illusion/confusion

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjan and all Advaitins,

Over the last

month CN has been putting his thesis across with such

energy and industry that the Mumbai Chennai commute

will seem like a walk in the park. I am largly

sympathetic to his approach and feel that it has the

force of an idea whose time has come. Looking at the

posts over the last month and indeed over the last

couple of years that I have been on this list I find

that there is one major factor that inhibits the take

up of his realist reading of Advaita but before I go

into that a prior remark is in order.

 

First the number of varient readings that can be

extracted from of thinker is a sign of the power of his

philosophy . However Sankara is different from others

because of the religious diemension. Certain readings

can become canonical and deviation from certain

accepted interpretation may take the tone of apostasy.

That would be a pity.

 

What is the chief source of distortion? It is no more

and no less than an unsteady grasp of the principle of

analogy. Take for instance what has loosly come to be

called illusion in relation to adhyasa/superimposition.

For a start it's not illusion it's confusion. Loose

talk scuttles a good analogy (loose lips sink ships as

the II.WW.slogan had it). The mechanism of

superimposition is what the analogy is trying to bring

out. This is its focus, its scope is the everyday

world of perception. The focus is not on error as such

but to give a rational explanation as to how what

should be impossible namely perception becomes

possible. Now getting hung up on the error aspect

transfers to perception and we get all manner of

worries as to whether perception is error, status of

snake, where is the rope while the snake is being seen

and so forth. No perception is *like* confusion in one

way only - the superimposition mechanism. Notice how

there is a tendency to move from saying 'perception is

*like* error' to saying 'perception *is* error'.

 

This is all the more glaring a cross contamination

because the *like* area where the scope of the analogy

applies is the relative or experiential and the *is*

refers to the world totally from the absolute

perspective.

 

When we read the Preamble with attention trying to

minimise the noise of illusion talk it is super evident

that Sankara was not involved with the details as to

how superimposition worked, whether it memory mixed

with perception, poor lighting or whatever. That was

not the point.

 

The world *is* not confusion but perception is *like*

confusion. At this point also is the tendency to treat

as an equivalence the world and perception which is the

Siren call of Idealism.

 

Let us just stay with the world of perception and avoid

loaded words like 'appearance' which lead us by the

nose. What do you see? This fountain pen. What you

see is what it is. How does that work?

>From Vedanta Paribhasa:(on Perception)

"Objection: What, then, is the criterion(prayogaka) of

perceptuality according to the tenets of Vedanta?

Reply: Do you inquire about the criterion of the

perceptuality (*capability of being being perceived*)

of knowledge or of objects? If it be the former, we

say it is the unity of the Consciousness reflected in

the means of knowledge with the Consciousness limited

by the object. To be explicit: Consciousness is

threefold - as asscociated with the object (visaya),

with the means of knowledge (pramana) and with the

subject of knowledge (pramatr). Of these,

Consciousness limited by a jar etc, is the

Consciousness associated with the object; that limited

by the mental state is the Consciousness associated

with the means of knowledge; and that limited by the

mind is the Consciousness associated with the

subject."((publ.Advaita Ashrama trans.Swami

Madhvananda))

 

However it might be said that if in thinking that you

know the other it is really the other knowing itself in

you or that there really is no other. That seems a

fair candidate for the title of illusion. Loosely

speaking yes but there is this consideration. The

judgement "It's an illusion" can only be applied on the

same epistemological level as it is suffered. We find

out by the application of further investigation that

such is the case. It is a matter of knowledge or an

empirical thing. The concept of total beguilement is a

poetic or religious one. Here *illusion* is being used

analogically. To say that the total extensive

continuum, world etc is *like* an illusion is an

analogical extension of the occasional state of

delusion/illusion that we may suffer from.

 

Further reference might be made to the analogy of

material identity; clay and pots, gold and jewelery

but here I leave it.

 

Best Wishes, Michael

 

PS. C.N. made no reference to Upadhi the positive hand

of Advaita, Adhyasa being the other. There is very

little talk of it on the list but Dharmaraja

Adhvarindra and Sankara often use the concept, the

former in relation to the Saksin. When you have time

your thoughts on this theme would be interesting.