘Whence

Adhyasa’ by advocating the third choice, that I am the ‘cause’, in the

sense that: ‘I don’t know the Self, I haven’t been able to discriminate

the true nature of the Self, and due to this , I may be considered the

‘cause’ of superimposition, and to show how this in fact is Shankaras

position, (as opposed to the Mula Avidya Vadins who opted for the second

alternative, and by so doing in fact abandoned Non Duality) and to

demonstrate that by taking such a position, it does not result in the

unacceptable consequences that Fox seems to think it does. I would like

to further add that this subject is not of merely academic interest, nor

is it only a matter of semantics with no real practical outcomes, for

the subjects of Ignorance and Misconception are the very cornerstone of

Shankaras Advaita: a topic which he describes as the “anartha hetu” –the

source of all evil- and that the primary purpose of all the Vedantic

teaching is solely to remove this primary Misconception and nothing

else.

However, before beginning, I think a few preliminary comments are in

order. I would like to emphasize the fact that, with regard to the

contents of this post as well as all my previous posts, I make no claim

to any originality in thinking at all. Everything that I put forth is

either from the writings of Sri Shankaracharaya, Guadapada, and

Suresvaracharya, whom I take to be the true representatives of the

Advaitic Tradition’ as I understand it, as well as the voluminous

writings of Swami Satchidanandendra, the works of Swami Jnanandendra

(The former Vidya Guru of the Maharaja of Mysore), and extensive

conversations with Swami Atmanandendra, and other direct disciples of

Swami Satchidanandendra. I have made free use of these last mentioned

sources either by paraphrasing their positions on various topics, or by

reproducing their exact words without mentioning the specific texts and

verses from which they are derived. The same will be the case in this

post.

Whence Adhyasa?

All Indian thinkers who put forth the view that there is only one

Absolute Reality have had to grapple with the question: If there is only

the Absolute Reality, then how is it that the dualistic world of

multiplicity makes its appearance? The answer to this question has

basically been dealt with by positing some power, force, energy,

‘desire’ or primal ‘stuff’, that inheres in the very fabric of the

Absolute. Thus the Shaivites postulated a ‘Shakti’ that is inseparable

from Shiva, and which allows Shiva to perform his ‘dance of creation’.

The Kashmiri Shavaites called it “Tuiti” (The primordial seed), or

”Iccha”(the desire of Shiva). The Dzog Chen Buddhists called it

‘Stahal’( The inexhaustible inherent energy of the Absolute). Ramanuja

held that the Absolute associated with Chit(consciousness) and Achit

(insentient) is the cause of the world. Vallabhas’ Shuda-Advaita held

that the ‘inner power’ of the Absolute called ‘Maya’, was the cause for

the world. It should be noted that all these thinkers accepted the

reality of the world, and therefore it was really created, and therefore

there must be a cause for it and that cause must in some way inhere in

the very nature of the Absolute.

This very same pathetically ‘realistic’ type of Absolutism was

mimicked by the post Shankara Advaita Vedantins who, like their

dualistic brethren, postulated an actually existing ‘Mula Avidya’(Root

Ignorance) that inhered in the very nature of the Absolute from

beginingless time so as to account for the world of duality. In

addition, this ontological principle (Bhava-rupa, tri-guna atmika,

vastu) was hypothesized to be not only the ‘cause for creation’ but also

the ultimate cause (The Whence of Adhyasa) for all the individuals who

each had their own personal misconceptions (Adhyasas) about the nature

of the Absolute! That this explanation of the “Whence of Adhyasa” is

false, completely opposed to reason, experience and to Shankaras

radical Non-Dualism (Na sajati bedha, Na vijati bedha, Na svagati bedha)

as well as what is the correct explanation, according to Shankara, for

the cause of Adhyasa(superimposition) will be unfolded in what follows.

In order to understand the ‘Whence of Adhyasa’, at least according to

Shankaracharya, the first important issue that must be appreciated is

the distinction between the “Absolute

point of view”(Paramarthika Drishti) and the “Worldly or empirical point

of view” (Loukika-vyavharika Dristi). From the Absolute perspective,

the perspective of truth, there was never anyone who had ignorance, no

one had to get any sort of knowledge to remove that ignorance, and there

never was a Guru who had to teach the meaning of the Upanishads to a

seeker so that he could be released from his bondage caused by that

ignorance. This is the final position of Advaita Vedanta, and not that

in fact a really existing Ignorance that someone actually had was at

some particular point in time removed by the Shastra Pramana, and in so

doing the seeker really became liberated. (It should be noted that if in

fact this were the case then liberation would be an event in time, and

thus it would have a beginning and would therefore necessarily have an

end. It could not be eternal.) For the final realization is merely

recognizing the fact that ‘I am the Absolute Reality’, and in me there

never was, is, or will be any ignorance and therefore no need for the

removal of that ignorance at all. (Of course, the same can be said for

the concepts of Karma, Rebirth, Qualifications for the attainment of

Knowledge, Creator and his creation, or that there are three states and

we are passing through those states, etc. etc.).This distinction between

the Absolute Reality and the ‘Empirical’ viewpoint should be unfailingly

borne in mind in order to reconcile the several seeming

self-contradictory statements in Shankaras’ commentaries.

In the light of the above it becomes easy to understand that all talk

of someone having ignorance, the cause of his ignorance (The Whence of

Adhyaasa), the object of his ignorance, his need to remove that

ignorance, the means by which that ignorance is removed, are all from

the ‘worldly’ or empirical point of view’, the point of view of duality,

in fact, the point of view of ignorance.

To illustrate that this distinction of the Absolute and the Empirical

viewpoints in relation to the topic of Ignorance is utilized by

Shankara, the following quotes should suffice:

“If it should be asked ‘And to whom does this Ignorance

belong?’ We answer, ‘To you who are asking this question!’

(Objection) ‘But I have been declared to be the Isvara Himself by

the Scriptures!

( Reply) If you are thus awakened, then there never was any

Ignorance that ever belonged to anyone’.”

(Sutra Bhasya 4-1-3)

(Note: It is obvious that according to this view, any question about

Ignorance can arise only at the level of empirical life, where there is

duality. One who raises the question, is himself ignorant of the truth,

and so, it must be admitted that at that stage the questioner himself is

ignorant. But when it is known that Brahman or Isvara is the only

Reality, there can be neither any question nor reply concerning

ignorance or anything whatsoever. Accordingly, Shankara anticipates

another objection, i.e.: that if there really is Ignorance then the Self

would have at least one thing second to it and thus Non-Duality would be

abandoned. Shankara shows the futility of this objection thus:)

“And this defect that is attributed to the system by some,

may also be deemed to have been warded off by our reply to the question

raised above. For they are supposed to hold that if such were the case,

then the Self would have a second beside him in the shape of

Ignorance!”(SBh 4-1-3-)

(Shankara means to say that it may be granted that duality or the

empirical view is possible only so long as the unity of the Self is not

yet known, but at the transcendental level of Absolute Reality, there is

no duality or ignorance that ever existed at all, and therefore Non

Duality stands unimpeded.)

So it is from this empirical perspective alone that Shankara begins

his teachings about Ignorance or misconception. And from this

perspective Ignorance is not a ‘theory’ that Shankara concocted so as to

be able to explain the appearance of the world of duality, nor is it

some ‘inexplicable’ (anirvachiniya) phenomena that can’t be said to be

‘existent or non-existent’ nor is it a dogmatic postulate that is to be

blindly accepted on the strength of the scriptural statements, but

rather it is a universal fact of human experience, regardless of age,

culture, race or sex. In the whole of Shankaras’ introduction to his

Sutra Bhasya, he does not quote even one scripture, or one traditional

guru as an authority, nor does he rely on any questionable logical

devices to substantiate his teaching that all worldly-empirical life is

based on a fundamental misconception.

What he does say, however, is that this fundamental misconception

(Adhyasa), the misconception of mixing up the Self and the Non-Self, the

subject and the object, the knower and the known, (even though it is

admittedly opposed to all reason) is a FACT of universal experience

(“sarva loka pratikshaha”). What he intents to indicate by this is

that although the Self is the subject and conscious, and the Not-Self is

the object and of a completely opposed nature to the subject, just like

darkness and light (tamasah prakashavad) and it is therefore reasonable

that they should not be mixed up, nevertheless, all people without

exception and regardless of their intellectual capacities, have

naturally and uncritically mixed these two completely different and

mutually opposed entities, and in so doing are carrying out their

worldly lives in the form of ‘I am this’ and ‘this is mine’. To

clarify: You, the reader, are now presumably convinced that you are

sitting in front of your computer screens, reading this post, and

evaluating the veracity of the assertions that are being made. But for

you to be sitting, it is necessary that you have accepted the idea that

you are either the body or at least the idea that you have a body. For

you to be reading this post, the minimum requirement would be to accept

the fact that you have the ‘sense of sight’, and for you to evaluate the

correctness or falsity of my assertions, it is absolutely necessary that

you have a mind. Yet the idea that you have a body, senses or mind can

only come about as a result of not discriminating the Subject from the

object, the knower and the known, the Self and the not-Self, and it is

the misconception (Adhyasa) or mixing up of these two categories into

one identified entity that is the root cause for all of Samsara. It

alone is the’ knot that binds’, the Himalayan blunder that serves as the

cause for birth and death, for hunger and thirst, for old age and

disease, for confusion and doubt, or as Shankara calls it: the “source

of all evil”. This and only this is the principle meaning of Ignorance

according to Shankara,: i.e Adhyasa is the mutual superimposition of the

Self and the Not-Self along with the mixing of their distinct qualities

on each other.

Now, Dennis, we can begin to tackle the question ‘Whence Adhyasa.

It is a question that can be interpreted as: ‘ O.K let us grant that

Adyhasa is the mutual superimposition of the Self and Non-Self, and let

us also grant that because of this Adhyasa all worldly life is

proceeding, and not only that, let us also grant that due to Adhyasa all

‘spiritual life’ (Vaidika Vyvahara) is proceeding, such as the teachings

concerning injunctions (Vidhis) and prohibitions (pratishedas), Karmas

and meditations as well as the principle Upanishadic teaching concerning

the knowledge of the Self, and how this relates to bondage and release

(Bunda Moksha Vyvahara), but the question now is: What is the ‘cause’

for this misconception itself? Why do we superimpose the Self and the

Not-Self? What is the reason for this Adhyasa to come about in the first

place?

Shankaracharya never explicitly poses the question “What is the

cause for

misconception?” Nevertheless he leaves no doubt in the mind of his

readers how exactly this question of the Whence of Adhyasa is to be

dealt with. For, to the questions ‘Why do the common people commit or

entertain Adhyasa? Why to they wrongly reckon the Self and the Not-Self

each for the other? The answers are to be found in the following

quotations:

1) “Even though it is not reasonable that people should misconceive

the Self for the Not- Self, the worldly people BY NATURE (Naisargika) do

have a misconception with regard to the Self and the Not-Self by

misconceiving one in the other mutually as also misconceiving the

qualities (Dharmas) of each in the other; BECAUSE OF THE REASON THAT

THEY HAVE NOT DISCRIMINATED (AVIVEKENA) their qualities which are

extremely different, as also those entities (Dharmis) which have those

qualities, one from the other.-They have mixed up the Real and the

Unreal and are carrying on their workaday transactions NATURALLY due to

wrong knowledge(Mithyaajnana nimitaha) in the forms of ‘I am this” and

‘This is mine’..” (Sutra Bha. Adh.Bha. 1. ‘Intro to Brahma Sutra

Commentary 2nd paragraph)

Here it is evident that Shankara wants to say that this misconception

is natural. In other words, he is saying that it is the very nature of

the human mind to confound the Self for the Not-Self whenever it

functions. It is just like saying ‘it is the nature of water to flow

down hill’ why? What is the ‘cause’ for its tendency to flow down a

hill? Let us say that it does this ‘nuturally’. Because that is what

water always does. Though waters’ tendency to flow down a hill can be

said to be its nature, this should not be interpreted as indicating

that this is the intrinsic, inalienable nature of water, for water can,

under some peculiar circumstances, flow up a hill. And it is in this

sense alone that Shankara says that this misconception is ‘natural’ to

the human mind, and not that it can never get rid of this tendency to

have a misonception regarding the Self and the Not Self.

Now, if further pursued, we ask the question what is the ‘cause’

for this natural tendency of the human mind to misconceive the Subject

and the Object, the Real and the Unreal, Shankara replies: ‘It is due to

the fact that we haven’t discriminated (Avivekena) between the two.

Because we have not clearly and distinctively determined what exactly is

the Real Self, and what exactly is the Unreal Not-Self, because of this,

because of not knowing that the Self is the only Reality and because of

not knowing that the Not Self is completely Unreal and therefore never

existed as a second thing besides the Self, due to this ‘CAUSE’ of not

knowing (Jnana Abava, Agrahana ), due to the ‘reason’ of not having the

Knowledge of the Self, we are all misconceiving it. In other words, it

amounts to his saying that the inability to distinguish between the

Atman and Anatman, Self and Not-Self is the primary ignorance. Because

of this primary ignorance, of not knowing (Agrahana) or absence of

correct knowledge (Jnana Abava), this primary Ignorance itself is

responsible for the “wrong knowledge” (Mithya Jnana), the misconception

(Adhyasa) about the Self.

One could object to this explanation on the grounds that if

“misconception is an ‘effect’ that really exists, then its cause must be

something that really ‘exists’. Its’ ‘cause’ can’t be something that is

a mere absence, a non–existent ‘cause’ such as not-knowing (Agrahana) or

absence of knowledge (Jnana Abava). For everyone adheres to the rule

that from non–existence, existence can never come, without an existing

cause there can never be an existing effect, and therefore the ‘cause’

must be an existent, a material something, a positive entity. But this

objection is the outcome of a confusion about ontological causality and

epistemological ‘causality’. And while it is true that for every

material effect, a material cause is necessitated (a pot needs its clay

and a tree needs its seed), in the case of epistemological ‘causality’

the cause of ‘not knowing’ is quite sufficient to account for the effect

of misconceiving. Let us examine a common example: When one mistakes a

rope for a snake, if one were to enquire as to the ‘cause’ of that

mistake, it would be quite reasonable to reply that “Due to the cause of

‘not knowing’ that it is a rope, the effect of mistaking it for a snake

has taken place. In the same exact way it is perfectly intelligible to

assert that due to the ‘cause’ of not knowing the Self , you have

mistaken it for the Not-Self.

And again:

“The Field (Kshetra) and the Field Knower (Kshetrajna) means the

Not-Self which is the object (vishaya) , and the Self, which is the

Subject (vishayi) respectively; although both of these are of different

essential natures, having misconceived (Adhyasa) each for the other, and

their respective qualities (Dharmas) mutually in each other, is itself

their ‘union’, their ‘association’, their ‘contact’ (Samyoga). For this

association, the absence or lack of not distinguishing (Viveka Abava)

between the essential nature of the Not- Self (Kshetra Svarupa) and the

essential nature of the Self (Keshtrajna Svarupa) IS ITELF THE ‘CAUSE’.

Just like the the ‘contact’ of a ‘snake’ or ‘silver’ etc., in the

rope, shell, etc;-- a ‘contact’ of the nature of a misconception, owing

to want of discrimination between the two.” (Gita Bha. 13-26)

In this quotation (which is basically a re-echo of his Adhyasa

Bhashaya) Shankara makes it even clearer, if that is possible, that the

only reason, or ‘cause’ for our misconceiving the Self is merely because

we no not know the Self. If we in fact knew the Self, it would not be

possible to misconceive it as anything else. Just as in the case of the

mistaken knowledge about the misconceived ‘snake’. That misconception

could never arise without there being an absence of knowledge with

regard to the fact that all that is there, all that was there, all that

will be there, is the rope alone. The ‘snake’ was no doubt an ‘effect’

and the absence of knowledge with regard to the rope can be considered

to be the ‘cause’ of the snake, but this cause is not a positively

existing material ‘thing’ some ontological entity needed to account for

the effect called a ‘misconceived snake’. An important corollary of

this illustration of the rope-snake is that once we do get the true

knowledge of the rope, the ‘objective effect’ of the absence of

knowledge ie ” the ‘externally existing snake’, as well as the

subjective misconception that the rope is a snake, are immediately

removed. In the same way, once we get the true knowledge of the Self,

the ‘objective effect’ i.e.: the world of duality, the world of time

space and causality, the world of many agents, enjoyers and knowers, as

well as the the subjective misconception that what is really the Self

alone, is the world of duality, are both immediately removed. Only the

Non-Dual Self remains.

However, there is also a significant distinction that should be

noted between this worldly illustration about misconception and the

correct knowledge regarding the rope-snake, as opposed to that which is

being illustrated about the misconception (Avidya) and correct knowledge

(Vidya) regarding the Self. Before we misconceived the rope as a snake,

we were knowers, and after we determine the true nature of the rope and

get its correct knowledge, we still remain as knowers, and there is

still the possibility that we could have misconceptions in the future

with regard to a number of things, including another rope. But in the

case of the knowledge of the Self, once we have determined the true Non

Dual nature of the Self, all of duality is removed for good, so that the

duality of a knower, his means of knowledge, as well as the objects of

knowledge no longer remains, and thus there is no possibility that any

future misconceptions could arise with regard to the Self, or anything

else that was previously misconceived to be existing as a second

something in relation to the Self. Knowership is the outcome of

superimposing (adhyasa) the Self and the mind. All talk of means of

knowledge and objects of knowledge are dependent on a knowership. And

knowereship itself depends on Adhyasa, so once this misconception is

sublated by the knowledge of the Non-Dual Self, all the empirical

dealings of ‘knower’, ‘means of knowledge’, and ‘known;(Pramatru,

pramana, premeya vyavahara) ceases to be.

There is also another question that makes its appearance when one takes

the position that absence of knowledge of the Self is the cause for

misconceiving the Self (The Whence Of Adhyasa): To have an absence of

knowledge with regard to some object of knowledge, and to misconceive an

object of knowledge as something else, requires either the existence of

a mind, or to put it in Fox’s term, it requires ‘some ‘one’ who is doing

the misconceiving’. It would then mean that that which is superimposed,

either the mind, or the individual, both of which are already

superimposed on the Self, would be the entities that are doing the

superimposition. The superimposed is doing the superimposing? This is

the objection: and while at first glance this objection seems valid,

because it exposes the defect of an apparent mutual dependency that is

being relied upon. The supposed defect of saying that you need a mind to

do any type of superimposing, and at the same time asserting that the

mind itself is a superimposed thing. But let us examine the rope snake

example once again. It is not the case that we first have a

misconception that there is a snake, and then after that misconception

the snake appears. For the appearance of the snake and the misconception

are simultaneous. There is no appearance of a snake without the

misconception, and there is no misconception without the appearance of

the snake. In the same way there is no Adhyasa without the appearance of

the mind, and there is no appearance of the mind without Adhyasa. When

Adhyasa is removed the mind is removed, and when there is no mind there

is no adhyasa. The same can be said with equal validity regarding the

individual; There is no individual without adhyasa and there is no

adhyasa without the individual And this in fact is our experience.

Whenever the mind makes its appearance it does so with the conviction

that Duality is real. With the conviction that it is a knower and there

is an independent world which can be known. But when the mind makes its

disappearance, as in the state of deep sleep, faint, coma or nirvikalpa

samadhi, there is no more any Adhyasa or misconceptions, and also no

dualistic dealing of a knower knowing something, no mind and no

individuality.

And while this answer of Shankaras’ to the question ‘What is the cause

for Adhyasa’ is both simple and elegant and in perfect agreement with

universal experience, as well as the intelligibility of his claim that

this Adhyasa can be totally removed by correct knowledge, this teaching

may not feel satisfying to those who have a propensity towards realism

and to convoluted hypotheses and unsubstantiated postulates, and would

prefer to see the profound teachings of Advaita Vedanta degraded to the

level of a speculative theological system that requires of its adherents

both blind belief and unquestioning submission to the authority of the

Scripture and the Guru. They may instead prefer to dogmatically assert

(while no other system of philosophy, darshana, or religion, has ever

thought it necessary to put forth such a view) that instead of ‘not

knowing’ being the cause for Adhyasa, there is an indescribable,

inconceivable beginingless and endless power, that has the capacity to

cover the Absolute and project the world, an ontological entity (not

something totally false or unreal), made up of three gunas, and which

cannot be described as existent nor non-existent, and which is a Shakti

that inheres in the very nature of the Absolute! An unbelievable view

that Shankara never even hinted at in all of his writings! So be it.

But I must end this post by asking them to sincerely enquire, in their

own hearts as seekers of truth, what is the answer to just one question?

Forget about what Shankara may or may not have said on the subject, put

aside what any ‘tradition’ or Swami may have declared, and ask

yourself: How would it be possible for Knowledge to remove such an

entity?? Can knowledge really get rid of some material (Upadana Karana)

‘thing’ (Bhava Rupa) that actually exists from beginingless time?? Just

answer that. If there is a reasonable answer to this question, I eagerly

wait to hear about it.

Om Tat Sat

Atmachaitanya

P.S. ‘ How the Shastra is the only means of knowledge for the Self’ is

coming

Dear Dennis, and all others interested in the subject, namaste,