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

[Srikrishna Ghadiyaram]

Hari Om !!

I appreciate your reply.

See, I am not well read. I am at elementary school
level in Vedanta. But, I fail to understand your point
of posts and trying to prove that Atma and Anatma can
not be superimposed, which I know from the beginning.
But it seems to be undifferentiated. That is the
problem for me/all, because of which several theories
and philosophies have come about. If it could have
been done without expounding later schools would not
have comeup at ll.

It is 'as if Superimposed' is the conclusion of
Mandukya, which even rejects 'creation'. 

So, 'Superimposition' need not mean akin to 'GROSS'
superimposition. The material world is at a different
subtlity than the subtlity of Atman, as detailed in
the panchikarana, and Taittriya.

'Superimposition' should be treated as
'identification' or 'Ignorance' at genuine Advaita
Vedanta exposition. If you bottle it from the
perspective of other schools then it makes no sense.

The one and only Atman, identifying with various
sthula, sukshma, karana sareers shines as this
creation that is all Adhyasa is all about.

You are a champion of samanvaya, so why do you not
attempt samanvaya of Advaita vedanta theory to find
samanvaya within advaita vedanta itself, instead you
are resorting to other school thoughts that there is
no samanvaya in advaita vedanta.

At the beginning you said, we will study with no
school attached. So, exhaust Advaita theory correctly
before disputing it.

I know I can be moe patient. I could not be more
patient because you are not taking me any where with
your posts.

Om Namo Narayanaya !!

Srikrishna




--- Jay Nelamangala <jay at r-c-i.com> wrote:
> 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
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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