Why vyavahaara does not disappear with knowledge?

[Guest guest]

In the discussion of adhyaasa - we mentioned that there are two types of

adhyaasa.

 

1. The first type is - Based on attributes perceived, the object is mistaken as

something other than what it is. Here the problem is incomplete knowledge, or

partial ignorance is the problem. The attributes are not changed, but only

partially recognized (due to say dim light etc), and one mistakes one object for

the other due to similarities in the attributive content. The typical example is

snake for a rope - wherein the based on the attributes perceived the object is

recognized as a snake instead of a rope.

 

Here partial ignorance is the basic problem - All knowledge is covered by

ignorance and partial ignorance only means only partial knowledge is revealed -

That 'there is an object there' is definite - it is five feet long, soft when

stepped on, lying in the alley, etc are the attributes perceived and distinctive

enough not to mistake the object as elephant or tree but not distinctive enough

to differentiate between snake and a rope. Here ignorance covers the knowledge

but as the object is perceived, mind projects a snake there. But the mind that

is projecting does not think it is projecting or imagining, since it takes as

real snake out there. The subsequent physical and physiological and

psychological reactions at body,mind and intellect level are all consequence of

the clear understanding that there is a snake out there, and in the mind like

all perceptions that one sees.

 

The most important point to note here is the viskhepa or projecting of a snake

where there is rope is done by the individual mind. Hence when that individual

mind subsequently during transmigratory experience realizes that it is rope, the

snake that he saw completely disappears. This is one kind of adhyaasa. The

disappearance of the viskhepa or projected object, here the snake, is by the

individual mind. Hence when the mind sees the reality of the object there, the

false projection of the mind disappears.

This example along with its limitation has to be understood in applying to

Vedanta. Ignorance contributes to error in perception of the reality. Adhyaasa

arises seeing something other than what it is.

 

 

There is a second type of adhyaasa that was discussed in my post on the

knowledge series. That, in contrast to the precious one, involves transferring

the attributes of one thing to the other. The classical example is the clear

crystal appearing as red due to its proximity with red cloth or a more modern

example is sunrise and sunset or stationary trees appear to move in the opposite

direction as the train is moving. In these cases the attributes of one are

getting superimposed on the other to give false understanding of the facts. In

contrast to the previous one rope/snake case, the error and projection of the

error is not by the individual mind per sec. Individual mind concludes based on

what is sees. What it implies is the error is not due to mental projection at

individual level. Hence not only one individual, every one sitting in the train

will feel the same way and everyone on this earth sees sunrise and sunset. This

we can call it as not

individual creation but creation of the Iswara since it is error that arises

from relative motion and reference frame from which the motion is measured.

Here two aspects are imporatant - one is the creation or projection by the total

mind, Iswara, and the reference frame from which the observation is made.

 

Implication of this is two fold. First, unlike the snake/rope case, this

underlying the truth is difficult to perceive while one is riding the train

(movement of trees) or staying on this planet earth (for sunrise and sunset).

This is one of the reason why self-realization sitting in the BMI is rather

difficult - but we donot have much choice! Most importantly it requires some

knowledge of science or shaastra knowledge to understand in spite of the

movement of the trees, the trees do not move and it is the train we are on that

is moving, and in spite of the sunrise and sunset the sun does not rise or set,

it is the movement of the earth we are on.

The second aspect of this is as long as we are in the train, in spite of the

knowledge that the trees do not move and that it is the train that is moving, we

will still see the trees moving and we will still see the sunrise and sunset.

Hence in this kind of adhyaasa, knowledge does not eliminate the observation or

error since we are still riding on the train or sitting on the earth, as the

case may be. We recongnise and admire the relative mechanics sitting on the

train or on this earth.

 

From these two examples what do we understand?

The correct understanding from both adhyaasas is 1) as long as the vikshepa or

projection is by the individual mind as in the case of snake example, then the

knowledge that reveals the truth also eliminates the vikshepa or projected

snake. 2) But if the vikshepa is not by the individual mind but by collective

mind or Iswara’s mind, the individual mental knowledge does not eliminate the

collective projection or Iswara shruShTi. Individual mental projections

normally come under praatibhaasika and Iswara’s projection comes under

vyaavahaarika. The first example helps to understand the mental projection of

individual suffering due to worng relationships are individual level that is

samsaara is due to first type of adhyaasa - seeing snake where there is a rope -

asohyaan anya sochatvem - you are crying where there is no reason for you to

cry.

 

In the case of individual mental projection, the cause for projection is partial

ignorance that covers the knowledge of the object – that we call avidya.

 

In the case of Iswara’s projection – we do not want to call ignorance for

Iswara but it is maaya as his shakti for projection. The cause for projection

by Iswara is due to karma of the jiivas since He does not have any karma of his

own for him to exhaust. Since vyavahaara is Iswara’s creation, the jiiva’s

knowledge that ‘all this is not real and the real is the consciousness that I

am’, does not eliminate the Iswara’s projection – as long as he is

traveling on the train or sitting on this earth or have upaadhiis which are part

of the creation of the Iswara (jiiva did not create his upaadhiis!). Just as we

know that trees do not move even though they appear to move, the jnaani knows

that he is pure consciousness but due to upaadhiis he sees the projection of

Iswara as jagat and transact with the world as long as he is in the jagat! –

but of course with the knowledge that he is not even transaction since he must

have studied Bhagavat

giita even if not all Shankara Bhaashyaas, that prakRiti alone does all the

actions and he was never a doer (even during when he was ajnaani)–

prakRityevaca karmaaNi kriyamaanaani sarvaShaH| yah pasyati tat aatmaanam

akartaaram sa pasyati. Understanding of this adhyaasa will help to recognize the

role of Iswara and jiiva correctly as vibhuuti and loka kalyaaNam with

compassion for those who are not able to see Iswara shruShTi correctly.

 

Hope distinctions in the two adhyaasas are clear.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> In the discussion of adhyaasa - we mentioned that there are two

types of adhyaasa.

>

> Hope distinctions in the two adhyaasas are clear.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

 

Dear Sadananda-ji,

Very clear.

Just one addition. The snake-rope type is called nirupAdhika adhyAsa-

adhyAsa without upAdhi.

The other type is called sopAdhika adhyAsa- adhyAsa with upAdhi. The

red object is the upAdhi which gives its redness to the crystal.

upAdhi- upa samiipe AdadhAti sviiyam dharmam iti upAdhiH- upAdhi is

that which gives its quality to some thing in its vicinity.

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Sastri ji,

 

> upAdhi- upa samiipe AdadhAti sviiyam dharmam iti upAdhiH- upAdhi is

> that which gives its quality to some thing in its vicinity.

 

Very nice vyutpatti has been given to Upaadhi. Can you please let me

know where it comes from?

 

With regards,

Anupam

[Guest guest]

Shri Anupam,

This is given by Bhaskara Rayar in his bhAshya on Lalita Sahasranamam under the name nirupAdhiH.S.N.Sastri

On 8/23/08, anupam srivatsav <anupam.srivatsav wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Sri Sastri ji,> upAdhi- upa samiipe AdadhAti sviiyam dharmam iti upAdhiH- upAdhi is> that which gives its quality to some thing in its vicinity.Very nice vyutpatti has been given to Upaadhi. Can you please let me

know where it comes from?With regards,Anupam -- Hara Hara Sankara Jaya Jaya Sankara

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

PranAms

In his Brahmasutra adhyasa bhAshya Bhagwan Shankara tellingly gives

examples of both of these

 

a.confusing silver for nacre (shuktikA hi rajatavat avabhAsate,

 

b.one moon is seen as two (ekah chandra sad-dwiteeyavat iti)

 

In the first example once clarity is obtained about the substance

being nacre, one immediately no longer sees silver. No matter how

often and in how many ways one views the vastu there is no longer any

silver-ness seen in it - one may very well remark how well it

resembles silver but there is never any doubt that it is nacre alone.

IN the second example if you rub/turn your eyeballs in a certain way

then a moon which one is appears as two. In this example everytime the

eye is oriented in a particular way the moon though one will always

appear as two - the knowledge that it is one moon however is never

lost to the knower.

 

How this applies to advaita should be quite clear, as has been so

beautifully elaborated by Shri Sada-ji

 

Humble pranAms

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

 

 

> Dear Sadananda-ji,

> Very clear.

> Just one addition. The snake-rope type is called nirupAdhika adhyAsa-

> adhyAsa without upAdhi.

> The other type is called sopAdhika adhyAsa- adhyAsa with upAdhi. The

> red object is the upAdhi which gives its redness to the crystal.

> upAdhi- upa samiipe AdadhAti sviiyam dharmam iti upAdhiH- upAdhi is

> that which gives its quality to some thing in its vicinity.

> Regards,

> S.N.Sastri

>