7.5 Doubts And Answers On The Topic Of Superimposition

Question : In the self, which is of the nature of knowledge, where did ignorance come from?
 
Answer : Even we admit that ignorance cannot happen in the self which is of the nature of knowledge. But "I am ignorant", even this also is a clear experience of every person. If this ignorance cannot happen in our true nature, then it must have come from the outside. Outside the subject, there can only be the object. Therefore, the inertness of the subject alone is reflected in the self in the form of ignorance. The superimposition of the characteristic of the object on the subject alone is called ignorance. This superimposition does not happen due to any similarity or intercourse because the subject and object are have mutually opposite natures, so this is unconnected-spatial-superimposition (ayukta sthaaneeya superimposition). There can be no ignorance in the self and there can be no knowledge in the object, even then, ignorance appears in the self and knowledge appears in the object. This unconnected-spatial-superimposition alone causes non-discrimination or error. If we want to know what is the cause of this non-discrimination then that also is non-discrimination, otherwise it will become untenable (anavasthaa).
 
Question : Agreed, if non-discrimination alone is the cause of superimposition, then by the Saankhya-discrimination of the seer and the seen, it will be destroyed. There is no need for Vedantic contemplation of brahman.
 
Answer : In Saankhya discrimination, when the real witness has mated with the real seen, we need to discriminate two realities from each other. But from the point of view of Vedanta, the seer is real and the seen is illusory, therefore we need to discriminate between reality and illusion. Once the real has been discriminated from the illusory, the unconnected-spatial-superimposition is removed permanently, whereas in the Saankhya discrimination, the seen is considered real and there lies the possibility of repeated superimposition. When there are two realities, both remain disconnected and incomplete, therefore Saankhya does not have cessation of superimposition. This is the significance of contemplation of brahman.
 
The self is real, therefore "it is and will be". Objects are unreal, that is why they "are not". But people say - objects are and will be, but we will not. The existence (astitva) in an object is a characteristic of the self. The self is self-illumined, that is also why objects are perceived. The self is aware and objects are inert, but people say - since objects are being perceived that means "they are", but the self is not perceived, that is why "it is not". Perception is the characteristic of the self, not of the object (Kathopanishad 2.2.15). In other words, the self illumines all since it is self-illumined. The self is of the nature of bliss and objects are of the nature of sorrow, but people say - there is joy in objects. All these are examples of unconnected-spatial-superimposition.
 
Existence (sat), consciousness (chit) and bliss (aananda) are in the absolute-reality (paramaartha sattaa), in other words, they are the indicators of the non-trespassing (avyabhicharita) nature of the self. In the object these alone appear in the form of exists (asti), appears (bhaati), loved (priya). Only through non-discrimination are they regarded as residing in the object. This alone is superimposition.
 
There are five indicators of the object - exists, appears, loved, name and form. Among these, the first three are characteristics of the self. The other two, name and form, are in the transactional-reality (vyavahaarika sattaa maatra) only, because they are formed out of space, time, person, society etc. Therefore they are non-elemental (atattva), illusory. In this manner object is illusion alone and the self is real (satya).
 
Ok, now let us go into the innards of superimposition. Object-superimposition (arthaadhyaasa) and knowledge-superimposition (jnyaanaadhyaasa) are the two main divisions of superimposition. The ascribing of one thing upon another is called object superimposition, and knowing the superimposed (aaropita) entity as real is called knowledge superimposition. As an example, the ascribing of a snake on a rope is object-superimposition, and knowing the rope as a real snake is knowledge-superimposition. In this manner, the ascribing of the body on the self is object-superimposition, and knowing the self as the body is knowledge-superimposition.
 
In these examples, when due to the fault of darkness the thought flow does not take the form of a snake, then the ignorance of the rope which remains in the intellect, splits into two parts. In one part, the snake is ascribed upon the rope, and in the other part, the snake is cognized. It is this part which gives birth to object-superimposition and knowledge-superimposition. Take the "I" in the example. When the I" does not know itself as the absolute, it knows myself as the body or body-dweller (dehi). Here the body or body-dweller is object-superimposition, and knowing so is knowledge-superimposition.
 
Object-superimposition and knowledge-superimposition combine to form relationship-superimposition (sambandhaadhyaasa). "I am the body" is object-superimposition. "The body is mine" - this is relationship-superimposition.
 
The root of all afore-mentioned superimpositions is non-discrimination, ignorance, lack of knowledge. Out of that comes the mating of reality and illusion, created by delusional knowledge. The contemplation of Vedanta primarily hits at the root cause of ignorance, whereas other philosophies try to cut the various branches of superimposition.
 
Question : If the basis of natural dealings is the superimposition which is of the nature of I and mine, then after knowledge of brahman, the social dealings of the knower will end. This is a scary state!
 
Answer : It is not so. The I and mine notions of the body are born with the body and will die with the body. That is why these are a part of transactional reality. When the entire transactional reality is known through the knowledge of brahman, then even the illusory nature of these is known as a firm conviction. The life of an ignorant person alone takes these are real, and therefore their effects which are fear, bondage and sorrow affect the ignorant alone. For the knower, even though they have been negated (baadhita), they remain present therefore the social dealings of the knower continue but there is no fear, bondage or sorrow that pervades him. This is not scary for the seeker, it is a joyful state.
 
Question: How did the mating of the real and illusory come to happen?
 
Answer : This question is like asking how did the sky become blue? You first assumed the following - that the sky is blue, the blueness is created, it has been cerated by something, and now you ask how did the sky become blue? The answer to this is that the sky is not blue to begin with, it only appears blue, blueness is a quality of light which has been ascribed onto the sky. Similarly, the real and illusory have not mated. The illusory is only appearing in the real. In all three states of time, there has never been any superimposition on the self, its creation and destruction are as though appearing.
 
It is not necessary that whatever appears is real. It is also not necessary that the illusory should be invisible. The blueness in the sky, the snake in the rope, silver in the oyster shell etc. are places where the illusory blueness, snake and silver are illusory yet they appear. If you say that blueness, snake and other objects are real in other places, then we ask this : where can any superimposed reality appear while staying disconnected from the super-substratum of brahman? The only true reality is brahman.