Weekly Definition - adhyAsa

[Guest guest]

Om Om every one, I put my version on 'adhyAsa'. Our 'self ' which is also a

pure 'knowledge-self ' by the nature, becomes less knowledgeable and less

powerful due to the 'mind-body' complex. So being under the control of

senses, It also forgets its real nature. Now to treat our 'self ' being the

'mind-body' complex instead of 'Brahman' is called 'adhyAsa' . For further

details on Advaitism log on to www.anandkebeechmain.makeswebsites.com. Thank

u. Dhananjaya Agrawal.

 

On 1/1/07, advaitins <advaitins > wrote:

>

> Here is the first of the `Weekly Definitions' topics. It is not

> intended that this should form a `model' for all to imitate. The only

> requirements that I can think of are as follows (please contact me if

> you can think of any others that might be useful):

>

> 1) The definition should not be overly long (this is probably a bit on

> the long side, in fact, but then it is a fundamental one).

> 2) It should not use any Sanskrit words or other Advaita concepts unless:

> these have already been defined in a weekly topic or

> the definition itself provides simple, outline definitions.

> 3) Any cited scriptures or other references should provide full

> details, e.g. title, author, ISBN or web address.

> 4) Any Sanskrit words should be given in ITRANS format and the correct

> spelling should be checked (in case some readers learn them off by heart!)

>

> It will always be useful to provide pointers to where more details can

> be found.

> Apologies for taking this definition from my own book. I am not doing

> this so as to gain free publicity (though that is always welcomed by

> my publisher!) but because, having taken great efforts to define terms

> clearly there, I am unlikely to do much better by trying to express it

> differently here.

>

> Finally, other senior members are always invited to present

> alternative definitions if they feel some important aspect has been

> overlooked or if they feel that the existing one is in some way

> confusing. It is important that no one feel that the first attempt is

> being in some way `criticized' if alternative definitions are

> provided. All definitions will be archived in the `Files' area and I

> will also generate a new `Definitions' section at my web site in due

> course.

>

> adhyAsa

> Not only do we fail to appreciate the true nature of ourselves but

> also we identify ourselves with the limited body, mind and intellect.

> Our bodies grow old and die so we think that we grow old and die. Our

> minds are confused and the intellect unable to discriminate so we say

> that we are dull and stupid. It is a combination of inapprehension –

> failure to see the Self – and misapprehension – seeing wrongly. We are

> the seer, not that which is seen but we confuse the two. We

> superimpose the changing body and mind upon the non-changing Self.

> This process is called adhyAsa or adhyAropa (wrong attribution or

> erroneous transferring of a statement from one thing to another). It

> is sufficiently important for Shankara to examine it in detail before

> he begins his commentary on the brahmasUtra-s (brahmasUtra bhAShya) as

> follows:

>

> Preamble: It being an established fact that the object and the

> subject, that are fit to be the contents of the concepts "you" and

> "we" (respectively), and are by nature as contradictory as light and

> darkness, cannot logically have any identity, it follows that their

> attributes can have it still less. Accordingly, the superimposition of

> the object, referable through the concept "you," and its attributes on

> the subject that is conscious by nature and is referable through the

> concept "we" (should be impossible), and contrariwise the

> superimposition of the subject and its attributes on the object should

> be impossible. (Brahma Sutra Bhasya of Shankaracharya, Translated by

> Swami Gambhirananda, Advaita Ashrama, 1996. ISBN 81-7505-105-1.)

>

> And this extract illustrates, perhaps more than most, why many seekers

> today rebel against traditional teaching with its perceived excessive

> use of Sanskrit, emphasis on preparation and sAdhana [spiritual

> disciplines] and, as here, its over-intellectualizing. Very few are

> likely to have the slightest idea what is being said here and, unless

> some clear explanatory comment is provided elsewhere, they will simply

> give up. It has to be remembered, however, that Shankara was a

> philosopher trying rigorously to prove his points and overturn the

> views of his objectors. Anyone who has read (or tried to read) western

> philosophers such as F. H. Bradley will know that unreadability is an

> occupational hazard!

>

> What Shankara begins by saying is that "I" am different from the

> perceived object. I make a fundamental mistake when either I see one

> thing and think it is something else (e.g. I see a rope and think it

> is a snake) or I think something has an attribute that it does not

> really have (e.g. I think that the mirage is actually a lake). There

> is always something real (the rope or the sand with shimmering air

> above it) and something illusory. The real part is unaffected by our

> superimposition. What is effectively happening is that we partially

> see the real part, the substratum such as the rope, and then overlay

> it with some recollected memory of something else, such as the snake.

>

> … When a mistake of this type occurs, what is happening is that a real

> part and an unreal part are getting mixed up and this is effectively

> how Shankara defines adhyAsa - the mixing up of real and unreal.

>

> … When someone refers to the "snake," he does not realize that there

> are two aspects, one real and one unreal. If he says, "there is a long

> snake," the adjective "long" in fact refers to the rope, which is real

> whilst, if he says "there is a poisonous snake," the adjective refers

> to the unreal part.

>

> … Similarly, when someone says: "I am a shopkeeper" (or whatever), he

> does not realize that the attribute "shopkeeper" refers to the unreal

> part. He does not know that there are two parts, only one of which (I

> am) is real. In the mind of the ordinary "person" these two things are

> mixed up and a single, false, jIva is created. [jIva is the

> identification of the real Self with a body and mind.] It is this

> mixed-up jIva who is striving for liberation.

>

> *** The above is extracted from the forthcoming book, `Back to the

> Truth' to be published Feb 2007. Much of the specific detail on the

> topic of adhyAsa comes from my long essay at

> http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/real/adhyasa.htm which itself was

> based on the excellent series of articles posted by Sri Sadananda to

> this group. These may be downloaded from the `Files' area.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dennis, may I say that you hit the nail on the head when you said new

people frequently get lost in the terminology and trying to understand

what feel like very complex teachings and then give up.

 

I read something that I received as a group email from this site which

was supposed to explain things. I was all excited till about line 600.

I was understanding. Then about line 600 there were all these words I

had never seen. Sure all the definitions were given, but I got totally

overloaded. I could not remember all those words and what they meant,

so I gave up. It felt like reading a foreign language but too much at

one time.

 

I was ready to cancel membership until I read that there will be these

writing for beginners.

 

Anna

[Guest guest]

This is a wonderful start , Dennis-ji ! A is the first letter of the

English Alpahbet.

 

The very first verse of Thirukural goes like this

 

akara mudhala ezuththellAm Adhi

bagavan mudhaRRE ulagu.

 

Translation:

'A' is the first letter of the Alphabets . God (creator) is the

source of the universe !

 

..Is it then a coincidence that all meaningful words start with 'A'

such as 'Amma ( Mother ) , 'Atma' , and 'Advaita' ?

 

Yes ! Without knowing the meaning of 'Adhyasa' ( superimpostion or

false perception) , how can we remove Avidya' or ignorance , in

grasping the finer nuances of the philosophy of Advaita ! This is a

good 'abhyasa' or practice . in this context , may i point out that

it was Dennis-ji himself who started the thread "Whence Adhyasa" way

back in 2002 and a member named Atmachaityana108 responded with some

wonderful, mind-blowing responses ...

 

please read all about this discussion in a pdf format at

 

http://www.advaitin.net/WhenceAdhyasa.pdf

 

i would also encourage all members to read our beloved member

Chittaranjan naik's views on this subject at

 

A Realist View of Advaita - Part X Summary

 

http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/chittaranjan/summary_chittaranja

n.htm

 

Thank you Dennisji for starting this Sanskrit primer on frequent

used TERMS in the philosophy of Advaita ... As our member Anna has

explained i hope more members will join the list as time goes on

and 'Advaita' will become a household word .Lady JOYCE, are you

reading this ?

 

"If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to

man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees

all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern."

 

 

~ William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell (1790-93). A

Memorable Fancy

 

Thanx once again - we are not sleeping when our eyes are closed and

we are not 'seeing' when our eyes are open ... it is all a matter of

perception!

 

Best wishes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "advaitins" <advaitins wrote:

>

> Here is the first of the `Weekly Definitions' topics. It is not

> intended that this should form a `model' for all to imitate. The

only

> requirements that I can think of are as follows (please contact me

if

> you can think of any others that might be useful):

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste all.

 

An attempted explanation of `adhyAsa' from scratch, without the

help of Sanskrit words:

 

Error arises, according to the theory of Non-duality, on account of

the superimposition of one reality on another. Seeing

 

• a snake where there is a rope,

• a piece of silver where there is nacre,

• a thief where there is the trunk of the tree,

• water where there are only heat-waves,

• a dream object,

• a reflection in a mirror,

• a movie on the screen

 

all these are common errors, though the last two are not usually

accepted as errors. In all these cases, a lower order of reality is

superimposed on a higher order. The snake on the rope exists only in

appearance. It is perceived by only one individual and that also for

a brief moment. It belongs to the lowest order of reality, that may

be called `the illusionary order of reality', also called `phenomenal

order of reality'. It has no existence independently of its

perception. In fact this is the case of the first five examples

above. None of these however can be dismissed as unreal, for if they

were so they would not have been perceived. An unreal thing is that

which is never perceived by any one. No one has ever seen a hare's

horn. It is a mere word which does not correspond to anything in the

real world.

 

The rope which remains after the place has been examined with the

help of better lighting belongs to a higher order of reality. It is

the same to the same individual at different times and the same to

different individuals at the same time. It exists more or less

permanently. So also the nacre and the trunk of the tree. These

belong to what is called the common experiential order of reality,

also called `the empirical order of reality'. They are vouched for

by common experience. For most people this order is the highest

reality for they do not rise to a higher level of knowledge.

 

The superimposition of the snake on the rope is a common error. When

we superimpose a lower order of reality on a higher order, it is an

error. In superimposing the snake on the rope, or the piece of

silver on the nacre, or the thief on the tree-trunk, what we are

doing is a supereimposing of an illusionary order of reality (which

is `lower') on the empirical reality (which is `higher').

 

Now this empirical order of reality also suffers contradiction when

man gets the knowledge of the Transcendent Absolute Reality,

called `Consciousness' or `Pure Spirit'. So Vedanta says the

empirical world must be treated as a superimposition on Absolute

Reality. This superimposition is also an error. In order to

distinguish it from the common error earlier mentioned, we may call

it a metaphysical error. Ordinary error can be set right by a little

examination but not so the metaphysical error . This metaphysical

error is `adhyAsa'. One has to go through much discipline and acquire

the saving knowledge from a teacher. It is this knowledge which will

consign the world to a lower order.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste Profvkji:

 

As usual you have provided a detailed explanation of 'adhyAsa' and I

like your presentation. Here is another site where series of

relevent articles on 'adhyAsa' are assembled:

 

http://www.experiencefestival.com/adhyasa

 

Sankara the great mathematician (logician) provides the conclusion

that there is one-to-one correspondence between the presence

of 'duality' and the presence of 'adhyAsa.' AdhyAsa disappears when

wisdom prevails and simultaneously duality disappears.

 

Sankara the genius was able to recognize the mathematically precise

identity between the presence of both 'adhyAsa' and 'duality.'

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Happy New Year!

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk

wrote:

>

> Namaste all.

>

> An attempted explanation of `adhyAsa' from scratch, without the

> help of Sanskrit words:

>

> Error arises, according to the theory of Non-duality, on account

of

> the superimposition of one reality on another. Seeing

>

> • a snake where there is a rope,

> • a piece of silver where there is nacre,

> • a thief where there is the trunk of the tree,

> • water where there are only heat-waves,

> • a dream object,

> • a reflection in a mirror,

> • a movie on the screen

>

> all these are common errors, though the last two are not usually

> accepted as errors.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk wrote:

Ordinary error can be set right by a little

> examination but not so the metaphysical error . This metaphysical

> error is `adhyAsa'. One has to go through much discipline and

acquire

> the saving knowledge from a teacher. It is this knowledge which will

> consign the world to a lower order.

>

> PraNAms to all advaitins.

> profvk

>

 

ShrIgurubhyo namaH

 

Namaste Prof ji,

 

Thanks for a very fine presentation of the concept of Adhyasa. The

innate 'teacher' in you has found beautiful expression in this post.

It is a truly illustrative explanation of the concept most useful for

both newcomers to Advaita as well as those familiar with advaita. A

post that 'has to be' included in the file on adhyasa finally.

 

May i suggest that alongside the 'core' discussion on the taken up

term (in this case 'adhyasa') whenever concepts/terms peculiar to

advaita occur, these too could be indicated by their specific terms.

This will introduce these terms to the newcomers and will form a basis

for being discussed as 'core' terms later.

 

In this light, in the current discussion, for example, we have

concepts like 'illusory reality', 'absolute reality' etc. These could

be provided their Sanskrit terms 'prAtibhAsika satyam', 'pAramaarthika

satyam' etc. respectively in brackets. May i request you to pick out

such terms from the above post of yours and juxtapose the Sanskrit

terms and re-present just those terms Sir?

 

 

Warm regards,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

Subbuji :

 

i 'echo' your sentiments - Professorji is well known for making

complex and profound concepts look Simple - hence, his commentary

on 'Adhyasa' has indeed helped the course of the discussion . But

Subbuji , while it may be useful to include Sanskrit terminology

alongside its English counterpart , we do not want to 'inundate'

this discussion with too many sanskrit words right in the beginning

of the primer !

 

My dance teacher used to say , in dance everything is learned 'step

by step - First comes Foot work , then comes hand gestures (MUDRAS)

followed by faccial gestures ,(ABHINAYA ) and after you have

mastered all these three techniques , you combine them all to

produce a well coornidated final product full of Rhythm and

Beauty ! !

 

When i was learning 'public' speaking at the Rotary club, i was told

to focus on who the 'audience' is ! Dennis-ji has started this

mission of explaining the key concepts of Sanskrit terms in Advaita

with a particular audience in mind - not the seasoned sanskrit

scholars but brand new entrants who are totally unfamiliar with any

Sanskrit vocabulary ! So, let us proceed step by step , helping this

primer to proceed as per Dennis-ji's plan ! Professorji has ably

asisted Dennishji bt keeping it Simple and straight ( the Kiss

principle) - i am delighted to see Lady Joyce of Harsha satsangh

reincarnating in the group to take full advantage of these Lessons -

Earlier, lady Joyce had also expressed concerns in this very forum

about how too many sanskrit words were used in the course of group

discussions without an English translation being provided

alongside !

 

Having said all this , - let the Petals of a Flower

open one by one on seeing the miorning sun - so , let Dennis-ji

introduce one Sanskrit word at a time for us to grasp the full

meaning!

 

True, Adi shankara's ADVAITA philosophy is sublime and perfect .

The world is relatively real (Vyavaharika Satta), while Brahman is

absolutely real (Paramarthika Satta). But how many of us can realize

this profound Truth even with the help of the 'rope and

snake 'analogy ? Because we all are still caught up in Deha adhyasa

( body-mind-intellect complex) ! and there is a sanskrit term for

this ! and it is called " alabhdha-bhumikatva" - the feeling that

it is impossible to see reality- we do not want to introduce this

term now , do we ?

 

Vinayaka-ji, you are starting new , new threads - first

on 'Hiranyagarrbha ' and then on 'Mandukya' upanishad? Please ,

please , let us take one baby step at a time before we start running

the 'marathon' ! thanx for understanding .

 

Best wishes

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v"

<subrahmanian_v wrote:

>

 

> ShrIgurubhyo namaH

>

> Namaste Prof ji,

>

> y.

>

> May i suggest that alongside the 'core' discussion on the taken up

> term (in this case 'adhyasa') whenever concepts/terms peculiar to

> advaita occur, these too could be indicated by their specific

terms.

> This will introduce these terms to the newcomers and will form a

basis

> for being discussed as 'core' terms later.

>

> In this light, in the current discussion, for example, we have

> concepts like 'illusory reality', 'absolute reality' etc. These

could

> be provided their Sanskrit terms 'prAtibhAsika

satyam', 'pAramaarthika

> satyam' etc. respectively in brackets. May i request you to pick

out

> such terms from the above post of yours and juxtapose the Sanskrit

> terms and re-present just those terms Sir?

>

>

> Warm regards,

> subbu

> Om Tat Sat

>

[Guest guest]

PraNams.

I am very grateful to the group for the decision to make the year 2007, the

year of the Novice. I look forward to understanding the basic concepts that

the learned members have so graciously offered to elaborate upon. My best

wishes to the group and hope the group will become a guiding light for all

spiritual seekers.

 

On the definition of Adhyaasa:

 

I totally agree with Dhyanasaraswatiji in that adding the Sanskrit

terminology alongside the English words might make this discussion more

complicated. I understand Shri Subbuji made this suggestion so that the

Sanskrit words may be understood in their relevant context where ever

appropriate, but I have difficulty understanding illusory reality and

experiential reality even without the Sanskrit! I hope the other novices

will also agree with me.

 

Regarding Profji's explanation:

I wish to check if I understood this term correctly:

 

1) in the dark when I mistake the rope for a snake, this is a 'common

error'. The snake in this case, seen/imagined for a fleeting moment is the

lowest order of reality, the 'illusory reality'.

2) I turn on the light and understand the rope for what it is--a rope. The

rope here is the experiential/empirical order of reality.

3) But Vedanta says that even the rope is not the real thing - there is a

third or the highest level of reality, the Transcendent absolute reality or

the Pure Consciousness. When I think of or see the rope as the one Absolute

reality, this is a 'metaphysical error' or 'adhyaasa'.

 

But at this point would it be okay to try and fit these 3 levels of reality

to our world? And that is where I seem to get confused. Is our perception of

the 'I' in us (the rope), as our mind-body (the snake) the lowest

levelLevel 1?

Then is the world (or rather the perception that the world and I are one)

the experiential order of reality? i.e. the understanding that all elements

and I are one because we are supported by the same substratum. This

understanding would be the second level Level2. Then beyond this is the

understanding that I and the substratum or the Pure Consciousness or the

Absolute reality are also one and that is the highest level which leads to

liberation, Level 3. Is this correct? Then the question is, is 'adhyaasa'

the error made in perceiving Level 2 as 'the end', as Level 3? Is it

possible that one could awaken to Level 2 (I_and_World_AreOne = the rope)

and mistake it for Level 3 (AbsoluteReality)? Profji's explanation seems to

suggest that this is the case. Please let me know if the above

interpretation is correct. If this is correct, then it would mean that it

takes someone like the Buddha, starting at Level 1, to get to Level 3.

Krishna and Jesus were already at Level3 when they landed on earth! Someone

like Ramakrishna Paramhamsa was at level 2 and freely moved between Level 2

and 3 but lived at Level 2 for the benefit of the people.

 

PraNams

Veena.

 

On 1/2/07, dhyanasaraswati <dhyanasaraswati > wrote:

>

> Subbuji :

>

> i 'echo' your sentiments - Professorji is well known for making

> complex and profound concepts look Simple - hence, his commentary

> on 'Adhyasa' has indeed helped the course of the discussion . But

> Subbuji , while it may be useful to include Sanskrit terminology

> alongside its English counterpart , we do not want to 'inundate'

> this discussion with too many sanskrit words right in the beginning

> of the primer !

>

> My dance teacher used to say , in dance everything is learned 'step

> by step - First comes Foot work , then comes hand gestures (MUDRAS)

> followed by faccial gestures ,(ABHINAYA ) and after you have

> mastered all these three techniques , you combine them all to

> produce a well coornidated final product full of Rhythm and

> Beauty ! !

>

> When i was learning 'public' speaking at the Rotary club, i was told

> to focus on who the 'audience' is ! Dennis-ji has started this

> mission of explaining the key concepts of Sanskrit terms in Advaita

> with a particular audience in mind - not the seasoned sanskrit

> scholars but brand new entrants who are totally unfamiliar with any

> Sanskrit vocabulary ! So, let us proceed step by step , helping this

> primer to proceed as per Dennis-ji's plan ! Professorji has ably

> asisted Dennishji bt keeping it Simple and straight ( the Kiss

> principle) - i am delighted to see Lady Joyce of Harsha satsangh

> reincarnating in the group to take full advantage of these Lessons -

> Earlier, lady Joyce had also expressed concerns in this very forum

> about how too many sanskrit words were used in the course of group

> discussions without an English translation being provided

> alongside !

>

> Having said all this , - let the Petals of a Flower

> open one by one on seeing the miorning sun - so , let Dennis-ji

> introduce one Sanskrit word at a time for us to grasp the full

> meaning!

>

> True, Adi shankara's ADVAITA philosophy is sublime and perfect .

> The world is relatively real (Vyavaharika Satta), while Brahman is

> absolutely real (Paramarthika Satta). But how many of us can realize

> this profound Truth even with the help of the 'rope and

> snake 'analogy ? Because we all are still caught up in Deha adhyasa

> ( body-mind-intellect complex) ! and there is a sanskrit term for

> this ! and it is called " alabhdha-bhumikatva" - the feeling that

> it is impossible to see reality- we do not want to introduce this

> term now , do we ?

>

> Vinayaka-ji, you are starting new , new threads - first

> on 'Hiranyagarrbha ' and then on 'Mandukya' upanishad? Please ,

> please , let us take one baby step at a time before we start running

> the 'marathon' ! thanx for understanding .

>

> Best wishes

>

>

> advaitin <advaitin%40>,

> "subrahmanian_v"

> <subrahmanian_v wrote:

> >

>

> > ShrIgurubhyo namaH

> >

> > Namaste Prof ji,

> >

> > y.

> >

> > May i suggest that alongside the 'core' discussion on the taken up

> > term (in this case 'adhyasa') whenever concepts/terms peculiar to

> > advaita occur, these too could be indicated by their specific

> terms.

> > This will introduce these terms to the newcomers and will form a

> basis

> > for being discussed as 'core' terms later.

> >

> > In this light, in the current discussion, for example, we have

> > concepts like 'illusory reality', 'absolute reality' etc. These

> could

> > be provided their Sanskrit terms 'prAtibhAsika

> satyam', 'pAramaarthika

> > satyam' etc. respectively in brackets. May i request you to pick

> out

> > such terms from the above post of yours and juxtapose the Sanskrit

> > terms and re-present just those terms Sir?

> >

> >

> > Warm regards,

> > subbu

> > Om Tat Sat

> >

>

>

>

 

 

 

--

Sarvam ShreeKrishnaayaSamarpayami.

Om Namo Narayanaya...!!

[Guest guest]

Wow do I ever agree. I have a tough enough time understanding without

trying to understand these words also. I had figured these words I

would learn after I learned some of what is being explained. I figured

at a later point they would be of more interest to me.

Anna

-------------

I totally agree with Dhyanasaraswatiji in that adding the Sanskrit

terminology alongside the English words might make this discussion more

complicated. I understand Shri Subbuji made this suggestion so that the

Sanskrit words may be understood in their relevant context where ever

appropriate, but I have difficulty understanding illusory reality and

experiential reality even without the Sanskrit! I hope the other novices

will also agree with me.

[Guest guest]

I think that Subbu-ji's suggestion is a very good one. However, I do

appreciate that some beginners are concerned at the idea of

introducing too many new Sankrit terms all at once. I think that it is

possible to satisfy everyone, however, and when the beginners become

more knowledgeable I think they will appreciate this, too.

 

Please have a look at the draft page for the adhyAsa topic:

http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/definitions/adhyAsa.htm

(note that this is not yet linked to from the rest of the site). What

I have done is simply to put the Sanskrit words in bold and in

brackets in ProfVK's definition. What I propose is that, when those

words are themselves defined, I will turn the bold words into

hyperlinks to link to the relevant definitions.

 

This method would mean that this 'Definitions' category of the website

can build up into a complete, hyperlinked glossary over time, with

definitions linking back and forth to allow readers to look up

anything that is not understood as they read.

 

Any comments or further suggestions most welcome. If we get it right

now, it may save lots of work in the future!

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Thank you Dennis-ji for giving due consideration to all comments

made by different members on this topic. i am also delighted to note

that you have added Sanskrit equivalents ( as suggested by subbuji)

to Professorji's commentary without disturbing the contents too

much . This reads 'fine' -

 

i have a question though -

 

You say

 

" When someone refers to the "snake," he does not realize that there

are two aspects, one real and one unreal. If he says, "there is a

long snake," the adjective "long" in fact refers to the rope, which

is real whilst, if he says "there is a poisonous snake," the

adjective refers to the unreal part"

 

COULD YOU PLEASE ELABORATE ON THIS ? this is not just a matter

of 'adjectives' and 'adverbs' - there is also something called a

word and its connotation ? how far is the poison in the snake

unreal ? Remember , the poison in the snake does not affect the

snake but affects the man/woman who is bitten by the snake ! here ,

we are entering the 'anirvachinya'; territory of 'Maya' are we not ?

just thinking aloud ... all this is not so cut and dry

 

So, the long and short of it is -A Rope is a Rope and because of

ignorancem, a jiva mistakes the Rope for a snake ! correct ? but

strecthcing this analogy a little further , ro a jnani even the

poisonus snake is 'unreal' because the poison is 'mays' ... am i

making sense ?

 

with regards

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite wrote:

>

> I think that Subbu-ji's suggestion is a very good one. However, I

do

> appreciate that some beginners are concerned at the idea of

> introducing too many new Sankrit terms all at once. I think that

it is

> possible to satisfy everyone, however, and when the beginners

become

> more knowledgeable I think they will appreciate this, too.

>

> Please have a look at the draft page for the adhyAsa topic:

> http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/definitions/adhyAsa.htm

>

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

 

Pranams to all.

It is indeed a matter of great joy that this subject of weekly

definition has been started.This will help everybody immensely.

In this connection I have a request to make. Giving a

definition is one thing. But the most important part is how to

relate the definitions to ourselves and make them our own.

How we can verfy/cognize the truth about these statements

which one makes? Are these something which one has to blindly accept

as a dogma or is it something which has to be verified within himself?

If they are verifiable facts, what is the methodology [prakriya] to

be followed?Mere analogies or examples can never establish a fact. I

would very much like to draw the attention to the fact that Sri

Sankara has not only given the doctrine but also the methodology to

verfy these doctrines in one's own LIFE.

I humbly request the participants in these discussions to

examine the suggestions and incorporate in their writings if found

beneficial.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "narayana145" <narayana145

wrote:

>

> H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

>

> Pranams to all.

> It is indeed a matter of great joy that this subject of weekly

> definition has been started.This will help everybody immensely.

> In this connection I have a request to make. Giving a

> definition is one thing. But the most important part is how to

> relate the definitions to ourselves and make them our own.

> How we can verfy/cognize the truth about these statements

> which one makes? Are these something which one has to blindly accept

> as a dogma or is it something which has to be verified within

himself?

> If they are verifiable facts, what is the methodology [prakriya] to

> be followed?Mere analogies or examples can never establish a fact.

I

> would very much like to draw the attention to the fact that Sri

> Sankara has not only given the doctrine but also the methodology to

> verfy these doctrines in one's own LIFE.

> I humbly request the participants in these discussions to

> examine the suggestions and incorporate in their writings if found

> beneficial.

>

> With warm and respectful regards,

> Sreenivasa Murthy

>

Namaste, Srinivasamurthy-ji

 

Your enthusiasm and urge to proceed immediately to the methodology

for direct confirmation of the fundamental doctrines of advaita are

understandable and are appreciated. Certainly we should strive to do

that. But what took even the Acharya several books to elaborate

cannot all be learnt by us in a jiffy. We would probably take

several years to study them all. In the meantime if one is really in

a hurry, one will do well to read (and assimilate), if possible in

one go, the 68 chapters of advaita-sAdhanA, in

 

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/VK2/Advaita_Saadhanaa.html

 

which gives the complete methodology for an individual to follow,

from scratch, all the way up.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all the members.

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk

wrote:

Dear Sri Krishnamurthy,

Every topic pertaining to Vedanta and Atmaj~Jana which is

being discussed under the heading "Weekly definition" has to lead one

to understand and cognize within oneself. The present topic, viz.

Adhyasa is one such subject which has to be understood correctly.

Sri Sankara shows very clearly in Adhyasa bhashya that Adhyasa is a

fact of life. Similarly in all the present writings on Adhyasa it

should be shown very clearly in anuBava how the Adhyasa is a fact.

Then only novices and beginners will understand.Also, it will be much

beneficial to the earnest students of this modern age if the mode of

presentation of the subject is done to suit the present day psyche

instead of the old and obsolete way of presentation which suited in

the olden days. That is all I wanted to convey in my previous posting.

 

With respectful namaskarams,

Sreenivasa Murthy

[Guest guest]

dhyanasaraswati-ji asks:

 

>How far is the poison in the snake

> unreal ? Remember , the poison in the snake does not affect the

> snake but affects the man/woman who is bitten by the snake ! here ,

> we are entering the 'anirvachinya'; territory of 'Maya' are we not ?

> just thinking aloud ... all this is not so cut and dry

>

> So, the long and short of it is -A Rope is a Rope and because of

> ignorancem, a jiva mistakes the Rope for a snake ! correct ? but

> strecthcing this analogy a little further , ro a jnani even the

> poisonus snake is 'unreal' because the poison is 'mays' ... am i

> making sense ?

 

There is always a very real danger of stretching a metaphor too far in

Advaita. This is especially the case reagrding the rope-snake. It is

used in various ways, in Buddhism as well as Advaita - there is an

entire book on the subject (The Rope and the Snake: A Metaphorical

Exploration of Advaita Vedanta, Arvind Sharma, Manohar, 1997. ISBN

81-7304-179-2.) Accordingly, in the example given in the definition,

please read it just in relation to the example and save the

complexities for a non-beginner discussion!

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Dennis-ji is absolutely right - this is the point i was driving at -

we have to look beyond the 'Drishtantas' ( metaphors of rope and

snake( to get the Big picture ). Metaphors have only limited uses

and at best are used for illustrative purposes. We must move beyond

the Upamanas ( examples ) to get to know What Reality is .

 

As Viveka chudamani verse 12 states

 

". By adequate reasoning the conviction of the reality about the

rope is gained, which puts an end to the great fear and misery

caused by the snake worked up in the deluded mind "

 

Yes ! The ropeness of the rope and the snakeness of the snake is

known once there is no darkness !! Although there are many

similarities between the rope and the snake , but there are a whole

lot of differences too which are not obvious under the cover of

darkness !

 

Here i would like to quote Professorji ( profound Truth expressed

in simple language)

 

"The snake appears on the rope, the rope does not undergo any

change, but the snake is supported by the rope, (meaning, without

the rope there is no snake). But in reality the snake was never

there and so it is also true to say that the snake is not in the

rope. To the question: Where is the snake?, the answer is: it is in

the rope. To the question, Is the snake there?, the answer is, there

is no snake, the snake was never in the rope. It is in this strain

that the Lord gives out, almost in the same breath, what appears to

be two contradictory statements. Everything is in Me; and nothing is

in Me. This is the cosmic mystery of the existence of the Universe.

It is and is not - sad-asad-vilakshaNa, mAyA! "

 

PLEASE READ THIS WONDERFUL EXPLANATION ON THE SNAKE ROPE ANALOGY at

the following web site

 

http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/maya_profvk.htm

 

Thanx Dennisji for that reference book.

 

Best wishes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite wrote:

>

> dhyanasaraswati-ji asks:

>

> >How far is the poison in the snake

> > unreal ? Remember , the poison in the snake does not affect the

> > snake but affects the man/woman who is bitten by the snake !

here ,

> > we are entering the 'anirvachinya'; territory of 'Maya' are we

 

>

> There is always a very real danger of stretching a metaphor too

far in

> Advaita. This is especially the case reagrding the rope-snake. It

is

> used in various ways, in Buddhism as well as Advaita - there is an

> entire book on the subject (The Rope and the Snake: A Metaphorical

> Exploration of Advaita Vedanta, Arvind Sharma, Manohar, 1997. ISBN

> 81-7304-179-2.) Accordingly, in the example given in the

definition,

> please read it just in relation to the example and save the

> complexities for a non-beginner discussion!

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis,

If I may, I would definitely encourage usage of

Sanskrit terms. Those not interested in them can

simplly ignore them. However, since some terms can be

translated diferently by different translators, it is

always so helpful to see Sanskrit terms alongside.

You can see immediately if the translator talks about

same or different concept. As you say, everyone will

later appreciate the usefulness of this.

Thank you,

Mila

 

--- Dennis Waite <dwaite (AT) advaita (DOT) org.uk> wrote:

 

> I think that Subbu-ji's suggestion is a very good

> one. However, I do

> appreciate that some beginners are concerned at the

> idea of

> introducing too many new Sankrit terms all at once.

> I think that it is

> possible to satisfy everyone, however, and when the

> beginners become

> more knowledgeable I think they will appreciate

> this, too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Mila-ji,

 

Use of the correct Sanskrit terms is definitely welcome in general,

providing that a translation is given so that those unfamiliar may

also benefit. In these 'weekly definitions', however, written

specifically for beginners, too many new Sanskrit terms all at once

could prove counter-productive. This is why it is discouraged, unless

the word has already, itself, been the subject of a 'definition'.

Beginners have frequently expressed concern at 'too much' Sanskrit.

 

As time goes on, of course, more and more terms WILL have already been

defined so that there will be correspondingly less constraint.

 

What I would encourage, though, is Subbu-ji's suggestion, already

implemented with profvk's (initial) definition, whereby the Sanskrit

term is put in bold, in brackets, where appropriate so that a

hyperlink can be added at a later date once the new definition has

been provided.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennnis

 

 

> If I may, I would definitely encourage usage of

> Sanskrit terms. Those not interested in them can

> simplly ignore them. However, since some terms can be

> translated diferently by different translators, it is

> always so helpful to see Sanskrit terms alongside.

> You can see immediately if the translator talks about

> same or different concept. As you say, everyone will

> later appreciate the usefulness of this.

[Guest guest]

Sri Sankara shows very clearly in Adhyasa bhashya that Adhyasa is a

fact of life. Similarly in all the present writings on Adhyasa it

should be shown very clearly in anuBava how the Adhyasa is a fact.

 

praNAms Sri Srinivas Murthy prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

That is really very well said prabhuji, yes shankara says adhyAsa is quite

natural to mind (naisargikOdhyAsaH) and it is in our day to day experience

( lOkAnubhava)...Hence, shankara did not take any trouble to quote any

shruti, smruti as pramANa while drafting his adhyAsa bhAshya & gives only

routine examples (lokArUdhi) while describing the nature of adhyAsa.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Thanks to members for elaborating on the definition of "adhyaasa"...the

following explanations were really helpful:

 

ProfVKji wrote (#34412):

 

.......But remember, "I", "The World" and "Absolute Reality" are not three

distinct things from the absolute point of view. However they are distinct

in our everyday parlance. .................illusory perception and common

everyday perception are not much different. Both are illusory perceptions -

this is the Vedantic conclusion.

 

 

 

Shyamji wrote (#34420):

..............The adhyasa is this only - that Mr.Pott mistakes the pot for a

pot without realizing it is clay. As clay not only is he immortal, but he is

nonseparate from the whole clay-universe, and, to go one step further, the

entire clay-universe is arising from him alone and will dissolve unto him

alone. "Mayyeva sakalam jaatam.. mayyeva sakalam jaatam mayi sarvam

pratishtitam, mayi sarvam layam yaati.."

 

Mr. Pott was very helpful..now to the task of waking up Mr. Pott!

Pranams

Veena.

 

 

On 1/4/07, bhaskar.yr (AT) in (DOT) abb.com <bhaskar.yr (AT) in (DOT) abb.com> wrote:

>

>

> Sri Sankara shows very clearly in Adhyasa bhashya that Adhyasa is a

> fact of life. Similarly in all the present writings on Adhyasa it

> should be shown very clearly in anuBava how the Adhyasa is a fact.

>

> praNAms Sri Srinivas Murthy prabhuji

> Hare Krishna

>

> That is really very well said prabhuji, yes shankara says adhyAsa is quite

> natural to mind (naisargikOdhyAsaH) and it is in our day to day experience

> ( lOkAnubhava)...Hence, shankara did not take any trouble to quote any

> shruti, smruti as pramANa while drafting his adhyAsa bhAshya & gives only

> routine examples (lokArUdhi) while describing the nature of adhyAsa.

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

>

>

>

 

 

 

--

Sarvam ShreeKrishnaayaSamarpayami.

Om Namo Narayanaya...!!