[Advaita-l] Question on adhyaasa

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 5:44 AM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste,
> A side question to consider in relation to anyonyAdhyAsa -
>
> If in the conception of adhyAsa, the adhyasta is mithyA and adhiShThAna is
> satya, the non-self and its attributes can  be superimposed  on the self,
> because the latter is real and can be the adhiShThAna for the adhyAsa.
> However, anyonyAdhyAsa says that the nature of the self is superimposed on
> the non-self too. How can this be true though? How can the non-self, which
> is mithyA, be the adhiShThAna for the self's nature, which is real?
>
> Therefore, is the term anyonyAdhyAsa not a mutual superimposition, but
> merely a confusion of one for the other, brought about by the one
> superimposition of the non-self on the self?
>

Very interesting, though. We see in the very opening sentence of the
Adhyasa bhashya that there is an anyonyadhyasa:
युष्मदस्मत्प्रत्ययगोचरयोर्विषयविषयिणोस्तमःप्रकाशवद्विरुद्धस्वभावयोरितरेतर
भावानुपपत्तौ सिद्धायाम् , तद्धर्माणामपिसुतरामितरेतरभावानुपपत्तिः — इत्यतः
अस्मत्प्रत्ययगोचरे विषयिणि चिदात्मके युष्मत्प्रत्ययगोचरस्य विषयस्य
तद्धर्माणां चाध्यासः तद्विपर्ययेणविषयिणस्तद्धर्माणां च विषयेऽध्यासो मिथ्येति
 भवितुं युक्तम् । तथाप्यन्योन्यस्मिन्नन्योन्यात्मकतामन्योन्यधर्मांश्चाध्य
स्येतरेतराविवेकेनअत्यन्तविविक्तयोर्धर्मधर्मिणोः मिथ्याज्ञाननिमित्तः सत्या
नृते मिथुनीकृत्य ‘अहमिदम्’ ‘ममेदम्’ इति नैसर्गिकोऽयं लोकव्यवहारः ॥

There are two dharmi-s, one the vishayi and the other the vishaya. And
there are two dharma-s too, of the vishayi and of the vishaya. So, First
there is the dharmi adhyasa of taking the vishaya to be the vishayi and
vice versa. And there is their dharma adhyasa too, the vishaya's dharma-s
are adhyasta on the vishayi and the vishayi's dharma-s are adhyasta on the
vishaya.

Now, for your question:   //However, anyonyAdhyAsa says that the nature of
the self is superimposed on the non-self too. How can this be true though?
How can the non-self, which is mithyA, be the adhiShThAna for the self's
nature, which is real? // the answer is:

It is not that the //If in the conception of adhyAsa, the adhyasta is
mithyA and adhiShThAna is satya//  That is, it is not that the adhyasta is
mithya per se; it is mithya only in a locus that is not appropriate. Thus,
the snake in a zoo or park is not mithya; only a snake apprehended in the
locus rope is mithya. So too, the nature of the Self namely existence,
consciousness, is not mithya but only when they are experienced in the
wrong locus the not-self that they are mithya. Thus, the idea of
anyonyadhyasa is error-free seen this way.

Also, the existence and consciousness are by default everywhere. As taught
in the BGB 2.16, in 'the pot is, the cloth is..', the is-ness, the dharma
of the Atman/Brahman never undergoes vyabhichara, that is, they never
become non-existent. But the pot, cloth, etc. in that statement is
vyabhicchari, that is, in pot the cloth is absent and vice versa. Extending
this, the anatma and its dharmas are vyabhichari and mithya and the Atma
and its dharmas are avyabhichari and satyam. This is the essence of the BGB
2.16.

regards
subbu


>
> Thanks
> Venkatraghavan
>
>>
>>
>>