(2) The second topic is adjunct versus adjective. That which, having come close another object, ascribes or superimposes its characteristics to that other object, and makes that object stand out from other objects, such an object is called an adjunct. The object in which this superimposition has happened is termed as adjuncted (upahita) by the adjunct. The adjunct does not enter into the nature of the adjuncted, even if that is what is seen as an appearance. For example, space enclosed by a pot makes it appear like space has been carved out. Here the pot is the adjunct and pot-space is the adjuncted. In this manner, the house is an adjunct and house-space is the adjuncted. All differences that seen to appear in space are in name only, not at all real. The pot or the house does not enter into the nature of the space, and space never gets affected by the characteristics of the adjunct.
The second example is that of the crystal. If you place a flower which is red, yellow or blue next to a crystal, it will take on the colour of the flower. Here, the adjunct is the red flower and the reddened crystal is the adjuncted. The red colour in the crystal is that of the adjunct, not of the crystal. In other words, though the red colour of the crystal is seen, there is no real change of colour in the crystal.
Similar to an adjunct is an adjective. It also goes near its subject and ascribes its qualities to the subject, differentiating the subject from others in the process. But here, the adjective enters into the nature of the subject, which becomes completely and permanently influenced by the adjective. Here is the example is : blue lotus. The lotus is the subject and the blueness is the adjective. The blueness distinguishes the lotus from a red lotus, but it is not possible to separate the blueness from the lotus.
The question is as follows. If the self is the subject, is the object an adjunct or an adjective? It is an adjective, is an indiscriminate vision. It is an adjunct, is a discriminative vision. That object which appears in the basis of its absence is illusory, this vision is knowledge. Object, body, vital functions, senses, mind, intellect, memory, egoism, impressions of joy and sorrow etc. - all these are adjuncts of the self. It is due to the result of these that the self appears as an object-consumer, body-holder, doer, enjoyer, knower and so on. But all these are the adjunct natures of the self, therefore even if the self appears as these, in reality it remains without modification, ever the anvil (kootastha). Therefore, even being the basis of natural social dealings, this subject-object superimposition is illusory.
By accepting objects as adjectives of the self, this cycle of ignorance cannot be broken by knowledge. Even if we accept the superimpositional relationship of subject and object as that of adjective and subject, it will, in reality, be an adjunct relationship. Then, by the oneness of the witness and substratum of the adjunct, is it possible to gain knowledge of the illusory nature of the adjunct, not otherwise.
That aware entity which has taken on the body, mind and senses as its adjectives is called "jeeva", the individual soul. It is bound and released from the standpoint of transactional (vyavahaarika) reality. Bound by ignorance and released by knowledge. But the nature of the aware entity which is adjuncted by the mind, body and senses is ever free, therefore there the superimposition is ever ceased (nitya nivrutta).
No comments:
Post a Comment