[Advaita-l] A brilliant post on Adhyasa, nuances, in Hindi

[V Subrahmanian]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2834660036609621&set=a.251918044883846&type=3&theater


Here is a post from Sri Rahul giving the Adhyasa bhashyam, commentaries on
it and an analysis of adhyasa lakshanam.  The post is in Hindi and some
quotes in English and Sanskrit:

================ अध्यास लक्षण विचार ================

// स्मृतिरूप: परत्र पूर्वदृष्टावभास: । //

उपरोक्त अध्यास लक्षण में स्वरुपलक्षण एवं तटस्थलक्षण है । " स्मृतिरूप "
तटस्थलक्षण (प्रातिभासिकाध्यासलक्षण) का निरूपक है एवं परत्र-अवभास
स्वरुपलक्षण का निरूपक है ।

" स्मृतिरूप " अर्थात् कारणत्रितयजन्यत्व । ~ ( विवरण )

कारणत्रय - दोष, संस्कार, संप्रयोग ।

दोष - कालव्यवधान, अमनोयोग, शक्त्याल्पता इत्यादि
संस्कार - पूर्वज्ञानजन्य
संप्रयोग - इन्द्रियसंन्निकर्ष

परत्र - अयोग्य अधिकरण । ~ ( रत्नप्रभा )

" स्मृतिरूप " पद्युक्त लक्षण तटस्थलक्षण इसलिए है क्योंकि यह अविद्याध्यास
में अव्याप्त है । अविद्याध्यास अनादि होनेसे कारणजन्यत्व नहीं है । यह
तटस्थलक्षण स्वप्नाध्यास में भी प्रयोज्य नहीं होता, क्योंकि स्वप्नाध्यास में
इन्द्रियसंन्निकर्ष नहीं है । जाग्रतावस्था में पिता आदि के साथ
इन्द्रियसंन्निकर्षजात संस्कार स्वप्नाध्यास के निमित्त है ।

पूर्वदृष्ट - पूर्वदृष्टसजातीयपरं । ~ ( भावप्रकाशिका, नृसिंहाश्रम )

" परत्र-अवभास " अन्यथाख्याति में भी है, क्योंकि अन्यथाख्याति में स्वर्णकार
की दूकान में पूर्वदृष्ट रजत का भ्रमकाल में अन्यत्र अवभास माना जाता है । यही
है " परत्र-अवभास "। इसलिए भावप्रकाशिकाकार के अनुसार अन्यथाख्याति में लक्षण
की अतिव्याप्ति रोकने के लिए " पूर्वदृष्ट " ( पूर्वदृष्टसजातीय /
पूर्वदृष्टतुल्य ) पद का प्रयोजन है । अनिर्वचनीयख्याति के अनुसार भ्रमकाल में
दृष्ट रजत अभिनव मायिक है । यह बस पूर्वदृष्ट रजत के सदृशमात्र है, किन्तु वही
नहीं ।

विवरणकार के अनुसार " स्मृतिरूप " पद ही अन्यथाख्याति में लक्षण की
अतिव्याप्ति रोकने के लिए पर्याप्त है । " पूर्वदृष्ट " पद का लक्षण में
प्रयोजन नहीं है । अन्यथाख्याति में व्यावहारिक रजत, जिसके साथ पूर्वकालीन
इन्द्रियसन्निकर्ष हुआ था, वही भ्रमकाल में भासित होता है । अतः " स्मृतिरूप "
कहनेमात्र से ही जब मायिक रजत के साथ इन्द्रियसन्निकर्ष का निषेध होता है, तो
" पूर्वदृष्ट " पद योग किये बिना ही अन्यथाख्याति में अतिव्याप्ति का निराकरण
हो जाता है । यद्यपि " पूर्वदृष्ट " पद अध्यासलक्षण को स्पष्टरूप से समझाने
में सहायक है ।

किन्तु प्रकटार्थविवरणकार ने एकसाथ सारे पदों का अध्यासलक्षण निरूपण में
आवश्यकता कहा है -

केवलमात्र " पूर्वदृष्ट-अवभास " कहे तो स्मृति में लक्षण की अतिव्याप्ति हो
सकती है । इसे रोकने के लिए " स्मृतिरूप " योग किया गया । इसका तात्पर्य है कि
स्मृति की तरह ही अध्यास संस्कारजन्य है, किन्तु अध्यास स्मृति नहीं है ।

" परत्र " पद को प्रत्यभिज्ञा में लक्षण की अतिव्याप्ति रोकने के लिए योग किया
गया, क्योंकि " पूर्वदृष्ट-अवभास " तो प्रत्यभिज्ञा में भी रहता है । इसका
तात्पर्य है कि अध्यासकाल में भासित वस्तु अन्यत्र पूर्वदृष्ट वस्तु से भिन्न
है, वही नहीं ।
----------------------------------------------------
-------------------------

श्रृंगेरी के पूर्वाचार्य श्री चन्द्रशेखर भारती जी महास्वामीजी ने अर्थाध्यास
लक्षण का निरूपण करते हुए कहा :

// Adhyasa in the form of an object - " अर्थाध्यास ", is apprehension - "
अवभास " of an object, with the involvment of a single determinant - "
एकावच्छेदेन ", in a locus wherein it has अत्यन्ताभाव - " परत्र ", even
while it appears as related - " स्वसंसृज्यमाने ", to the locus. //

परत्र (in a locus wherein it has actual non-existence / अत्यन्ताभाव) : It
is insufficient to just say that Adhyasa in the form of an object
(अर्थाध्यास) is apprehension of an object (अवभास) in a locus. The
definition can over-pervade (अतिव्याप्त) to smell etc. which genuinely has
earth as its locus etc. परत्र has been added in the lakshana to prevent the
अतिव्याप्ति.

एकावच्छेदेन (with the involvment of a single determinant) : It is
insufficient to just say that Adhyasa in the form of an object (अर्थाध्यास)
is apprehension of an object (अवभास) in a locus wherein it has actual
non-existence (अत्यन्ताभाव). The definition becomes over-pervasive
(अतिव्याप्त) to such cases as cojunction (संयोग) of a monkey etc. being
present in some part of a tree, e.g. base, while it is absent in other
parts of the same tree. Thus conjunction of monkey is seen in a locus
(tree) wherein it is actually absent (i.e. parts of the same tree where the
monkey is non-existent). In order to prevent the अतिव्याप्ति, ' with the
involvment of a single determinant ' (एकावच्छेदेन) is added. In the above
example, different Avachchhedakas are involved in the cognitions of
presence and absence of conjunction of monkey in a tree.

स्वसंसृज्यमाने (even while it appears as related to the locus) : It is
insufficient to say that Adhyasa in the form of an object (अर्थाध्यास) is
apprehension of an object (अवभास), with the involvment of a single
determinant (एकावच्छेदेन), in a locus wherein it has actual non-existence
(अत्यन्ताभाव). The lakshana becomes over-pervasive (अतिव्याप्त) to such
cases as a pot brought to a spot on the ground. Earlier, the spot qualifies
as a locus of the non-existence of the pot. Once a pot is brought on the
spot, the pot is actually seen in a locus of the non-existence of the pot.
But ' even while it appears as related to the locus ' (स्वसंसृज्यमाने)
demands that the object must be seen in the locus at the very same time
when it is actually non-existent in the locus. Since the above definition
is clearly non-applicable to it, the pot example does not become Adhyasa.

----------------------------------------------------
-------------------------

It must be noted that according to Vedanta, Conjunction (संयोग) is
definitely an Adhyasa, since everything else than Brahman involves Adhyasa.
However, Nyaya-Vaisheshika school does not consider conjunction (संयोग) and
a pot brought to a spot as Adhyasa. These are not false according to their
views. So a person under the influence of these schools may wrongly
consider the shell-silver example as Satyam since it is at per with
Conjunction (संयोग). The silver is seen to be related to only an aspect of
the shell. Also, the world appears in only a (imaginary) part of Brahman.
Hence being at per with संयोग, one may erroneously regard these as Satyam
and not Mithya. In order to remove such a misconception, ' with the
involvment of a single determinant ' and ' even while it appears as related
to the locus ' are added.

Conjunction, in reality, is absent in a substance with respect to the very
Avacchedaka by which its presence therein is demarcated and thus it is an
Adhyasa - this is what we would like to establish. Hence the definition
does not suffer from सिद्धसाधनदोष.

Also, there is no अनभिमतसिद्धि, namely that conjunction is to be regarded
as Mithya only because it is present in just one portion of a substance.

----------------------------------------------------
-------------------------

सन्दर्भ ग्रन्थ :-

1. जीवन्मुक्तभारती, श्रृंगेरी जगद्गुरु श्रीचन्द्रशेखरभारतीमहास्वामिनः

2. Adhyas bhashya lectures of Dr. Mani Dravid Shastri

3. अध्यासविचार, श्री सीतानाथ गोस्वामी