Weekly Definition - adhyAsa (Continued)

[Guest guest]

Namaste, all.

 

I am continuing the topic of "weekly definition: adhyAsa". But what follows

now may be a little challenging for those who expect to take it easy, though

my purpose certainly is, to make it easy!

 

Shankara defines adhyAsa as "the apparent presentation, to consciousness, by

way of memory of something previously observed in some other thing" .

 

Recall the appearance of 'snake' where there is only a 'rope'.

 

It is 'apparent' because the knowledge that arises out of the presentation

is contradicted later.

 

It is later contradicted, therefore it belongs to a lower order of reality.

 

It is presented to consciousness, therefore it cannot be dismissed as

unreal.

 

It is sublated later, therefore it cannot be classified as real.

 

Thus it is neither real nor unreal.

 

It means it is distinct from both real and unreal. The Sanskrit word for

'distinct from both real and unreal' is "sad-asad-vilakShhaNa". 'sat' means

'real'; 'asat' means 'unreal' and 'vilakShhaNa' means 'distinct'.

 

Recall that, in all this, 'real' means 'absolutely real' and 'unreal' means

'absolutely unreal'. A hare's horn is absolutely unreal. A reflection in a

mirror is not . The transcendental Reality called "Brahman" is absolutely

real and is the only one that is absolutely real, as per the statements of

the Vedanta scriptures.

 

The object that is presented as an illusion is not a mere remembrance of an

object earlier perceived somewhere else. If that were so there would not

have been that feeling of immediacy. The individual who sees it says:

"There is a snake right there". He does not say "There is something there

which looks like the snake I saw ewlsewhere".

 

The error of perception that is being made is something positive. It is not

merely the failure to keep different perceptions distinct. For if that were

so, one cannot account for the practical activity such as trying to pick up

the silver, that follows the perception. Just a failure to keep distinct

perceptions (one of silver and one of nacre) apart cannot lead to purposeful

activity.

 

What is presented in illusion is an object which is outside of us. It is

here and now before us. It leads to purposeful activity, like running away

from the snake, like trying to pick up the silver, etc. But it is falsified

by the knowledge that arises later.

 

These are the characteristic features of illusory perception. The advaita

theory regards the object of illusion as a real objective fact. The snake

or silver is an actual creation for the time being. It is the creation of

IGNORANCE (Sanskrit: "avidyA").

 

Now we can go deeper into the error of 'adhyAsa'. There are two types of

errors.

 

One is that of mistaking one object for another: mistaking the rope as a

snake, mistaking nacre for a piece of silver, etc. The metaphysical error

of not recognizing "Brahman" and instead, seeing only the universe in front

of us, belongs to this type.

 

The other type is that of attributing to an object a certain quality which

does not actually belong to it. A white crystal by the side of a red flower

appears to be red. The redness attributed to the crystal is actually an

erroneous transfer of the colour of the flower to the crystal. The mistake

here is not due to superimposition of one object on another, but to the

failure to keep the two different things and their qualities apart. The

mistake arises from close physical juxtaposition of the two objects. The

metaphysical error of not recognizing the Brahman in the 'individual soul'

(Sanskrit: JIva) is of this type.

 

When right knowledge sets in, the 'snake' disappears and only the 'rope' is

there; so also the universe of matter is not seen, only Brahman is seen.

 

When right knowledge sets in, the appearance of 'redness' disappears and

only the white crystal is seen. The crystal itself does not disappear. So

also when right knowledge sets in, all the adventitious qualities of the

individual soul - including its individuality - disappear and it remains as

Brahman.

 

If we can speak of degrees of error, we can say that seeing the world of

matter and not Brahman is an error (metaphysical, of course) of the first

degree, whereas seeing Jiva as a separate individual instead of Brahman is

only an error (metaphysical, again) of the second degree.

 

This error of the second degree is the universal metaphysical adhyAsa. We

superimpose the body, the sense organs and the mind on the Self and we

use expressions like: 'I am fat', 'I am thin', 'I am white', 'I am black',

'I stand', 'I go', 'I am dumb', 'I am deaf', 'I think', 'I am not going to

fight', 'I shall renounce' and so on.

 

The Self, when endowed with the adjuncts of the body, sense organs and the

mind, becomes the individual Jiva and it is the subject of all our

experiences. Perceptual knowledge is impossible for the Pure Self. The

sense organs are necessary for perception to arise and the senses want a

locus and that is the body. The body must be invested with self-hood for

otherwise it will not function. Thus the non-self must be superimposed on

the self for perceptual knowledge to arise. Such knowledge, however, is

vitiated at the very source on account of this foundational error.

Perceptual knowledge is thus founded in Ignorance ('avidyA'). The whole

range of our empirical life is therefore vitiated by this foundational

error.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

 

 

 

For almost everything you wanted to know about Hindu philosophy, go to

www.geocities.com/profvk/

For an English translation of Kanchi Mahaswamigal's Discourses on Advaita

Sadhana go to

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

[Guest guest]

This is 'excellent' - exactly the type of posts i would like to see

on Weekly defintions , Easy to read and 'intelligible' even to a

laywoman like me.

 

Dennis-ji , it is always good to know the 'meaning' of the word

specially a word like 'adhyAsa'.This whole exercise of weekly

definitions becomes more meaningful when we can really comprehend

and appreciate the real significance of these commonly used terms in

the context of Advaita philosophy ! That , i would say , is

the 'icing on the cake.'

 

Adi shankara Bhagvadapada has written a whole text On adhyaSA

bhashyam ( brahma sutras) and for us to understand that text it is

very important to know and fully comprehend what 'adhyAsa' really

means - therefore , it was really a 'blessing ' to read

professorji's sequel or further clarification of this

term 'adhyAsa' and its relevance to Advaita .

 

For those of you who want to read more on 'Adhyasa bhashyam' , i

found the following article very useful and informative.

 

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/articles/adhyasa_bhashyam.htm - 32k-

 

We all know 'AVIDYA' (IGNORANCE) cannot be removed by mere reading

of words and their meanings - specially the 'ignorance'( knowledge

of Self) ... but every little bit of knowledge we gather about our

non-self will take us towards the dicovery of the higher 'self' ...

that is only possible in a Satsangha ,,, of course, Guru Kripa is

the guiding light always .

 

So, i would request Sada-ji, Subbu-ji, Ananda-ji , Shyam-ji, Michael-

ji and all other seasoned members to contribute towards the better

understanding of these basic concepts ... This will also make this

whole exercise more interesting and challenging .

 

 

ps : i am also waiting for some one here to respond to Veenaji's

Queries that she posted .

 

With best wishes

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk

wrote:

>

> Namaste, all.

>

> I am continuing the topic of "weekly definition: adhyAsa". But

what follows

> now may be a little challenging for those who expect to take it

easy, though

> my purpose certainly is, to make it easy!

>

>