Guest guest Posted October 5, 2007 Report Share Posted October 5, 2007 Dear Putranji, You are right. The vivaraNa school has postulated what is called 'arthAdhyAsa' (superimposition of object) wherever there is jnAnAdhyAsa (superimposition of cognition). In the superimposition of snake on rope, one has the cognition, " This is a snake " . This is jnAnAdhyAsa or adhyAsa of cognition. Cognition is not possible without an object. So vivaraNa says that there is actually a snake in front. This is supported by the fact that the person reacts in the same way as when he sees a real snake. This cognition is sublated when the rope is known. Therefore the snake has only prAtibhAsika (illusory) reality, which is lower than the reality of the rope which is vyAvahArika. In the same way, the world which is superimposed on brahman is accepted as existing, though its reality is only vyAvahArika, which is lower than the reality of the substrate, brahman. This theory of arthAdhyAsa is exclusive to advaita and is not accepted by other schools or darSanas. But there is no real transformation of brahman. The world is only a vivarta, appearance of brahman. I wish to point out that this is the view of the vivaraNa school and it is generally accepted by advaitins. But there may be some advaitic teachers who do not accept this. They are no doubt entitled to hold their own views. S.N.Sastri Sri Dennisji, How does Advaita counter the argument: The snake is perceived only because it was already known. Similarly the fact that duality is perceived implies its real existence; i.e. if Brahman is the only reality, then the world cannot appear to jiva. Therefore that appearance indicates a real transformation, etc. of Brahman. (I am not sure of the exact argument; perhaps can say something myself to it. But something along these lines was given to me by a VA some years back. What is standard reply?) [sorry quoted wrong para above] thollmelukaalkizhu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 6, 2007 Report Share Posted October 6, 2007 advaitin , " S.N. Sastri " <sn.sastri wrote: > > Dear Putranji, > You are right. The vivaraNa school has postulated what is called > 'arthAdhyAsa' (superimposition of object) wherever there is jnAnAdhyAsa > (superimposition of cognition). In the superimposition of snake on rope, one > has the cognition, " This is a snake " . This is jnAnAdhyAsa or adhyAsa of > cognition. Cognition is not possible without an object. So vivaraNa says > that there is actually a snake in front. This is supported by the fact that > the person reacts in the same way as when he sees a real snake. This > cognition is sublated when the rope is known. Therefore the snake has only > prAtibhAsika (illusory) reality, which is lower than the reality of the rope > which is vyAvahArika. In the same way, the world which is superimposed on > brahman is accepted as existing, though its reality is only vyAvahArika, > which is lower than the reality of the substrate, brahman. This theory of > arthAdhyAsa is exclusive to advaita and is not accepted by other schools or > darSanas. > But there is no real transformation of brahman. The world is only a vivarta, > appearance of brahman. Sri Shastriji, perhaps I was right but I did not know what exactly I was asking at that moment; it may have been a just-something post to get out of the previous topic. But the topic and your response does grab attention and raise questions, but I am going to study a bit more on Advaita's idea of perception and illusion before asking more questions. Also, it seemed awkward that you should address me as Putranji: perhaps Putran or Sri Putran is more appropriate. Of course, the internet has its own hierarchy. Have you seen Ramana Maharshi? Perhaps the elder members can jot down their personal experiences with great saints of the past century and make available in some place. .... going into off-mode for a while:) thollmelukaalkizhu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 6, 2007 Report Share Posted October 6, 2007 advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote: > > > Hi Dennis, > 'sublate' as I've probably mentioned several times is a term from Hegelian > logic. It was brought into Advaita by Radhakrishnan. Namaste, George Thibaut (1848-1914) had used this word in his translation of Ramanuja's bhashya on Brahmasutras, long before Radhakrishnan used it. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe48/sbe48031.htm Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.