superimposition confusion

[Guest guest]

Namaste Advaitins,

 

I have been reading on the subject of cause and effect in B.S.B. for the

last few days and I have discerned various strands in the argument.

Shankara distinguishes quite clearly between the level of talk about the

substratum and the level in which distinctions are drawn between the

experiencer and that which is experienced. B.S.B. II.i.13 is an important

and concise summation of this. Those levels are not in conflict with each

other. However it is the case that analogies are drawn from the level at

which the distinction between the experiencer and the thing experienced

occur. The valid distinctions that are to be drawn at that level are not

to be dissolved because the substratum they point to is one and the same.

To give an example. It might be said that the truth of various articles

made of clay is their material. This analogy is meant to point at the

idea that various manifestations of being or forms of limitation, are

fundamentally nothing but being.

 

Quote:

" The experiencer and the thing experienced never get identified with each

other, nor do they differ from the supreme Brahman. Althought the

experiencer is not a transformation of Brahman, for in the Upanisadic

text, " Having created that, He entered into that. " (Tai.II.vi) it has been

stated that the Creator Himself, without undergoing any change, has become

the experiencer by entering into His product (the body), still some

difference accrues to one who has entered into the product, owing to the

presence of the product which serves as the limiting adjunct, just as much

as space becomes divided, owing to the presence of conditioning factors

like pot etc. Thus it is said that though all things are non-different

from the supreme cause, Brahman, still there can be such a distinction as

the experiencer and the things experienced on the analogy of the sea and

its waves etc. " (End Quote)

 

On the level where the distinction of the experiencer and the thing

experienced is maintained other distinctions also apply. We know about

confusion in the matter of perceptual error. We can use that naturally

occuring fact about which theories abound to furnish an analogy about the

reality of the substratum on the metaphysical plane.

 

We can also use the fact, that there are plastic materials out of which

many things can be formed, to furnish an analogy about the reality of the

substratum on the metaphysical plane. I hope that its clear that the fact

that both analogies point towards the same metaphysical state does not

mean that both analogies are really the same in the sense that the

functional ground out of which they arise is the same i.e. both are types

of superimposition.

 

How might this apply to the quote from the Ch.Up. that Sastri-ji offered:

 

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 " .

%%%

 

I think my analysis is compatible with this.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

 

praNAmaH SrI Sastri-ji,

 

A million thanks for such a beautiful explanation !

 

As I understand it, the whole point lies in these words of AchArya,

* " The discriminating knowledge about the rope. "

* " The discriminating knowledge about the clay. "

* " The discriminating knowledge about Existence. "

 

Here, it is the *discriminatory* knowledge about the real object but

not mere Knowledge of " difference " that we need for the words and

ideas with regard to the transformations to cease.

 

For example, in everyones most common experience one knows the

*difference* between " I " and the Body but still identifies oneself

with the body and while doing so, he has no sense of " I " separate from

his body. Discriminatory knowledge, as I understand it, requires an

application of anvaya-vyatirEka process.

At one moment, with full concentration, if we apply " anvaya " , we can

really ascertain the same Gold passing through all the ornaments. As

long as we are in that state, we do not attribute any particular form

to Gold but still we KNOW what Gold is!

 

SrI Sankara says that the key point of adhyAsa is, " Awareness of one

thing as something else " which is common for all definitions of

adhyAsa -- " sarvAthApi tu anyasya anyadharmAvabhAsatAm na

vyabhicharati. " -- adhyAsa bhAshya-I.I.I.

 

!! Aum namO brahmavidbhyaH !!

 

Yours ever in the Lord,

 

~ Sampath

 

============================================

 

> 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

[Guest guest]

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 " .

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

The punch-word in the above shankara bhAshya is *cease*...I think this word

has to be contextually understood with the light of *anubhava*...shankara

never ever say anything that contradicts our nityAnubhava (day to day

experience). If we analyse the snake-rope & pot-clay analogies, at the

end, our anubhava & attitude differs from one another *even after* getting

the right knowledge. Let us take the first analogy snake-rope, after

rightly cognizing the rope, for the perceiver, the adhyArOpita *snake*

ceases to exist & there will be no more fear of snake for him & for him the

snake (its name & form) would completely ceases & never ever *see* the

snake in place of rope...so in the snake-rope analogy, the mithyAjnAna of

snAke would completely ceases to exist & there wont be any vision of snake.

 

On the other hand, if we take the pot-clay analogy, the end result of

right knowledge in this analogy differs from that of snake-rope

analogy...coz. even after getting the right knowledge of pot (nAma & rUpa)

i.e. clay (brahman), the perceiver would continue to *see* the *pot shaped*

clay & for him the name & form of clay & its utility as a pot donot cease

to exist as in the case of snake-rope. I think this is what Sri Michel

prabhuji insisting here. Though jnAni who has realized the ultimate reality

of world i.e. brahman do get the shabda & pratyaya of *jagat* like any

other normal human being ( shankara says in 1-1-4 sUtra bhAshya : AtmAnAtma

vivEkinAmapi paNditAnAM ajAvipAlAnAmiva Aviviktau shabdapratyayau bhavatAH

)...So world does not *cease* to exist for the jnAni like a *snake* even

after knowing the brahman's secondless reality....He would continue to see

this nAma rUpAtmaka jagat & do vyavahAra accordingly with the bAdhita jnAna

(sublated knowledge). Shankara further confirms this in the sUtra bhAshya

2-1-14 : atashcha idaM shAstrIyaM brahmAtatvaM avagamyamAnaM svabhAvikasya

shArIrAtmatvasya bAdhakaM saMpadyatE rajvAdi buddhaya iva sarpAdi buddInAM,

bAdhitE cha shArIrAtmatvE tadAshrayaH samasthaH svAbhAvikOvyavahArO bAdhitO

bhavati....

 

From the above, in short, we can say, the knowledge that we get from

snake-rope analogy is *laya/nAshita jnAna* whereas the *knowledge* that we

get from pot-clay analogy is *bAdhita jnAna*....shankara in almost all the

analogies insists for this bAdhita jnAna, coz. Atma jnAna is not *avasthA

vishEsha jnAna* like nirvikalpa samAdhi to say the world should cease to

exist for the jnAni.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Michael-ji.

 

Let us forget about snake/rope and ring/gold and the delicate grades

of difference between these superimpositions. It is great that we

all accept them as superimpositions. That is more than half the

battle won.

 

I am more interested in the last part of Sastri-ji's quote,

i.e. " similarly words and ideas with regard to

all other transformations cease for those people who have the

discriminating knowledge about Existence " .

 

What is this " ceasing " like? I have an intellectual understanding of

it from the analogies used? Is that really enough? Is it the state of

the one for whom 'cessation of words and ideas' (reverse

vAcArambhaNaM) has taken place? Why don't we devote our time to

understanding that 'state' as best as we can instead of taking this

thread to the level of polemics. This might sound like a repetition

of my earlier worries which Sadaji et al had tried to answer. But, I

am not still satisfied.

 

No offence to anybody meant. I feel exhausted. Hence, this request.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

_____________________

 

 

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

>

>

> Namaste Advaitins,

>

> I have been reading on the subject of cause and effect in B.S.B.

for the

> last few days and I have discerned various strands in the

argument.

....................

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskar-ji,

 

I want to appreciate your following observations (split by me into

three paragraphs), for the reason stated by me at the end:

1.

> )...So world does not *cease* to exist for the jnAni like a *snake*

even

> after knowing the brahman's secondless reality....He would continue

to see

> this nAma rUpAtmaka jagat & do vyavahAra accordingly with the

bAdhita jnAna

> (sublated knowledge).

 

 

2. Shankara further confirms this in the sUtra bhAshya.

 

 

3. > 2-1-14 : atashcha idaM shAstrIyaM brahmAtatvaM avagamyamAnaM

svabhAvikasya

> shArIrAtmatvasya bAdhakaM saMpadyatE rajvAdi buddhaya iva sarpAdi

buddInAM,

> bAdhitE cha shArIrAtmatvE tadAshrayaH samasthaH svAbhAvikOvyavahArO

bAdhitO

> bhavati....

>

> From the above, in short, we can say, the knowledge that we get

from

> snake-rope analogy is *laya/nAshita jnAna* whereas the *knowledge*

that we

> get from pot-clay analogy is *bAdhita jnAna*....shankara in almost

all the

> analogies insists for this bAdhita jnAna, coz. Atma jnAna is not

*avasthA

> vishEsha jnAna* like nirvikalpa samAdhi to say the world should

cease to

> exist for the jnAni.

 

No.1 has made sense for me always.

No.3 I was aware of.

 

But the fact that No.3 confirms No.1 is an enlightening logic that I

have missed so long. Thanks for bringing this out.

 

Finally, one important typo in the quotes under No.3 of 2-1-14 of

B.S. Bhashya. In the first line it should be " brahmAtmatvaM " and

not " brahmAtatvaM " . The meaning changes.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskar-ji.

 

What great coincidence!

 

I just made a request to Michael-ji. Lo, you have tried to answer it

at least in part! Telepathy?

 

Referring to the last para of your post excerpted below, I am

compelled to ask this. Shankara is talking about the cessaton of

words and ideas which in effect means the nullification of

vAcArambhaNaM or vikalpA which results in this objectified samsAra

(universe) which the jIva confronts. So, is there any harm in

assuming that the 'cessation' is nirvikalpa in nature? What I am

trying to say is that 'nirvikalpa' need not be an avastAvisheSa, if

used independently without reference to samAdhi and as a pointer to

our real nature.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

_____________________

 

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

> From the above, in short, we can say, the knowledge that we get

from

> snake-rope analogy is *laya/nAshita jnAna* whereas the *knowledge*

that we

> get from pot-clay analogy is *bAdhita jnAna*....shankara in almost

all the

> analogies insists for this bAdhita jnAna, coz. Atma jnAna is not

*avasthA

> vishEsha jnAna* like nirvikalpa samAdhi to say the world should

cease to

> exist for the jnAni.

[Guest guest]

Finally, one important typo in the quotes under No.3 of 2-1-14 of

B.S. Bhashya. In the first line it should be " brahmAtmatvaM " and

not " brahmAtatvaM " . The meaning changes.

 

 

Humble praNAms Respected Prof. VK prabhuji

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

Yes you are absolutely right prabhuji. Thanks for the clarification &

correction...I always struggle a lot to hit the right key while doing

transliteration.

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

What I am

trying to say is that 'nirvikalpa' need not be an avastAvisheSa, if

used independently without reference to samAdhi and as a pointer to

our real nature.

 

 

praNAms Sri Nair prabhuji

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

IMHO, we can call this jnAna in any way that we wish & there is no

specified nomenclature for this jnAna ..after all this jnAna is nAma rUpa

rahita nirvishEsha jnAna :-)) .may that be nirvikalpa jnAna, avagati jnAna,

paripUrNa jnAna, Atma jnAna, brahma jnAna, svarUpa jnAna etc. etc. ...I

think we can go further & safely say this Atma jnAna is nirvikalpa

samAdhi jnAna also. But this holds good as long as we are not linking &

unnecessarily getting confused this jnAna with that of avasthA vishEsha,

vaiyuktika anubhava (individual experience ) janita jnAna of asaMprajnAta

samAdhi or jnAna born out of patanjali's dvaita yOga shAstra. For that

matter, shankara himself uses the word *samAdhi* at various places to

denote *AtmaikatvajnAna*. So, if you ask me prabhuji, there is no harm in

calling this *vikalpa rahita* jnAna as nirvikalpa jnAna.

 

 

 

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!

 

 

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Namaste Michael-ji.

>

> Let us forget about snake/rope and ring/gold and the delicate

grades

> of difference between these superimpositions. It is great that we

> all accept them as superimpositions. That is more than half the

> battle won.

>

> I am more interested in the last part of Sastri-ji's quote,

> i.e. " similarly words and ideas with regard to

> all other transformations cease for those people who have the

> discriminating knowledge about Existence " .

>

> What is this " ceasing " like? I have an intellectual understanding

of

> it from the analogies used? Is that really enough? Is it the state

of

> the one for whom 'cessation of words and ideas' (reverse

> vAcArambhaNaM) has taken place? Why don't we devote our time to

> understanding that 'state' as best as we can instead of taking this

> thread to the level of polemics. This might sound like a repetition

> of my earlier worries which Sadaji et al had tried to answer. But,

I

> am not still satisfied.

>

> No offence to anybody meant. I feel exhausted. Hence, this

request.

>

> Pranams.

>

> Madathil Nair

> _____________________

>

Namaste all:

 

I once heard this analogy in Swami Tejomayananda's lecture. I think

it is relevant here.

 

A man comes home wearing a mask. His son on seeing him, cries out in

fear. The man immediately removes the mask revealing his true

identity. The child now squeals in delight. Now, even if the man puts

the mask on again, the child is not firghtened. In fact, the child

wants him to put on the mask and takes delight in repeatedly removing

it.

 

May I venture to suggest that the jnani's view of jagat may be

similar to this?

 

Harih Om

 

Neelakantan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Neelakantan-ji.

 

Where were you all this while? Long time no see?

 

That is a wonderful analogy from Sw. Tejomayanandaji and very helpful

too. Thanks.

 

The child ceases to see the fearful mask. He sees only his father

instead inspite of the mask. That is like being indifferent to once

thoughts in meditation and being oneself despite the thoughts. After

a while the thoughts *cease* and one is fully oneself.

 

So, when a master like Shankara uses the word 'cease', he definitely

has a reson for it. What is the exact word for 'cease' in the

Sanskrit original? Are words and ideas supposed to cease like the

thoughts or the mask? Even if it is like the mask, isn't it that the

child fails to 'see' it as he can't see anything other than his

father? Thus, can't it be that a realized person fails to 'see' the

world but sees only himself instead everywhere and always? Isn't he

an awareness of an unending expanse?

 

Some of us might object saying that he has to transact as usual in

the phenomenal. Otherwise, if he sees only himself, he might just

bump into a solid wall or be run over by a speeding car. Isn't that

the mortal worry of the non-realized like the concern of the child's

mother who still fears that the mask might scare the child again?

 

Coincidentally, there is this verse of Shankara currently on our home

page:

 

QUOTE

 

12. That aspirant for liberation who, when engaged in activities in

the world looks upon himself as a wave in the ocean that is Brahman,

when just sitting thinks of himself as a gem strung on the thread

that is Brahman (like pearls on a string), when experiencing sense

objects through the sense organs sees all objects as Brahman (or

Atman) alone, and when sleeping considers himself as immersed in the

ocean of bliss that is Brahman and spends his days in this manner is

the one who is established in the indwelling Self that is none other

than Brahman.

 

[ http://www.geocities.com/snsastri/sataslokicontents.html ]

 

[tr. Sri S.N.Sastri]

 

UNQUOTE

 

I am not sure if this verse describes an aspirant for liberation

(mumukSu) or one who is established in the indwelling Self

(sthitaprajna) - a realized one, because one who is realized is

already past mumukSwataM. The point, however, is that if this

description is applied to a mumukSu, then there is some

deliberateness implied, whereas in the case of a sthitaprajna, being

of the description is just a matter of spontaneity.

 

The question, therefore, is how different is that spontaneity from

the initial deliberatenness?

 

Kindly keep writing more often.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

__________________

 

 

advaitin , " Neelakantan " <pneelaka wrote:

>>

> I once heard this analogy in Swami Tejomayananda's lecture. I think

> it is relevant here.

>

> A man comes home wearing a mask. His son on seeing him, cries out

in

> fear. The man immediately removes the mask revealing his true

> identity. The child now squeals in delight. Now, even if the man

puts

> the mask on again, the child is not firghtened. In fact, the child

> wants him to put on the mask and takes delight in repeatedly

removing

> it.

>

> May I venture to suggest that the jnani's view of jagat may be

> similar to this?

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> I am not sure if this verse describes an aspirant for liberation

> (mumukSu) or one who is established in the indwelling Self

> (sthitaprajna) - a realized one, because one who is realized is

> already past mumukSwataM. The point, however, is that if this

> description is applied to a mumukSu, then there is some

> deliberateness implied, whereas in the case of a sthitaprajna,

being

> of the description is just a matter of spontaneity.

>

> The question, therefore, is how different is that spontaneity from

> the initial deliberatenness?

>

> Kindly keep writing more often.

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

> __________________

> Dear Shri Nair,

Shri Shankara says in his gitabhAshya that what are described as

natural to the jnAni are what are intended to be attained with

effort by the mumukshu. So this verse applies to both. As you have

said, in the case of the mumukshu it implies deliberate effort on

his part to attain this. In the case of the jnAni it is his very

nature.

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

 

Whatever we see is only Brahman. We normally do not

analyze it. When we, for example, look at a tree, how

the cognition takes place? The image of the tree falls

on our retina. Then optic nerves takes the image in

the form of something like electric signals to the

brain. The mind demodulates the signal and forms the

image ie. mind itself takes the shape of the tree. It

is finally seen by the mind only(not by the eys, or

optic nerve, or the brain). So, Mind is the seer,

seen, and seeing process. What 'we' 'see' is the image

in the mind. The mind is consciousness or Brahman and

so everything.

All other sense perceptions takes place in the same

way.

We feel that the objects we see are out side our body.

It is an illusion. Even when we see our own body, we

see only the image in the mind.

 

There is no object; all are Self only.

 

Whatever we see inside a mirror in front of us - our

body, the door behind, the towel, brush, etc. - all

are mirror only including the space between the

objects and the light. Similarly, whatever is

perceived is nothing but the Self. The only difference

is, in the case of mirror example, there are objects

in front of the mirror and corresponding images in the

mirror. In Brahman, only images are there.(Ref:

Upadesa Sahasri, Yoga Vasishta, etc.)

 

What we need is " applicational ability " like Jnanis.

 

Jai Guru

 

Natarajan

 

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

http://www./r/hs

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

 

advaitin , " P.R.Natarajan " <ntrjnpr wrote:

>

> Dear Friends,

> Whatever we see is only Brahman. We normally do not

> analyze it.

 

Dear Sri Natarajan and other learned members,

Instead of saying " Whatever we see is only Brahman. We normally

do not analyze it " ONE should say " WE ARE BRAHMAN. we normally do not

analyze it " because it is a fact which everyone can cognize. This

means that instead of objects one should investigate into the SEER of

the objects. This is what has been told in mantra 2-1-1 of

Kathakopanishad. There it says " AvRuttacakShuH amRutatvamicCan " .

If a sincere mumukshu/jij~JAsu investigates into the true svarupa of

oneself Viz. The SEER , then as for as the mumukshu is concerned all

the mind-torturing discussions that go on in the name of Vedanta are

absolutely unnecessary and futile. So what has to be done? A mumukshu

should learn the art and science of " AvRutvacakShutva " from shastra

and guru. This is my understanding.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

Let me add this interesting passage from Bhajagovindham (verse #19

attritbuted to Anandagiri) which provides further insights the on

going discussion.

 

Yogaratovaa bhogaratovaa saN^garatovaa saN^gaviihinaH .

yasya brahmaNi ramate chittaM nandati nandati nandatyeva - Verse 19

 

One may be immersed in Yoga or indulged in worldly pleasures; at

times he may be in the company of others and at other times he may be

alone. But he, he alone experiences bliss whose mind delights in

Brahman. When the mental and physical renunciation was complete and

the sadhana has borne fruit, the realization of Atman is the end.

 

He has abandoned all the desires of the heart. Giving up lust, greed

and anger and free from the delusion created by them, his mind is

unattached to the objects of the world. He is not carried away with

happiness or lost in worries. His trained mind now behaves with

equanimity in happiness or sorrow, gain or loss, victory or defeat.

He doesn't crave for pleasures, and is free from fondness and fear;

virtue and vice, attraction and aversion. Thus controlling his

senses, his wisdom is now constant. Like a tortoise its limbs, he can

withdraw the senses from sense–objects at will (Gita Chapter 2 Verse

#58). Transcending the three gunas (Sattva, Rajas and Tamas), his

mind is firmly established in a state of equilibrium. The controlled

mind is focused on the Supreme Lord.

 

This Brahma Jnani, the soul who has realized Brahman, has no

restrictions whatsoever. Even the Scriptures do not impose any on

him. He is free to do what he likes. He may be immersed in

meditation, may be in apparent worldly pursuits, may be alone or in

the company of others. Yet, since his mind is firmly established in

the knowledge of Atman, all the real joy, real Bliss, is his, his

alone.

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran