[Advaita-l] adhyAsa - part VII - evaluation of the difficulties
srikrishna_ghadiyaram at yahoo.com
Wed Jun 4 13:18:10 CDT 2003
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 !!
--- 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
> want to unsubscribe or change your options? See:
> Need assistance? Contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list