superimposition confusion

[Guest guest]

Sada-ji wrote

" Mind is superimposition on Brahman like a ring on gold "

 

||||||||||||||||||||||||

 

Namaste Sada-ji,

Is this not an overextension of the concept of

superimposition. The ring is not an illusion in the way that the snake is

nor does it get sublated but remains seen as a ring until it gets smelted

down again. It is gold in the form of a ring.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

|||||||

 

Michael - PraNAms

 

The correct Sanskrit word as Shankara uses is adhyAsa - Yes it is Brahman with

the

superimposed names and forms is the world - as Ch. Up. SAT vidya explains

elaborately the sRiShTi prakaraNa. Snake example is used in adhyAsa bhAshya by

Shankara for adhyAsa to indicate the mental projection - Here instead of the

mind of

the jiiva, it is the mind of Iswara - tat aikshata - bahu syAm - prajAyeya iti,

where Brahman as Iswara visualized or meditated and then became many. In Ch. Up

the

gold and mud and Iron examples are given to show the creation is just vaak

aarambhanam vikAraH naamadheyam. There it is very clear that gold as ring,

bangle,

etc similarly the Brahman as bhuuta and then after pancIkaraNam bhoutika, etc.

Mind

is just one of the bahu syaam -Brahman with name and form - of course more

subtle

than gross body. UdhAlaka provides lot of explanation to his son to show that

mind

is nothing but matter - product (kArya) of earth which is nothing but product of

water which is nothing but product of fire which in turn is product of Brahman-

product in the sense of gold becoming ornaments. Snake example Shankara gives to

show that error of superimposition on rope and the world is also like that on

Brahman, since Brahman has nothing to do with creation just as rope has nothing

to

do with snake. GoudapAda dismisses even this as creation - There was gold before

gold later and now also gold - now where is the ring? Gold just happens to be in

different forms as its natural mode.

 

Substantive and superimposition are the conventional words used in the English

translation of adhiShTAnam and adhyaasa.

 

We are facing a translation problem. Yes it is like ring on gold - or gold as

ring

-God is the noun and ring is the name and from of that gold. I tried to specify

wherever I can that it is like ring on gold or should I say ringly gold.

 

Perhaps I could say mindly Brahman - if Brahman does not mind it!

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

|||||||||||||||||||||||||

 

Namaste Sada-ji,

I think it's more of a usage problem rather than a

translation one. In the normal way one might speak of superimposition of the

snake on the rope or the world on Brahman. Accepted. However that is

distinctly different from saying that ring is a superimposition on gold. Rings,

bangles etc may share material identity with gold. But I see both the ring and

the gold at the same time, one does not cancel the other as seeing the rope

cancels the snake and so forth. I don't believe it is helpful to the novices on

this list to be altering the customary usages. Thus ring/gold: material

identity & snake/rope: superimposition/adhyasa.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

 

 

 

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

Find the home of your dreams with eircom net property

Sign up for email alerts now http://www.eircom.net/propertyalerts

[Guest guest]

<ombhurbhuva wrote:

> I don't believe it is helpful to the novices on this list to be

altering the customary usages.

 

Dear Sir Michael:

 

If I understood your posting correctly, allow me to respectfully

disagree with your statement mentioned above.

I consider myself a novice in this list (only 8 months since I joined)

and Dr Kuntimadi Sadananda's explanations about adhyasa or

superimposition all through this period of time not only provided me

with the means to understand this cornerstone of the Advaitic

teachings intellectually but mainly, after serious contemplation, it

became a 'fact'. As simple as that.

I must confess I was lucky enough to have a 'beginner's mind', and be

open and trustful to many of the postings of Dr Sadanandaji (as well

as other learned members).

 

This is only 'my' view, and understand that other members may not have

the same 'experience' regarding such 'alteration of customary usages'

 

Yours in All,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Michael-ji:

 

Though I always admire your scholarship and articulating ability, I

do want to express my disagreement with what you have stated as

correction to Sadaji's posts. Aren't we obligated to help the novice

to become a pro?

 

From what I understand what you are saying is technically correct but

it appears as a trivial distinction. Please correct me if I am wrong,

I am of the opinion that what you proposed in your post with respect

to Sadaji's statement appears as hairsplitting (making excessively

nice or trivial distinctions in reasoning). It is always possible

for an indomitable intellect to establish any analogy as problematic

(even if it is attributed to Sankara or other great personalities).

There is no such thing as a perfect `analogy' and every analogy is an

approximate explanation of a fact and consequently will pose a

problem! We all know that Truth can never be established only by an

analogy. I do remember our friend Sri Benjamin, (a member of this

list) who always refused to accept any analogy as an explanation of a

Vedantic Truth. By the way, we only have one identity – the Brahman

and the question of `material identity' has no relevance with respect

to advaita Vedanta.

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: I couldn't resist sending this reply in the middle of your

conversation with Sadaji and let me apolgoize for an intervention.

 

 

 

advaitin , <ombhurbhuva wrote:

>

> Namaste Sada-ji,

> I think it's more of a usage problem

rather than a translation one. In the normal way one might speak of

superimposition of the snake on the rope or the world on Brahman.

Accepted. However that is distinctly different from saying that ring

is a superimposition on gold. Rings, bangles etc may share material

identity with gold. But I see both the ring and the gold at the same

time, one does not cancel the other as seeing the rope cancels the

snake and so forth. I don't believe it is helpful to the novices on

this list to be altering the customary usages. Thus ring/gold:

material identity & snake/rope: superimposition/adhyasa.

>

> Best Wishes,

> Michael.

[Guest guest]

Michael, Mouna and Ram - PraNAms

 

 

First I so welcome Michael comments since they help to clarify some of my

statements

too. Since as I see, he comes from different background and is quite persistent

in

his understanding, it helps to look at the problem from different perspectives.

 

Advaitic concepts are difficult to grasp particularly when we have three levels

of

satyam - pAramArthika, vyAvahArika and pratibhAsika. Lot of dvaitins do have

problem of appreciating the advaitic truth and lot of misunderstanding floats

around

as one can see in their criticism of advaita.

 

Brahma satyam - jagat mithyaa - that jagat mithyaa aspect is heavily criticized

by

dvaitins but that is where the crux of the advaita Vedanta is - example of

snake-rope provides more closer to prAtibhAsika level while - mirage water,

ghost-post, shell-silver example provide at slightly different level - The gold

-

ring or mud-pot examples from Upanishads provides a loukika analogies for

cause-effect relations where cause (material cause) itself manifests as effects

not

as pariNama but as vivarta (transformationless transformation).

 

Interestingly the Upanishad while giving kArya-kAraNa smAnAdhikarana (Effect is

cause itself in different form) gives SAT as the material cause for the

universe.

But unlike gold-ring example where the material is very evident, Brahman as Sat

is

that evident - But that is why it went into elaborate discussion of creation of

subtle and then gross elements before it declare tat tvam asi - you are that

cause

as the substantive for the universe. I find VP takes it granted much of this

background in the analysis of unity of the consciousness of the subject and

object.

Hence my very detailed (sometime repeated) explanations of the statements of VP

to

bring the required background to understand the cryptic statements, which are

otherwise difficult to follow if one reads the text or even the English

translation.

 

The point is it is good to bring out these issues from various points and that

is

the purpose of the discussions. I do appreciate Michael's input in order to get

the

message across.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste to Sada-ji, Michael-ji, Ram Chandran-ji and others,

From what I have been able to make out, the point raised by Michael-

ji seems to be that the mistaking of a rope for a snake cannot be

put on the same footing as looking upon a ring as nothing but gold,

and that the latter cannot be described as `superimposition'. But

Sri Sankara clearly identifies these two examples and states clearly

that both are cases of superimposition. The following is the

relevant extract from the bhAshya on Chandogya up. 6.2.3:--

" But all words and all things that are spoken of with the idea

of being different from Existence, are Existence itself, just as in

the world rope itself us spoken of as a snake, under the idea that

it is a snake; or as a lump and pot, etc., are referred to with the

words lump, pot, etc., under the idea that they are different from

clay. But just as the word and idea of a snake cease for one who has

the discriminating knowledge about the rope, and as the words and

ideas of pot, etc., cease for one who has the discriminating

knowledge about the clay, similarly words and ideas with regard to

all other transformations cease for those people who have the

discriminating knowledge about Existence " .

In the above Shri Shankara has clearly considered both these

examples as similar and as examples of superimposition.

I wish to add the following by way of clarification. What

happens in a superimposition (adhyAsa) is that there is a combined

cognition. When a person mistakes a rope for a snake, he says, " This

is a snake " . Thus he combines the cognition of `this', the object

before him, and the cognition of a `snake' which is illusory. So

Shankara says, " satyAnRite midhunIkRitya " —combining the real and the

unreal. Exactly the same thing happens when one says " gold ring'. He

combines the cognition of gold which actually exists (empirically),

with the cognition of `ring' which, according to vedAnta, has no

independent existence, being only a name (nAmadheyam). So the two

examples are similar and both illustrate adhyAsa.

Michael-ji says; " I see both the ring and the gold at the same

time, one does not cancel the other as seeing the rope

cancels the snake and so forth " .

The answer of vedAnta to this is that the ring is not seen at all

at any time. What is described as a ring is only a

particular `samsthAnamAtram' or a mere configuration of gold, which

has been given a name—mere vAchArambhaNam. Even one says that one is

seeing a ring what one sees is only gold. An example is generally

given for this. Whether a man is sitting or standing or lying down,

he is the same man, though he appears different in each of these

postures. This is the basis on which the gold ring is also taken as

an example of vivarta and not pariNAma. If both gold and ring are

considered to be of the same level of reality, then by the

application of the example of gold and ring, etc., in Ch. up. the

world would also have the same level of reality as Brahman. To

eliminate such a view Vedanta holds that pot, etc., are not real at

all, but only appearances of clay, and similarly, the world is only

an appearance of brahman.

S.N.Sastri

 

 

In advaitin , <ombhurbhuva wrote:

>

>> I think it's more of a usage problem

rather than a translation one. In the normal way one might speak of

superimposition of the snake on the rope or the world on Brahman.

Accepted. However that is distinctly different from saying that

ring is a superimposition on gold. Rings, bangles etc may share

material identity with gold. But I see both the ring and the gold

at the same time, one does not cancel the other as seeing the rope

cancels the snake and so forth. I don't believe it is helpful to

the novices on this list to be altering the customary usages. Thus

ring/gold: material identity & snake/rope: superimposition/adhyasa.

>

> Best Wishes,

> Michael.

>

>

>

> --------------------------------

> Find the home of your dreams with eircom net property

> Sign up for email alerts now http://www.eircom.net/propertyalerts

>

[Guest guest]

--- snsastri <sn.sastri wrote:

> From what I have been able to make out, the point raised by Michael-

> ji seems to be that the mistaking of a rope for a snake cannot be

> put on the same footing as looking upon a ring as nothing but gold,

> and that the latter cannot be described as `superimposition'. But

> Sri Sankara clearly identifies these two examples and states clearly

> that both are cases of superimposition. The following is the

> relevant extract from the bhAshya on Chandogya up. 6.2.3:--

 

Sastriji - PraNAms.

 

Now I know why we need Shree Sastriji to settle things in more clear terms.

 

Actually I am planning to take up Chandogya Upanishad Sadvidya for the coming

Memorial Day camp at Washington D.C. where I will be following Shankara's as

well as

anubbUtiprakasha of Shree Vidyaranya's commentary on it- Forces me to keep clear

persepctive and needless to say I am benefited by all these comments.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sastriji:

 

Thanks for the beautiful explanation and I remember the following

story as an illustration to what you have explained:

 

An old man just before the time of his death, called his only son

Kris and told him that the idols of Rama, Sita, Lakshmana and Hanuman

in the prayer room are made of pure gold. The father further said

that they are his pricey possessions and he wanted to pass this on to

him. He further told him that his son that he is free to sell those

idols when he face any financial crisis. After the old man's death,

Kris was very much attached to those idols and made up his mind not

to sell them. Unfortunately after several years, Kris faced a

financial crisis and has decided to sell one of the idols. After

very careful thoughts, he made up his mind to sell Lakshman and took

it to the local goldsmith's shop. The goldsmith after evaluating the

value of gold gave $30,000 for the idol. Kris was quite pleased

with the transaction and went back to his home happily. After few

years, he again faced financial difficulties and this time, he

decided to sell Hanuman and took it back to the same goldsmith. The

goldsmith after evaluation gave him $40,000 for the idol. Kris was

extremely happy and told himself that he will get definitely get at

least $60,000 for Sita and $100,000 for Ram. Two years later he was

forced to sell Sita and he took the idol to the goldsmith who gave

him $25,000. Kris was rather unhappy with the goldsmith for not

understanding the value of Sita in comparison to Hanuman and

Lakshman. Since he needed the money quickly, he did not protest and

took the money. Kris told himself that he will not sell his most

valuable possession of the golden Sri Ram. But within six months,

due to heavy floods, his house got totally damaged and he needed the

money to repair the house. He very reluctantly took the golden Ram

to the goldsmith hoping to get a very large sum for his pricey

possession. The goldsmith after valuation gave Kris $20,000 for the

idol. Kris was very furious and scolded the goldsmith for not

understanding the value of Sri Ram.

 

Kris shouted to the goldsmith: I was very unhappy when you paid

$25,000 for Sita and at that time I decided not to protest. But how

dare you insult Sri Ram by valuing Him for just $20,000 lower than

the amount that you paid for Lakshman, Hanuman and Sita? Don't you

recognize the importance of Sri Ram in Ramayana and don't you

consider him more valuable than Sita, Lakshman and Hanuman?

 

The Goldsmith replied Kris: Please understand that I do not

attribute any sentimental value for the idols and their value is only

based on the amount of gold content in each of those idols. Hanuman

was the heaviest of the four idols and Ram had the lowest weight and

accordingly you are paid by the value of gold in those idols!

 

The moment when the golden idol of Sri Ram transfer from Kris into

the hands of the Goldsmith, the name and form disappeared and gold

only remained! The Jnani (goldsmith) sees the world (golden idol of

Sri Ram) as the Brahman (gold) where as the Ajnani's (Kris's)

perceives the Brahman (gold) as the world (golden idol s).

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Source for this story: Swami Chinmayananda's Gita Discourse (I don't

remember the exact reference).

 

 

advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

>

> What is described as a ring is only a

> particular `samsthAnamAtram' or a mere configuration of gold, which

> has been given a name—mere vAchArambhaNam. Even one says that one

is

> seeing a ring what one sees is only gold. An example is generally

> given for this. Whether a man is sitting or standing or lying down,

> he is the same man, though he appears different in each of these

> postures. This is the basis on which the gold ring is also taken as

> an example of vivarta and not pariNAma. If both gold and ring are

> considered to be of the same level of reality, then by the

> application of the example of gold and ring, etc., in Ch. up. the

> world would also have the same level of reality as Brahman.