Superimposition

[Guest guest]

Dear members,

Namaste.

 

I am trying to put my stray thoughts on the subject below. As and

when, I have something to write I wish to write (and therefore, the

incompleteness of this topic is justified). Though primarily for

myself I am writing, I post it to the group so that I can learn from

the group.

 

With regards,

Anupam

-------

 

Acharya Sri Sankara defines Superimposition as " understanding of

something as somethingelse " – atasmin tadbuddhiH. This immediately

opens up a plethora of new understanding. “Something” presupposes the

understanding of “somethingelse”. The existence of “Something” is

called satta in Sanskrit. Suppose that there is a rope and in the

twilight one mistakes it for a snake. Without the existence of the

rope, no one can mistake it for a snake. In this classical example,

rope is the locus on which the snake is superimposed. On the other

hand, the locus can exist without the superimposed object; i.e., rope

can be perceived as rope itself and not as a snake.

What kind of knowledge is it when the rope is perceived as “it is a

snake”. Is it to be called as knowledge or ignorance? It cannot be

called as ignorance, because, while in ignorance, there is no

knowledge at all. A stone nearby the rope does not peceive it at all.

But, when perceived as a snake, there is some knowledge; it is partial

knowledge, and not total ignorance. What is that “partially correct

knowledge”? In the sentence “It is a snake”, “It is” is the correct

knowledge. This is-ness is correct knowledge. It is called as

idantaa in Sanskrit. This idantaa or is-ness represents the general

insignia of the existence. Whereas, the qualifier “a snake”, in the

senstence “This is a snake”, is the wrong knowledge. Because, on

further enquiry, the reality about the rope will be revealed. Thus

the qualifier (or upadhi in Sanskrit) is superimposed on the

qualified; isness is the locus on which somethingelse is superimposed.

Somethingelse may be out of something, but not out of nothing.

Do you see the world, the manifold existence? Yes. “Mayam tu

prakritim viddhi.” so says the Upanishad. i.e., the manifested

manifold existene is apparent or superimposed, and not real. We have

earlier seen that the superimposition presupposes an isness. What is

that isness which lends itself to be perceived as the manifold? The

same Upanishad continues, “mayinam tu mahesvaram” It is the Brahman

(or call it by any other name) who is the wielder of the

superimposition; it is that isness which was referred to earlier.

Another Upanishad says, “aNoraNeeyaan mahato mahiiyaan aatma”, i.e.,

the Atman (or Brahman) is subtler than the subtlest and greater than

the greatest. Sri Sankara says while commenting the above verse:-

 

Whatever exist – subtlest or greatest, that exists because of the

existence of the Eternal Atman; and anything that is devoid of Atman

looses its existence.

 

The Atman is the locus of all existence, because Atman is Existence

and One; Atman is something and all other manifestations are

somethingelse; thus somethingelse is perceived on that Something;

i.e., the manifold has the Unity as the base. Atman is by itself. It

does not owe its existence to some other thing. Otherwise, it would

lead to regression ad infinitum, which is a flaw. This nature of

Existence by Itself is called as “svataHsiddhaH” in Sanskrit.

The manifold vanish and Atman alone abides at the dawn of the

Knowledge, in asmuch as at the closer and careful enquiry the snake

vanishes in the rope.

Atman is one’s own Self. The “aham” of the “aham brahamasmi” is

Atman. Applying jagadajagallakshaNa on the word “aham” and discarding

all the apparent meaning of the word “aham”, we derive that the word

means the Atman. That is One, says the Upanishad. That Atman is of

the nature of Knowledge. Because of illusion, the manifold existence

appear and is sustained by it; at the dawn of the Knowledge, all

vanish into it.

Whence the appearance, sustinance and the vanishing of this multitude,

that is Brahman, says the Upanishad. These appearance, sustinence and

vanishing are all impermanent; Brahman alone is Eternal. To indicate

the Eternal using the ephemeral relationship is known as incidental

inherence or tadasthalakshaNa in Sanskrit.

A stranger asked a villager, “which is the land-lord’s house?”. The

villager points out the house, on which a crow was sitting and said,

“That house, on which the crow is sitting is the land-lord’s house”.

Neither the crow is attached to the house of the land-lord, nor all

the houses on which the crow sits are the houses of the land-lord. It

is just that the crow, which can fly away at any time, was sitting

there at that time. Pointing the house of the land-lord which is

relatively permanent using the fly-away-at-anytime crow is the

classical example of the incidental inherence or tadasthalakshaNa.

The Atman or Brahman, is by Itself Existence-Absolute,

Knowledge-Absolute and Bliss-Absolute. This is called svarupalakshaNa

or intrinsic inherence. It means that, the converse of the above

statement is also true; i.e., that which is Existence-Absolute,

Knowledge-Absolute and Bliss-Absolute, is Brahman. It is like showing

the house of the land-lord through its unique features or the features

which are not common to any other house. Uncommon features are unique

to the particular and qualify the “one”. By saying that Brahman is

Existence-Absolute, Knowledge-Absolute and Bliss-Absolute, it stands

to reason that nothing else is Existence-Absolute, Knowledge-Absolute

and Bliss-Absolute.

[Guest guest]

Dear Anupam-ji

Pranams.

I found your essay to be very well-written. In relation to your essay there are

two terms that are of significance - adharam and adhishtanam.

I have provided the details in the Brahmasutra series.

 

http://www.adi-shankara.org/2008/04/brahma-sutra-shankara-bhashya-6.html

 

Hopefully I am able to resume that series soon and we will discuss more about

this as we go along.

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

--- On Wed, 1/6/10, anupam srivatsav <anupam.srivatsav wrote:

 

> anupam srivatsav <anupam.srivatsav

> Superimposition

> " advaitin " <advaitin >

> Wednesday, January 6, 2010, 4:35 AM

> Dear members,

> Namaste.

>

> I am trying to put my stray thoughts on the subject

> below.  As and

> when, I have something to write I wish to write (and

> therefore, the

> incompleteness of this topic is justified).  Though

> primarily for

> myself I am writing, I post it to the group so that I can

> learn from

> the group.

>

> With regards,

> Anupam

> -------

>

> Acharya Sri Sankara defines Superimposition as

> " understanding of

> something as somethingelse " – atasmin tadbuddhiH. 

> This immediately

> opens up a plethora of new understanding. 

> “Something†presupposes the

> understanding of “somethingelseâ€.  The existence

> of “Something†is

> called satta in Sanskrit.  Suppose that there is a

> rope and in the

> twilight one mistakes it for a snake.  Without the

> existence of the

> rope, no one can mistake it for a snake. In this classical

> example,

> rope is the locus on which the snake is superimposed. 

> On the other

> hand, the locus can exist without the superimposed object;

> i.e., rope

> can be perceived as rope itself and not as a snake.

> What kind of knowledge is it when the rope is perceived as

> “it is a

> snakeâ€.  Is it to be called as knowledge or

> ignorance?  It cannot be

> called as ignorance, because, while in ignorance, there is

> no

> knowledge at all.