[Advaita-l] adhyAsa - part VII - evaluation of the difficulties

[Jay Nelamangala]

SriKrishna,

Please read the very first posting for the defn of adhyAsa.
VivaraNa-pramEya-Samgraha (VPS)  as:

"adhyAsastu anyasmin anyatva drishtihi"
(To superimpose is to mistake one thing for another)

> erroneous notion is adhyasa, and it is caused because
> the 'Truth' is not known. This lack of knowledge of
> 'Truth' is because of 'Ignorance'. If you want to

I have just touched upon 'ignorance'.   You may have to
be a bit more patient.

Apart from accusing me,  if you have any other comment
on the subject matter,  let me know.   I will include it
in future articles.

Regards,


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Srikrishna Ghadiyaram" <srikrishna_ghadiyaram at yahoo.com>
To: <ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] adhyAsa - part VII - evaluation of the difficulties


> Hari Om !!
>
> Your gloss on 'Adhyasa' is totally mis-construed, and
> uneducated. It is akin to taking the details/stories
> given  in a Elementary schools book, and preparing
> your PhD desertation. You have posted seven articles,
> without even mentioning the fundamental definition.
> 'Adhyasa' is neither rope nor shell.
>
> "atasmin tad budhih - adhyasa" - In any thing 'That'
> is not, 'That Budhi' is adhyasa.  This much is enough.
> I may be sleeping and someone may think a huge python
> is lying there. There are no rules about it. This
> erroneous notion is adhyasa, and it is caused because
> the 'Truth' is not known. This lack of knowledge of
> 'Truth' is because of 'Ignorance'. If you want to
> create a false theory and give countless posts and
> represent the level of understanding of other schools,
> it will only be exposing their limited understanding
> and waste of time.
>
> Om Namo Narayanaya !!
>
> Srikrishna
>
> --- Jay Nelamangala <jay at r-c-i.com> wrote:
> > It is only in cases of superposition that are
> > conditioned,  such as
> > crystal-red flower,  the thing superposed need not
> > be similar to the
> > thing on which it is superposed.   But,  in other
> > cases one must be
> > similar to the other - for example snake-rope, both
> > have same posture.
> >
> > Because Atman and anAtman are not similar,  they can
> > not be
> > superposed on each other.
> >
> > It might be said against this conclusion as follows:
> >  In such cases as
> > "I do" "I enjoy" etc doing, enjoying are imposed on
> > Atman.  Doing etc belong to
> > ahankAra "I".   Owing to the closeness of ahankAra,
> > Atman appears
> > as the doer.  The superimposition of doing etc is
> > also conditioned by "I".
> > This means that in this case of superimposition also
> > there need be no
> > similarity between Atman and ahankAra "I".
> >
> > In answer to these considerations, we may note that
> > they do not explain
> > the situation fully.  The point at issue is that
> > there can not be superposition
> > between Atman and anAtman because they are
> > dissimilar.  Granting the
> > superimposition of doing etc on Atman is
> > conditioned, we may hold that
> > this superposition does not require any similarity
> > between Atman and doing etc
> > But the superposition of ahankAra, body etc on Atman
> > presupposes that Atman
> > must be similar to the other things.  In the absence
> > of similarity there cannot
> > be any such superimposition.   We have already made
> > it clear that
> > Atman is not similar to any other thing.  So we may
> > tentatively conclude that
> > there is no superimposition at all.
> >
> > We may meet this difficulty as follows:  To deny
> > superposition on the ground
> > that there is no similarity between Atman and
> > anAtman is wrong and irrelevant
> > with experience.    We know that odour is
> > qualityless and partless.  Yet we
> > can compare one odour with another.  The comparison
> > simply means that
> > the two odours are similar to each other because
> > they are odours.
> > In the same way,  Atman and anAtman are things,  and
> > as things,  they may
> > be similar to each other.
> >
> > Or even regarding Atman as not similar to any other
> > thing,  we can not deny
> > superposition.  Superposition need not presuppose
> > similarity.  Shell and yellowness
> > are not similar,  yet the latter is superposed on
> > the former in "Shell is yellow".
> > The superposition of yellowness on a shell may be
> > due to  biliousness
> > such as "jaundice" and other health disorders of the
> > percipient.  Similarly
> > the superimposition of Atman and anAtman,  each on
> > the other, may be due to
> > nescience.>
> _______________________________________________
> > want to unsubscribe or change your options? See:
> >
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> > Need assistance? Contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
> http://calendar.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> want to unsubscribe or change your options? See:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> Need assistance? Contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>