artha adhyAsa and jnAna adhyAsa

November 1, 2009

Namaste to all.

The theory explaining the phenomenon of superimposition,

such as that of silver on nacre, according to advaita VedAnta, is known as

anirvacanIyakhyAti.

According to it, the mental vRitti shows the object only as something in

front, or merely as ‘this’. The fact that it is nacre is not known because of

some defect, such as distance of the object from the person. The brightness of

the object triggers the latent impression in his mind of silver seen previously

elsewhere. Then he concludes, “This (the object in front) is silver. Shri

Shankara defines adhyAsa as—smRitirUpah paratra pUrvadRiShTa avabhAsah—Of the

nature of memory, the appearance elsewhere of some thing seen previously.

PanchapAdikA and VivaraNa, which are followed

by VedAnta ParibhAShA and accepted by all advaita AcAryas hold that the adhyAsa

of silver on nacre (as also all other adhyasas) is of two kinds—jnAna adhyAsa,

or adhyAsa of cognition and artha adhyAsa, or adhyAsa of object. It is held

that what is seen in the illusion, or imagined to exist, is not merely the

attributes of silver, but silver itself. It is held that silver is not merely

cognized, but it is seen to exist there. The reason for this conclusion is that,

when there is cognition of silver, the object, silver, must be considered to

exist there, because there can be no cognition without an object. Of course,

later on it is found that there is no silver, but as long as the delusion

lasts, silver is considered to be present. Moreover it is pointed out that

unless the person believed that silver was actually there, he would not make an

effort to grasp it. This is what is described as artha adhyAsa. In the same

way, we believe that the world actually exists and is real until the dawn of

Self-knowledge. Thus the theory of artha adhyAsa is intended to explain why we

not only see the world, but accept it as real.

This

has been stated in the following words in VivaraNaprameyasangraha of

VidyAraNya, which is a summary of VivaraNa (Translation of G. Thibaut):--

JnAna-adhyAsa

never takes place apart from artha-adhyAsa.

P. 58 of VivaraNaprameyasangraha (VPS)- Of adhyAsa viewed as thing (artha adhyAsa), the definition is: 'adhyAsa is a thing,

similar to some thing remembered, which presents itself to consciousness as

constituting the Self of another thing.' Of adhyAsa viewed as cognition (jnAna

adhyAsa) the definition is ' adhyAsa is the presentation to consciousness of

one thing as constituting the Self of another--- such presentation being

similar to remembrance.'

Neither Shankara nor any other

AcArya says that only the attributes of the superimposed object are presented

in an adhyAsa. They all hold that the object itself Is presented.

P. 58-59—VPS- The

adherents of akhyati-vada say-- when we have the erroneous idea 'this thing

before me is silver,' the sense of sight and the other means of true knowledge

do not operate, and it, therefore, only remains to view the silver simply as remembered silver, not as 'similar to

remembered silver'. By no means, we reply. For we are conscious of the silver

as something here and now presented to us (not as something remembered). Nor

can it be held that what is so presented to us is only this thing, not the silver. For the 'this' and the silver are immediately presented to us in mutual

combination (itaretara samsrishtau); the case does not differ from that of

correct judgments, such as 'this is silver', 'this is a jar', where the general

and the particularizing notions present themselves in mutual combination.

-------- We, therefore, must admit on the ground of the existence of immediate

consciousness, that silver exists before us.------

The cognition of this silver is, however, not

by the same vRitti as that for the cognition of nacre. The eye is not in

contact with the silver, for the reason that there is really no silver there.

The silver is therefore sAkShi bhAsya, as stated below:--

Page 30 of VP.

Being cognized by the witness alone

(kevalasAkShi-vedyatvam) does not mean that they are objects of the witness

without the presence of the mental modifications corresponding to them, but

that they are objects of the witness without the activity of pramanas such as

the sense-organs and inference. Hence PrakashAtma yati has, in VivaraNa,

admitted a mental modification in the form of the ego-- ahamAkAra-vRitti. So

also, in the case of an illusory piece of silver, a vRitti of nescience (avidya

vritti) in the form of silver (rajata-AkAra-avidya-vRitti) has been admitted in

works such as Samkshepa-shArIraka. The illusory silver is 'sAkShi-bhAsyam',

cognised by the witness-self, since the mental modification is not of the

vyAvahArika mind, but is a vRitti of

avidya.

Thus there are two cognitions, one of the nacre as merely

‘this’ by a mental modification with the help of the eyes, and another

cognition, of silver, as sAkshi pratyaksha, by an avidya vRitti. These two

appear as one combined cognition as stated below:--

VivaraNaprameyasangraha- p.28—In the case of error (bhrAnti), as

exemplified by the cognition ‘this (thing before me) is silver’, two distinct

things, although quite incapable of identity, are nevertheless cognised as

identical.

P. 61—VPS-- We,

therefore, must accept the view of unreal silver being actually present. How

otherwise would one perceiving a shell, put forth action with regard to

silver? The silver thus is not silver

remembered but silver similar to remembered silver.

P. 62. VPS-- The advaitin says:-- In order to account

for the particularised action (of

stretching out the hand to grasp the silver), we must assume a composite mental

state, (i.e., an immediate apprehension of this

and the silver).

It is clear from the above that in an illusion like that

of nacre appearing as silver, what is seen (or thought to be seen) is not the

attributes of silver, but silver itself. This silver is later on found to have

never existed, just as the world is found to have never existed on the dawn of

knowledge. But both are considered as actually existing as long as there is

ignorance of the substratum.

This theory of two kinds of adhyAsa is well known to those

who have studied VivaraNa and other works, but it may not be known to most of

the members of this List. Shri Shankara himself has not gone into this

question, but there is nothing in his writings that go against this. On the

other hand this is a logical consequence of his views on adhyAsa.

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

November 3, 2009

It is clear from the above that in an illusion like that

of nacre appearing as silver, what is seen (or thought to be seen) is not

the attributes of silver, but silver itself. This silver is later on found

to have never existed, just as the world is found to have never existed

on the dawn of knowledge. But both are considered as actually existing

as long as there is ignorance of the substratum.

praNAms Sri Sastri prabhuji

Hare krishna

I've a small doubt here!!?? (as always

:-)) It is true that after realizing the substratum of the 'seen'

silver, we say 'silver' was never existed & we dont see any more silver

and we would see ONLY nacre (i.e. substratum)....Can we apply this same

logic to 'dAshtrAntika' also i.e. brahman & world?? after

realization, can we say world will be completely vanished like 'silver'??

Kindly clarify whether for this 'silverless' or 'worldless' state

vivaraNa school recommending any particular state?? or it holds mere

sublative knowledge (bhAdita jnAna) of the world ??

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

November 3, 2009

> brahman & world?? after realization, can we say world will be completely

> vanished like 'silver'?? Kindly clarify whether for this 'silverless' or

> 'worldless' state vivaraNa school recommending any particular state?? or

> it holds mere sublative knowledge (bhAdita jnAna) of the world ??

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

>

Super impose

There are explanations, commentaries,narrations,formulas etc of the imposed

object i,e the word but not of the actual.For us the object is ones own

consciousness which made of word and its picture and also the feeling derived

from the interaction of word and its picture.Thus one is seeing the picture

churned out from the interpretation.This is an endless procedure with which one

is entangled.Who breaks this chain is the question but not regarding Brahma or

non Brahma or Nirvana.

thank you sir

sekhar

November 4, 2009

Dear Bhaskarji,

On this point you have been saying in past posts that on the rise of knowledge

avidya and its effects are found to have never existed and that the world itself

is not seen after knowledge. But I and others have been saying that though

avidya and its effects are found to have never existed in reality, the world is

still seen, but it is recognised as brahman itself, just as a pot continues to

be seen as such even after the knowledge that it is nothing but clay.

This is is a matter on which this difference of opinion has not been reconciled.

Let us not start this discussion again.

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> It is clear from the above that in an illusion like that of nacre

> appearing as silver, what is seen (or thought to be seen) is not the

> attributes of silver, but silver itself. This silver is later on found to

> have never existed, just as the world is found to have never existed on

> the dawn of knowledge. But both are considered as actually existing as

> long as there is ignorance of the substratum.

>

> praNAms Sri Sastri prabhuji

> Hare krishna

> I've a small doubt here!!?? (as always :-)) It is true that after

> realizing the substratum of the 'seen' silver, we say 'silver' was never

> existed & we dont see any more silver and we would see ONLY nacre (i.e.

> substratum)....Can we apply this same logic to 'dAshtrAntika' also i.e.

> brahman & world?? after realization, can we say world will be completely

> vanished like 'silver'?? Kindly clarify whether for this 'silverless' or

> 'worldless' state vivaraNa school recommending any particular state?? or

> it holds mere sublative knowledge (bhAdita jnAna) of the world ??

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

>

November 4, 2009

Dear Bhaskar,

Pranams.

Probably it can be compared with a dream analogy.

I had a beautiful & wonderful dream in my sleep. When i am awake, i realise

that the dream is not real and an illusion. But still at the back of my mind i

cherish that dream though i am fully conscious and aware that the dream is

false.

I believe it is something like this....

I think Shri Sastri-Ji or Shri Sada-ji should take up some serious classes on

Dakshinamurthy Stotram of Sankara Bhagavatpada which i believe is the foundation

stone to understand the Advaita.

regs,

sriram